Why aren't you a monist determinist, Veeky Forums ?

Why aren't you a monist determinist, Veeky Forums ?

Attached: parmenides.jpg (250x305, 29K)

If nothing creates something, how can new forms arise?

Because uneven Platonic dualism is correct.

I am. On Nature unironically convinced me of eleatic monism. Ex nihilo nihil fit

>rhizomes

i believe you answered your own question in that first part

determinism becomes harder to define as representations become more abstract but becomes more clear through a decrease in concious awareness which puts a limit on human capacity to understand Will as it becomes more convoluted from Causality. If will is determined through Causility I would have to be an idealist since determinism would expect a full understanding of the Will which isnt possible.

Over-using '-isms' when talking about philosophy shows a lack of capacity for conceptual thinking. It is easier to juggle with big words that connote certain positions than to actually immere yourself into the coordinates of paricular 'ism'.

Because everything can be divided

I surf rhymezone all the time.

wouldn't i cease to exist then, making your question empty?

ITT: brainlets who haven’t read Spinoza

Change cannot happen by one object, thus at least two are required

An object can change without another object

There has to be a subject for an object to change

Attached: 1520551388829.jpg (600x799, 70K)

Before something can change, change has to exist already

It only exists as representation of causality, causality does not exist in and of itself without an observer. If there is no observer nothing can take place

Obviously it has to but you cant prove it outside your own intellect

Monism as the belief that there is only one substance/object/etc. doesn't hold water as a metaphysics to me because I believe numbers are an abstraction from real quantity and thus only have mental existence. Determinism doesn't work for me because contemporary physics seems to affirm that at least some parts of reality are probabilistic in nature and thus not strictly determined.

This has always been a highly convincing argument to me.

monism targets only concrete objects

on the latter point, youre conflating the limits of our ability to measure with properties of the thing measured

also you should read and expand your knowledge on the topic of determinism, its more than you seem to grasp at the moment. you can at least learn to differentiate between hard determinism, soft determinism, indeterminism, and compatibilism

youre conflating the problem of causal determination with the problem of free will

I think he was speaking strictly on the former. This question is obviously important for the problem of free will, but they're still separate.

Daily reminder that becoming is illusionary

bump

>Determinism doesn't work for me because contemporary physics seems to affirm that at least some parts of reality are probabilistic in nature and thus not strictly determined.

It does not do this. That is a matter of interpretation

Because it's an inferior and flawed understanding of traditional non-dualism