Can someone refute the following statement by Schopenhauer:
>A man can do what he wants, but not choose what he wants
Like if I'm attracted to men, I can choose which man I fuck, but I cannot choose to be attracted to women.
This seems to end the discussion of free will in a simple statement.
>>Veeky Forums
Man is driven by desire
But usually man has no control over his desires
Any kind of self-discipline trumps that retarded statement
>I can choose which cigarette brand to smoke, but I cannot choose to quit smoking
>oh wait I can
did you choose to want to quit smoking?
According to Shoppinghover, I can't. Otherwise it's just a circular logic statement
>if you can choose to do X, it means you were given that choice from the very beginning making my proposition unfalsifiable lel
The proper response is: why not?
If I can do what I want, then why is the case of my wanting to choose to want something an exception from the accepted generality? Seems like you have the burden of proving the exception to the rule.
Cf. the literature on second order volition, like Frankfurt's stuff.
You have it wrong.
This guy has it right.
If you like shrimp, you can choose to eat shrimp, but you cant choose whether or not you like shrimp.
In your example, if you're attracted to men, you can choose to fuck men, but you cant choose whether or not you're attracted to men.
>inb4 being gay is a choice
that's different though. You can chose to quit smoking, but you can't choose to have the drive to want to quit smoking in the first place.
>A man can do what he wants, but not choose what he wants
Why compatibilism is a retarded, indefensible position 101
The two examples seem very similar.
You're right, I can't choose my tastes, so anything I do must be within the scope of my desires.
Hence no free will, because true free will would include deciding what my desires are.
youtube.com
In this video there's a simple thought experiment: when making a choice your brain presents possible options, but not ALL options: you are limited to what your brain provides, hence, free will is only limited within some confines determined by your tastes, desires, and most importantly, the sum of your life experiences.
>Compatibilism
>Free will doesn't exist but we can assume it does
It's not that retarded, it just let's us move on from the conversation without just saying "fuck it", there's no free will, let's all kill ourselves.
The choice you end up making is causally determined anyway, so this talk if brain options doesn't matter.
>because true free will would include deciding what my desires are
Well you can flip the entire statement though. Most humans throughout their lives do things they don't want to do, because they have to do them.
The fact that someone goes to a gym and works out for example, even though they don't particularly want to, is an indication of free will.
More like
>Compatibilism
>The way we've defined free will is dumb and falls apart upon closer analysis, also this much more sensible definition is compatible with determinism
They want to work out though, because it leads to better self-image and longer, healthier lives (which is their desire).
Sorry either I'm not seeing your argument or your wording it badly.
A desire does not have to be a low pleasure such as sex or eating, it can be a long-term plan.
dude determinism lmao
but yeah, you can't disprove it
>true free will would include deciding what my desires are
Why is that a necessary condition?
>free will would include deciding what my desires are
No it wouldnt..? Free will doesnt mean the free will to do literally anything. Thats like saying "free will doesnt exist because I can't choose to fly"
>free will is only limited within some confines determined by your tastes
Yea sure, but free will is limited by tons of things, like physics, and what youre body is capable of. Just because its limited doesnt mean it doesnt exist
Additionally, you can choose to do things outside of your tastes, people just generally dont
>you have three options
>you have been brought up in a way that makes the first seem repulsive
>your dna makes the second also seem repulsive and there's nothing you can do about it
How can you possibly call that free will when there is only one option left?
This is basically how most of your choices work.
The only true free will would be all inputs being considered rationally and individually without pre-existing notions.
Yeah but that's the thing. They don't want to work out. They want better self-image and longer, healthier lives, absolutely, but they don't want to work out.
Sexuality is a human construct, thus deconstructable and can be changed. The very notion of exclusive homosexuality is entirely a modern invention. It's the product of victorian prudery and a masculine scientific urge for clarity and black white division.
Our wants and urges and thus also our attractions are furthermore subject to habits. You can acquire a taste for human flesh or oranges if you consume that for prolongued periods. Once you realize that you can fuck women, even if it's icky at first.
nice
well you can't
on a physical level, the structure of your brain is unique to you and you alone so that your choices are obviously dictated by the level of chemicals, hormones, perhaps shape, which neuron fired/misfired/didn't, etc.
Even your choice to choose was never your own.
Free will doesn't exist
Sometimes I wonder if the insistence on wanting there to be no free will is to absolve oneself of responsibility of one's life and the potential harm one can cause other humans.
>Additionally, you can choose to do things outside of your tastes
yeah? for how long, 5 minutes before despising it or loosing your mind ?
>choose what he wants
that would make no logical sense
How would that be more free? With preexisting notions, some actions will seem more or less appealing than others; without them, using only pure reason, there will only ever be one reasonable response to any particular situation. So now your will is subordinate to rationality, over which you still have no control.
Yea, but you have the free will to do it, or stop when you want.
You don't understand what he meant. quitting smoking isn't a choice, coming from someone who quit smoking. you only do a thing when you want it more than the other thing. if you lose weight it's not out of choice in a deep oure sense but rather losing weight begins to seem more appealing than eating trash on the couch. this is why effective addiction treatments teach you how your behavior hinders your happiness. i can buy a painting but doing what i want is simply chasing desires i can't help but have and not doing what i want doesn't regain this nonexistent freedom
So in other words they convince themselves of something untrue based on desires they can't help but have? So their belief was formed deterministically? I often wonder if those who believe in free will aren't clinging to an outdated idea because of a strong desire to feel in control despite the state of knowledge as we know it. i believe in determinism because it seems to make sense but i also try my hardest to live a moral life, because i like to think of myself as a moral person and if i gave up trying to be good i wouldn't know what to do with myself. I began to see myself that way through my interactions with the world so i act in accord with my idea of morality because of it. Each interaction with the world was exactly what this system of thoughts, feelings, organs ect. would do if subjected to all my past experiences in the same way. It seems your opinion is based on how you feel about it rather than what is true
However after realizing it was true i realized there is an upside other than just being closer to what i think is likely to be true, i dont hate people nearly as much. I used to judge people because it seemed like people chose to do things that i think are awful, really i'd do the exact same things if i was there body and had their same life experiences
It's an aphorism, you dumbfucks. This statement is not supposed to be 100% correct , yet it's valid on a basic level.
>the human understanding of X is irregular
>therefore X is irregular
you made me laugh
Aphorisms are 100% correct, it just takes an insane amount of wisdom to understand them, since, an aphorism, is a summary of a life's worth of wisdom distilled into a witty sentence.
It's like "life is what you make of it" -- this can be the kind of shit people post on facebook while at the same time it could be the last words uttered by an existential philosopher.
Were you attracted to traps before you started posting here?
Actually yes. But that's only because society brainwashed me into enjoying feminine penises.
I posted the same exact idea a while ago claiming that people are incapable of making choices they deem morally reprehensible, and everyone sperged out and saged it to death. But now that Oppie attached A Smart Dead White Man's name to the same thing, it's suddenly deep and profound.
Veeky Forums is a braindead elitist shithole
Not him, but you brainwashed yourself.
t. guy who was masturbating to traps for eight years and only recently stopped
What if you were attacted to men in your youth, but then became attacted to women in later years?
Did you, a person, "choose" to make that shift, or some cosmic will decided to do it for you?
It's called appeal to authority.
I literally came up with deontological ethics in school and everyone called me retarded.
Now I just say "Kant thought" and nobody even bothers arguing with me.
>I posted the same exact idea a while ago claiming that people are incapable of making choices they deem morally reprehensible
That's not what he's saying, brainlet
This might be the dumbest thing I've ever read on this board.
You are without a doubt no older than 19 years old.
Protip: people who workout like working out.
t. Guy who works out
...
I don't like it, but I do it 3 times a week any way.
I like it and do some of it everyday. A different part of my body for a different day. If you don't like it, you're insecure and trying to feel better about yourself the wrong way. I just like being strong and healthy, and working out makes me feel strong and stronger. I have free will. Just because my body has physical limitations does not mean to exceed these limits means I lack free will.
You're just fucking lazy or mopey and want a reason to feel worse about yourself. Stop self-loathing and realize that the world is limited, regardless of infinite appearance.
because the second is historical fact. it's like the difference between saying marshall applewhite thought he was a prophet and saying marshall applewhite was a prophet
Meant to end that with:
And be happy you live a limited life. A life unbounded is simply death.
>I work out, but I don't really like it
>"Shut the fuck up fag, I like it and I'm right"
Okay bucko.
There is no will, it simply happened as a result of a series of causal events far beyond your control.
You're making the argument that nobody likes it you ignorant Mongol. Don't breed.
No I'm not. You said "Protip: People who work out like working out."
And I am "people", and I'm telling you I don't particularly like working out, even though I feel I have to do it.
Deal with it bucko.
I had exclusive paraphilia, i forced myself to be attracted to vanilla sex.
It was not porn induced as I had it since early childhood.
By forcing myself to like vanilla sex didn't I choose what I wanted?
...
I am people as well. Are you realizing the point I was making? Or are you going to keep shoving your head farther up your ass? Try not to get any crusties stuck in your Mongol face.
>A man can do what he wants, but not choose what he wants
This is typically the case but you can always train and form habits.
If you enjoy working out and actually do work out, that is obviously a good thing.
The true test of wisdom is doing an action that you don't like to do but is actually beneficial to you.
Likewise, by not doing actions that you enjoy which are harmful to you, you are being exerting wisdom because you are doing what you know is right.
the entire field of cognitive therapy pretty much disproves that statement. the mind is far more malleable than you realise.
>20XX
>taking Schopenmemer seriously
Advice. Get a job somewhere outside of the private sector, talk to people with respect and stop making assumptions about them. Schopes was an antisocial moron who used his erudition and prestige to convince fellow morons into adopting awful perspectives
>job
>outside of the private sector
If you consider parasitism to be a job, sure.
sorry youre such a brainlet who cannot conceive anything outside of being a wageslave
You can always be an enterpreneur, of course, but only in the private sector.
Determinism doesn't make sense.
If everything is caused it requires a causeless beginning. Whence came the universe?
Aurelius asks, providence or atoms? Atoms cannot explain away everything, and every day we learn in quantum mechanics that randomness really does exist.
nobody who takes schopenhauer seriously and posts on Veeky Forums is capable of that
We can solve this problem by postulating that everything just repeats itself eternally.
But of course, there's the devil of quantum mechancis now, and god only knows where that's going to take us.
So I take it you've run out of arguments?
>The fact that someone goes to a gym and works out for example, even though they don't particularly want to, is an indication of free will.
What simplistic drivel. Clearly the person wants to go more than they want to deal with the repercussions for not going. This is basic fucking cost/benefit analysis, how can anyone be this dumb?
>We can solve this problem by postulating that everything just repeats itself eternally.
But this is in violation of the second law of thermodynamics. There is no room for eternity in a system with ever growing entropy.
>There is no room for eternity in a system with ever growing entropy.
The fate of the universe is unknown. A big crunch model would confirm ER.
Possibly, but to me that's always seemed like an idealistic fiction. The heat death of the universe makes much more sense.
>The heat death of the universe makes much more sense.
It could be "unscientific", but the very existence of the universe seems to make less sense with a heat death model : why only once, and then night?
My brain is full of fuck.
>mfw determinism is correct and every arrangement of every atom across time prompts the next sequence eventually resulting in an exact repetition of everything
>mfw the eternal recurrence
>mfw Nietzsche was right
>mfw he will be right again, syphilis and all
>mfw aeons hence I will be jacking it to the same trap porn in the same room yet again
You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.
''well you can't
on a physical level, the structure of your brain is unique to you and you alone so that your choices are obviously dictated by the level of chemicals, hormones, perhaps shape, which neuron fired/misfired/didn't, etc.
W R O N G
R
O
N
G
jcn.cognethic.org
What about diet changes? You can change your cravings for certain foods based on consciously choosing your diet over a moderate period of time. Sure you have to want to change your diet, but you still want to eat at first the foods you're making a transition from.
If you change your diet it's b/c you wanted to change it more than you didn't.
>But of course, there's the devil of quantum mechancis now, and god only knows where that's going to take us.
I read this in the voice of Jordan Peterson
Can't determinism still be compatible with quantum mechanics by asserting that things are determined by the random outcome of quantum phenoma? Don't know if that makes sense though.
But then it wouldn't be 100% deterministic, would it? You would be able to predict simple, large-scale phenomena over a short time period, but the smaller the scale, the more complex the phenomenon and the longer the time period the harder it gets to predict, since even the smallest random effect would become ever more pronounced.
>But this is in violation of the second law of thermodynamics
Its not. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, and the laws of thermodynamics also state that in a closed system, every possible configuration of particles will happen given infinite time. If time is infinite, we would expect the universe to keep cycling through every possible configuration it can make endlessly. The time it takes for a universe to through one cycle is called the planckery recurrence time. Of course that's not scientifically verified yet, if space is infinite, then it will never be able to cycle through all its conditions.
All he was saying is that your term was too general. Some people like it, some don't. I also get the feeling that you think is . I don't think this is necessarily the case.
Your second link's broken, fyi.
Not really. Do you chose to have all your thoughts?
The two working links do not refute the statement you quoted from .
1st link: God of the gaps supported by cherry picked examples. What about all the times brain damage fucks a person up irreparably and permanently?
2nd link. Don't know enough about physics to refute.
3rd link. Ad hom against physicalists masquerading as serious inquiry.
Out of the three links, only one actually critiqued physicalist models. I'm sure someone can refute it easily.
I can choose to do what I want and I can do what I choose to do
Free will is refuted by simple meditation. Where did your last thought come from? It just popped into your head. You'll be stuck chasing the chain forever. It's then obvious that free will and the sense of self are illusions, thoughts that pop into existence out of seemingly nowhere.
how does determinism explain my thoughts better
Why wonder about free will if the ultimately decision of believe in free will or not will be product of something else.
>A man can do what he wants, but not choose what he wants
Hmm, yes indeed
>Like if I'm attracted to men, I can choose which man I fuck, but I cannot choose to be attracted to women.
Makes sense. Agreed
>This seems to end the discussion of free will in a simple statement.
wat
>Free will should allow us to choose between our desires
>But by choosing against out desires we're actually following the desire to reject other desires
>So we don't have free will somehow
That's some 'turtles all the way down' shit.
lol. You are actually so dumb. Not literally retarded, but probably around 95 IQ, realistically speaking. Not disabled, but still a pretty dumb dude.
I think he was just trying to find an excuse for throwing that old lady down the stairs. It was fore-chosen since the dawn of time that he would, the overwhelming weight of cosmic forces particular and in particular left him no choice but to cripple her for talking too loud outside his door. It wasn't Schopenhauer fault, it was merely the weight of eternity.
>thinking any of those qualify as scholarly
>linking them as some of objective refutation
my sides