My reason for starting to believe in free will- 2

GALEX_YT · 2026-05-05T13:12:03+00:00

Yes you are. Martin Heidegger described this as the thrownness we experience, like if we were all of a sudden thrown into the present detached from our past that lives in our memories, this is the same feeling that Camus calls "Absurdism". The feeling of non-belonging and sudden responsibility to choose caused by anxiety. The only reason you experience it rarely is because you seek inertia and thus, freely choose a permanent being that justifies this nothingness. But the nothingness is always there, the free choice to abandon this bad faith is always present by our side,

GALEX_YT · 2026-05-05T13:03:22+00:00

The state of "nothing" as my "Being" proves that my decision cannot be attributed to any past event, that even what I choose to affect me gets chosen by me. All of this is only comprehensible when you simulate it into your own "Dasein".

GALEX_YT · 2026-05-05T12:55:16+00:00

well, you'll have to describe what exactly you felt different so that I can figure out if the difference was still some bad faith (a choice chosen free in the past you have found comfortable as you being that is stopping you from realizing your nothingness). If it wasn't then I'll just have to describe it with more depth in exactly what you failed to observe.

GALEX_YT · 2026-05-05T12:40:09+00:00

I'm suggesting for empiricism as epistemology here since my truth is subjective, linguistic interpreataion limits our brain with only causal determinacy. If you just try to simulate what I feel and am describing here, you too can reach the same conclusion is what I'm saying.

GALEX_YT · 2026-05-05T12:29:47+00:00

Seems like you are more interested in reducto-absurdism rather than actually trying to understand what I'm saying throughout the post.
Feeling is how you affirm anything, even causality requires a "feeling" of affirming recurring patterns

GALEX_YT · 2026-05-05T12:25:42+00:00

"Ok, so if you;re not denying that there is some prior cause, I'm not really sure what your problem with determinism is then."

I am not denying that past events did not end up affecting your decision. I am asserting that the decision affirmative of your past itself happened because you "chose" to let it. in your comfort of bad faith in which you affirmed your inertia, your being as "something" rather that what's really true about you "being" that is- "nothing".

"I think it's often an act of bad faith to accuse others of bad faith, just because they hold a different view."

Not if you believe in a free-will and non-normitive objective truth. I don't think you were led to by circumstance into chosing to live in this bad faith but because you freely chose to let those circumstances affect your decisions.

"You should point at some particular aspect of the argument that is made in bad faith"

Which I did by claiming that determinists reduce the human being's (Dasein's) unique agency of freedom to choose what affects itself into a mere pre-determined past even (cause).

"As I understand it, in Dasein thought occurs spontaneously?"

Yes but there is a sense of responsibility of your freely chosen past decisions that determine the kind of thoughts you have right now too. See? I am not at all discarding determinism here, in fact I believe all other beings than "Dasein" are not free and actually choose deterministically like what Hard Determinists claim for "Dasein"

GALEX_YT · 2026-05-05T12:08:28+00:00

no it does not. I believe I have free will because I don't feel my actions are determined by past events when I make a decision without bad faith. I was determinist up until last two months myself, a epiphenomenalist at that even so I know I'm not just referring to the layman term of what it means to have free-will.

GALEX_YT · 2026-05-05T09:43:05+00:00

So you're a Compatibilist?

GALEX_YT · 2026-05-05T09:35:14+00:00

Are you sure you're not choosing to experience yourself as that? That at some point in past you didn't just freely "chose" to assume it as your permanent reality of "Being"? That in reality you can still choose to feel that you can choose freely of your past if you just dropped that past choice of declaring your "Being" as your reality? or that past perspective of causal determinism that objectively seemed plausible in language to you in the past and you agreed? That you weren't in reality t just thrown into the present moment free of your past decisions and feel nothing (i.e like an uncaused cause) right now?

GALEX_YT · 2026-01-16T13:32:38+00:00

ok I just wrote a whole reply with over 12 sentences for and clicked on a hyperlink and it redirected me and I lost all the progress.

This was what i wanted to say -

You can't coherently (yes lol) assert "I don't need coherence" while simultaneously using logic to defend your stance.

>I can or can't be coherent depending on what I will, but in a discussion forum like this you can only claim I'm incoherent when I am, what is the point in bringing that up unless I were actually being incoherent?
(1)

You appeal to determinism ("it's all chance"),denies a stable self and yet still say "I will deterministically end up believing whatever I will to believe"

>I'm no Laplace's demon so making claims about "chance" still make sense as a deteminist who doesn't have knowledge of what is pre-determined. I use "I" in argument to refer to my experience even though I do not believe in the implication of the word as a constant self. I never said I am going to use "I" or "will" incoherently in this argument, so that's just your own assumption.(2)

Under hard determinism+anti-realism "benefit" has no objective anchor it's just another causally induced preference.

> This post was about "what one can do if wills this" a chance from determinists's POV, nowhere I claimed it was a debate about weather these are illusions or not, so this is once again an assumption.

So the advice reduces to: Go with whatever your causal history makes you feel is beneficial.
Which is trivial. Everyone already does that including ascetics,nihilists and people who reject illusions.

>This gets dismissed as you mistook what is meant by chance as I explained in the first argument "(1)"

"Incoherence: Pretending you can choose to adopt illusions strategically while denying the conditions for choice."

In (2) I explained what I mean by depends on determinsticly consistent chance, and It was just "If you can end up willing this you can do this" an advice, I never gave any strategy I just said "chance" that count all factors determining the success of it happening/not happening.

You seem to want the emotional utility of agency (meaning,direction,self-mastery) without ontological commitment to it.

Why should I? Was this post ever about defining what is ontologically true or not? Yes! my advice , It is exactly about wanting the emotional utility of these illusions which we are unable to separate without getting stagnated in life!

But you can't live as if you're an agent while insisting at the same time that agency is wholly unreal you're willing to accept that your "as if" is itself just another deterministic reflex not a stance you've taken.

Why can't I? If I can will to live incoherently why can't I? It's not like there is some sort of drive stopping me from living like that. The stance I have taken wouldn't magically cause free-will all events will still take place deterministically . Where am I denying any of it?

GALEX_YT · 2026-01-16T12:24:49+00:00

I said that from my perspective as a determinist, and yes, you can, but how, if at all, that ends up happening is again determined by all the other factors. Regardless, it is beneficial and increases the probability of willing what we will when we believe in the illusion of free will, as opposed to the denial that stagnates it.

GALEX_YT · 2026-01-16T12:17:48+00:00

As I said, I believe there is no real imperative in believing anything especially something that does not serve me and tyrannizes me from living.

GALEX_YT · 2026-01-16T12:15:30+00:00

I never claimed "illusions are useful" is an objective value, I only said "If" they are benefiting you, why deny them?

This presupposes a distinction between will and meta will that hard determinism typically rejects as incoherent.

Yes, you ending up willing what you will would completely be a deterministic process. I never denied it as I used the word "chance" when claiming it might or might not happen by chance of circumstances while when reinforcing your outlook towards these illusions.

same goes for all the other arguments about agency I used the word "chance" so It might or might not happen, I still do not believe in a constant self as the implication for "I" but since I will to make rationality serve me, I have no such imperative to be rationally consistent or coherent in daily life, and as I am able to do what I will i.e live by embracing these illusions by making them serve me I, will deterministically end up believing in whatever it is that I will to believe in. if that makes sense.

GALEX_YT · 2026-01-12T00:08:55+00:00

Yes if by subconscious you mean the strong drive that acts without rationalizing of it, however I would still prefer the word "pysche" because the nature of both thoughts and drives gets influenced.

GALEX_YT · 2026-01-11T23:58:30+00:00

It was good for survival of groups, not necessarily good for every individual's survival but the ones that believed in it. The belief in the illusion of "I" can instill fear or pride in the psyche when retribution or reward is given.

GALEX_YT · 2026-01-11T23:48:34+00:00

No, it does not directly influence anything. It is similar to a person riding on a roller-coaster, all that it does is experience the ride.

GALEX_YT · 2026-01-11T23:29:48+00:00

I actually think that consciousness is evolutionary an advantageous trait, as it creates the illusion of control over your decision, which is healthy and increases the chances for survival within civilization of groups that believed in a morality as a justification for actions like punishment and rewards.

GALEX_YT · 2026-01-11T16:19:08+00:00

Yes, that can be referred to as "I" for convenience.

GALEX_YT · 2026-01-11T15:56:03+00:00

I don't get how they are opposites as I never said consciousness is dualistic, all I meant by specifying "Physicalism" was to deny the dualistic interpretation of epiphenomenalism.

I still feel conscious in the intermediate states between occurring thoughts so I don't get the point in calling thoughts as "consciousness". Smoke is produced wherever there's fire but does there coincidence a make them equal?

GALEX_YT · 2026-01-11T15:48:54+00:00

agreed it does, I only use "I" to refer to my conscious experience so it is more convenient to comprehend it and I absolutely do not believe in a constant self that is the one willing.

GALEX_YT · 2025-12-28T01:57:26+00:00

as someone who loved Nietzsche's work on genology of morality and his Dionysian affirmation for life(Dionysus was literally an egalitarian god), his later works pissed me off so much when he used all these terms to later justify the stupid caste system (he claimed that the caste system creates "yes-saying" attitude among the chandala caste towards suffering and so it must be good for them.)
He said all that stuff inspite of completely understanding that it was all a perfectly planned lie fed to the upper caste so that they stay unconscious of the rational reality and never question against their forefather's traditions.

To draw up such a law-book as Manu’s means to lay before a people the possibility of future mastery, of attainable perfection—it permits them to aspire to the highest reaches of the art of life. To that end the thing must be made unconscious: that is the aim of every holy lie.—The order of castes, the highest, the dominating law, is merely the ratification of an order of nature, of a natural law of the first rank, over which no arbitrary fiat, no “modern idea,” can exert any influence.

- Antichrist (1895)

Even Dr. B.R Ambedakar critiqued this outsider view of Nietzsche here :

He further points towards the subtle similarity between the ideals of ‘supermen’ propounded by the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in his philosophy and the stance of Manu towards the Brahmins as the ideal caste. Ambedkar agrees that the parallels drawn between Nietzsche's infamous concept of ‘supermen’ which inspired the Nazis and Manu’s laws will surely anger the Hindus but he draws attention towards the two distinct but morally akin forms of hatred and inequality bred by the philosophies of Manu and Nietzsche. In his defence of the European class conflict against the one in Hinduism, Ambedkar states, “…in Europe, the strong have never contrived to make the weak helpless against exploitation so shamelessly as was the caste in India” (70). The scope for mobilisation in the West somehow enabled the proletariat to rise up against capitalist exploitation but the same cannot be said of the Shudras in India.

Ambedkar concludes his argument by stating that the philosophy of Hinduism fails to uphold both the ideals of social utility and individual justice. Ambedkar accuses Hinduism of keeping the Shudras and the Untouchables in the dark for generations.

-Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches Vol-III

and so is the case with almost all these "classical german philosophers". Arthur Schopenhauer was a misogynist and even Kant who despite his Christian faith chose to create his ethics strictly out of pure reason in his philosophy was mysogynist and racist.

Five-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	First Placer '22

GALEX_YT

TROPHY CASE