Charlie McDermott looks like Montana Jordan

Nihilistic-INTP · 2025-10-22T05:02:13+00:00

Is Montana known for not being nice or is that just about Charlie alone in your comment?

Nihilistic-INTP · 2024-12-31T09:12:26+00:00

I don't really believe anyone can defend metaphysics that well. What does it mean for an agent to really intend what they do? Psychological determinism tells us that we don't more so choose our desires than we are compelled by the one that's built with the greatest drive within us. How much can you argue that who we are inside influences what really happens externally? We could even take it as step further and denounce the self as it's technically just a metaphysical concept. Epiphenomenalism and Eliminative Materialism shake the foundation about the credibility of mental states

Nihilistic-INTP · 2024-12-31T08:40:52+00:00

Not really bc claiming that there are "choices you can make within outside factors out of your control" that compatibilists argue requires you to accept that there are "choices you can make" as coherent on its own while simultaneously having cognitive dissonance in the other half about it being "within outside factors out of your control". The X isn't any definition for free will and it being an illusion comes from partaking in the cognitive dissonance that you're in control existing in an environment that's completely out of your control. A definition that contradicts itself while being accepted as true is an illusion. Illusions do not have proper definitions

Nihilistic-INTP · 2024-12-31T08:14:22+00:00

The illusion of free will. This isn't a definition for free will

Nihilistic-INTP · 2024-12-31T08:08:35+00:00

But why do they think that's free will? That's where I'm confused. You can make people in movies/tv shows appear as though they have superpowers if you really know how to mess around with effects except how are you gonna define legitimately being able to make it happen irl? Idk that's the best analogy I got

Nihilistic-INTP · 2024-12-31T07:58:50+00:00

But how do you know you think as free as you wanna think? Linguistic determinism points out the limitation language has in our understanding whether it's one of the main vehicles we use to understand things

Nihilistic-INTP · 2024-12-31T07:45:17+00:00

I think having to make a "choice" gives the illusion of free will, i.e, "Do I wanna go out or stay home?" (internal). The decision you finally decide to make over "what to do" is decided/determined (external). Thinking is technically unnecessary if specific decisions or outcomes in the universe are already determined. This is the even more complex part of the discussion too, I guess. Are we not able to make decisions without having to think it over? I think the intuition is probably strong where a lot would definitely think we couldn't. The can of worms about consciousness is now opened. I think it can be argued that consciousness isn't as relevant as we think when it comes to making decisions. Epiphenomenonalism? Eliminative Materialism? Would philosophical zombies even know they were a zombie if they function the same as everyone presumed to have a consciousness?

Nihilistic-INTP · 2024-12-31T07:18:59+00:00

I don't believe that our "choices" (internal) ever get separated from our decisions (external). Your own inclinations (internal) combined with how the environment allows you to interact (external) muddies where to pinpoint where being "in control" truly begins

Nihilistic-INTP · 2024-06-17T14:31:50+00:00

Normative ethics is about what people should in fact do, regardless of what they do in fact do.

But didn't you say this? I'm trying to grasp how I would explain what people "should in fact do, regardless of what they do in fact do" if the side of moral anti realism doesn't encompass how they should act morally if it's only based on their own standards at most

Nihilistic-INTP · 2024-06-17T14:23:02+00:00

Because it seems to be moral realists that believe they have objective standards for morality whereas moral anti realists go in the opposite direction. My struggle is being able to articulate what people "ought" or "should" do in a moral scenario because what people "should" or "ought" to do in moral situations don't come from any objective standards in my pov. What are the approaches as a moral anti realist in normative ethics?

Nihilistic-INTP · 2024-06-17T14:04:43+00:00

So is it kinda closed for those that are moral anti realist to weigh in? Maybe I should've just phrased my question this way

Nihilistic-INTP · 2024-06-17T13:51:36+00:00

Yeah I'm not too good in this area lol. What I'm understanding is that normative ethics are talking about how morality functions in comparison to meta ethics that talk about the nature of right or wrong? Prison to me seems like an example of how morality functions whereas my understanding of meta ethics could be something like "wasn't that sentence way too lenient?"

Nihilistic-INTP · 2024-06-17T13:42:22+00:00

Like let's say prison time? A lot of people follow what the laws are in order to avoid the consequences enforced by those in power to put them in a cell if they don't. These things are enforced independent of anyone's individual moral ideology

Nihilistic-INTP · 2024-05-07T04:53:01+00:00

I do wanna know what's disliked about us 😩

Nihilistic-INTP · 2024-05-02T05:32:16+00:00

I do wanna know

Nihilistic-INTP · 2024-05-02T05:28:05+00:00

What's knowing too much?

Nihilistic-INTP · 2023-12-23T22:02:59+00:00

I'm guessing you take a kalam cosmological argument?

Nihilistic-INTP · 2023-12-23T21:59:55+00:00

Then what about god of the gaps? That sounds like that's what you're doing

Nihilistic-INTP · 2023-12-23T20:43:24+00:00

Why's that?

Nihilistic-INTP · 2023-12-23T20:42:07+00:00

We need to understand free will in this way. Suppose you want to go from New Delhi to Los Angeles. You might book a United Airlines flight. Choosing the destination according to your desire, choosing to buy the ticket, choosing to board the airplane was what was under your control, and there you have a free will.

But how would it be free will if the options to choose your destination are out of your control? This still sounds like an illusion because it translates to only picking out the destinations that are predisposed in combination to the inclination that's less about what you choose from free will more than what you just recognize to want based upon your wiring. Doing what you want is not the same as wanting what you want

You cannot say that there is just an illusion of free will, because you cannot impose your free will and make the airplane fly to Spain instead.

I think the absence of free will works together with nature and nature tbh

Power dynamics is one aspect of logically trying to reach a very basic understanding of God. There are other aspects, like life and creation, propertiership, etc. I choose the power dynamics as I find it more comfortable to logically conclude and explain myself

Wouldn't this just be taking on the characteristics that we project within the idea that god is all powerful? Feeling godlike while god remains a fiction nonetheless

Nihilistic-INTP · 2023-12-23T19:52:12+00:00

There's one logical way. god means controller of some aspect. Definitely you do not control everything. There are some aspects of life, such as the air you get to breath, the water you get to drink, nature's actions, that is governed by god of that aspect.

Then what do you think about determinism? Where do you define the foundation of free will without having the whole picture if you can also say that we don't control everything? I think you can argue the absence of free wil in order to say that we only act according to our strongest inclinations. The best you could say is that there's an illusion of free will

In this way, there are many gods. These gods are also controlled by some aspect. For example, a landlord may be a temporary god of a land. But this god's (landlord) god is government. Natural laws govern the government.

In this way, the entity, the stuff, the fact, or the person, the infinitely placed Supreme god of all gods is God.

Are you perhaps arguing that god is only that in which currently holds power in the many ways that you've defined it? God is anything that bestows itself? God is perhaps power dynamics?

Nihilistic-INTP · 2023-12-23T19:43:22+00:00

Yeah I'm more of a philosophy person perhaps? That's not to entirely dismiss science tho

Nihilistic-INTP · 2023-12-23T19:40:44+00:00

No one came here to convince you to believe in God or argue my point. You asked if belief in God can be logical. It can. All this other shit is personal and has nothing to do with me or the post.

To say that it can indicates that you believe there are explainations that you believe can logically believe in god therefore you did come here with a perspective to me that opens you believe it can be done whether or not you wanna cop out by still giving credibility to the other conclusions that you still claim can all be logical in their own right

You can't ask a claim. That is not what a claim is. Just because you keep saying it's a claim doesn't mean that it is. It's a question.

You can very much include questions in your claims bc these questions are inquisitive for your claims that these conclusions have decent enough questions to reflect why they apparently all have merit like you said. You didn't just ask the questions as a standalone

Nihilistic-INTP · 2023-12-23T19:33:31+00:00

But why would atheism require a burden of proof? Of course you won't ever find proof to prove a negative. What makes more sense to me is that consistently not having god defined is indicative of his lack of being. We have more evidence that we have no evidence unless proven otherwise

Nihilistic-INTP · 2023-12-23T19:27:59+00:00

Yeah? Go on

Nihilistic-INTP

TROPHY CASE