What are some good books/authors defending the notion of free will?
I wish to change my view on the matter...as Marcus Aurelius said...providence or atoms...I long for providence. But I cannot shake the idea that everything that is, is but a system constantly adjusting towards equilibrium. It makes me think life is without value. It further depresses me to think I think thus because of the aforementioned. That I've lost some roll on happiness, as I feel the need for what is a romantic conception of value as per my understanding of the world. Regardless of how incompatible the two are, belief in both is the sum of life's conditioning. Is there no hope?
Currently I define an individual's will...as what they want to want. Derivative of Schopenhauer...it effectively reconciles my thoughts on the matter...with my thoughts on the matter, my meta-cognitions I mean. But also dooms one to defining themselves on what they're not...
So, /lit/, know you of anything that can offer a preferable view of the world? I don't want to be a flawed automaton.
>>7360480
>I don't want to be a flawed automaton.
it's too bad your programming's made you that way but that doesn't make it wrong
The Bible, by God.
>>7360755
>the Word of God
>implying
>But I cannot shake the idea that everything that is, is but a system constantly adjusting towards equilibrium. It makes me think life is without value.
These two statements together seem like an oxymoron. If the universe tends to equilibrium, then its nature is in equilibrium, and things not in equilibrium are against its nature. That is a value.
>It further depresses me to think I think thus because of the aforementioned.
Why would it? What makes the atoms different from providence? And why would you asign a negative value to a lack of value?
>But also dooms one to defining themselves on what they're not...
Is there any other way you could define yourself?
If you're asking me though, stop looking for justifications. No justification is good enough, it won't give you security, it is just as subject to decay as anything else. Don't justify yourself, admit your mistakes and try not to repeat them. If thinking makes you depressed then stop thinking.
>>7360933
>These two statements together seem like an oxymoron. If the universe tends to equilibrium, then its nature is in equilibrium, and things not in equilibrium are against its nature. That is a value.
If everything is in perfect equilibrium nothing changes. So I say constantly adjusting towards equilibrium, the entire balance remains, but some pieces get larger while others get smaller, etc...
>>7360933
>Why would it? What makes the atoms different from providence? And why would you asign a negative value to a lack of value?
Life seems generally more painful than pleasant. But worse than this it feels petty. Why I feel this way...is infinitely complex, like anything else, if we are talking determinism. Some molecule that would be relevant to me billions of years later was in an unfortunate position at the big bang. What's important is I do feel this way, I am as I have been raised to be. I have these romantic inclinations...but they're nothing but a source of misery to me, incongruous with the vacuousness that is life.
>>7360933
>Is there any other way you could define yourself?
I'd like it if something could be achieved. If meaning were possible.
>>7360933
>If you're asking me though, stop looking for justifications. No justification is good enough, it won't give you security, it is just as subject to decay as anything else. Don't justify yourself, admit your mistakes and try not to repeat them. If thinking makes you depressed then stop thinking.
This means suicide. Maybe. But I am hoping there's a compelling argument counter to all this, some way to prove we really exist and aren't just a collection of atoms going through the motions ordained by the arbitrary progression of causality.
>>7361014
>If everything is in perfect equilibrium nothing changes.
Of course it will come to zero if you're talking absolutely; but why are you talking absolutely of things or space, but not of time? Processes are as much of a feature of this world as anything else, if you're really a determinist, then you should understand that you have no choices to make, so why fret? Even your fretting is perfectly normal in the grand scope of things.
>I have these romantic inclinations...but they're nothing but a source of misery to me, incongruous with the vacuousness that is life.
Are they purely a source of misery for you? Do you feel that they are worth keeping even if you get hurt by them?
If they're hurting you, then discard them. It's that simple.
>But worse than this it feels petty.
You talk of pettiness but then go on to care about some atom you don't even know about; aren't you yourself petty?
>This means suicide. Maybe.
It can. But why would suicide be bad? If you don't feel like playing the game, don't. Making a gamble implies the possibility of losing, not playing is the rational thing to do if you don't want to lose; but you will keep playing, because you want to win, and not lose, am I wrong?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6lTSPXDOAI
The following tale about Free Will is true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is: No.
>>7361085
>if you're really a determinist, then you should understand that you have no choices to make, so why fret?
B/c he's determined to fret, OP said as much. That entire sort of rebuttal to discussion of determinism really is trite.
>>7361177
What rebuttal would you give instead senpai?
>>7361180
That just because you don't like the answer doesn't make it wrong. There's no such thing as free will, and the depth of people's inability to be happy despite that is proof of many a spook.
>not a single book or author named
Is everyone on this board a determinist or just illiterate?
>>7360755
I realize this is a joke, but I've read the Bible, and other "holy" works. Each has made it that much harder to believe in a higher power and simply showcased the susceptibility and fragility of the human mind.
>>7361348
>Brings with self no book discussion (in a forum about discussing books).
>Only talks about self and what self needs.
>Seems to believe answer to self's problems are in a book, but isn't reading everything he can get a hand on at the moment (isn't that desperate then).
>Couldn't just wait and look for discussions on the topic and see what could help self.
>Obviously doesn't want to listen.
>Isn't even in the right board anyway.
Notes From Underground, by Dostoyevsky
The path is predetermined, but we don't have the means to know the path itself, meaning that from your own perspective both deterministic and non deterministic are exactly the same.
Don't sweat it.
>>7360480
SHIT TASTE
H
I
T
>>7361385
Is this not the literature board? What other board should I petition for books expounding upon defenses of free will? I explained my plight as it has been captured by noteworthy authors, Schopenhauer and Marcus Aurelius.
And Notes is very far from a defense of free will. If anything it is the opposite, the underground man is a slave to himself and has his entire life robbed and reduced to a wretched state because of it.
What the hell are you talking about?
>>7361400
>The path is predetermined, but we don't have the means to know the path itself, meaning that from your own perspective both deterministic and non deterministic are exactly the same.
>Don't sweat it.
It is not the path but that there is a path that disturbs me. If the path includes my sweating it, how can I not?
>>7361404
>preferring a literal gary sue
>not admiring Makishima's interesting and genuine philosophy andhis happily going to his death pursuant of such
>>7361385
what donald will do is what donald will do
>>7361348
plenty of people pretend to be christfags here but it's only a matter of fashion no reasonable or intelligent person thinks they are movers that cannot be moved
>>7361414
It simply is.
The only will that exists is the will of the universe.
>>7360480
"Time and Free Will" by Henri Bergson
preface: I'm drunk
The main argument is centered around tackling the space-time constrictions that free-will arguments seem to never escape. Trying to create an argument against determinism within the context of a strict formal understanding of space-time relationships is damn near impossible, so Bergson suggests a sort of emotional time as an alternative that he argues is the main way we perceive the universe around us. Someone who is elated may experience time in a completely different way that someone who is depressed would, and by extension create a disjunction between reality (space-time) and perceptual time. This disjunction provides a possible context for free-will to exist, though he doesnt go to great lengths to explain how.
It's a really interesting read, short, and one of the better pro free-will arguments that I've read which doesn't rely too heavily on semantic bs.
akane best girl, shogo pls shoGO
>>7361405
>What other board should I petition for books expounding upon defenses of free will?
You have /his/.
>has his entire life robbed and reduced to a wretched state because of it.
Robbed and reduced to wretch by whom?
>What the hell are you talking about?
Mostly myself.
>>7361414
Where does the path end and you start? Who is the one sweating? What are you but the movements that make you?
>>7361419
Donald won't do nothing because Donald don't real.
>>7360480
>defending the notion of free will
Only logical fallacies can "defend" free willbecause it doesn't exist.
>>7361439
>people experience reality differently from each other, therefore free will exists.
I don't follow.
>>7360480
How about trying to come to terms with reality, rather than deluding yourself with appealing notions? Read about Existentialism and Absurdism.
>>7361439
Thank you, I shall begin procuring it. His wiki page looks interesting, I'd never even heard of the guy before.
>>7361348
Did you really expect anything different? No-one on this board reads, you're going to be bombarded with people's shitty philosophy whether you like it or not, not what works they've based it on, because it's based on very little (mostly hearsay from similar faggots echoing other similar faggots). See, this entire thread pretty much.
You should read about Heraclitus, I think it's what you're looking for.
>>7361451
The definition of your will is the unique manifestation of you as opposed to others, I'd guess. I've thought something similar before.
>>7361451
it's centered around a concept called duration, bergson believed that philosophers were trying to understand intuitive perceptual experiences in strictly mathematical terms. He argues that this lead to a confusion of the extended and unextended which was ultimately inaccurate. Basically an individual may experience something completely different than a mathematical system would explain it, leading to a conflict of reason. The best way to understand time then is through a more intuitive approach that never explains a whole picture, but gives a singular personal explanation of time. If you don't have a strong understanding of the mind-body/unextended vs. extended debate then this argument will be lost on you as well as the apllicaations of this argument.
Since determinism is pretty much completely dependent on formal understanding of space-time, this view basially doesnt provide the grounds for causality to exist (at least in the form it had been presented as up to the 20th century).
Like I said, I forget the exact applications and I dont think bergson ever delves too deep into it. It's a fairly short paper.
>>7361404
Do people really like Kogami? He literally goes on 4chan and asks people what would be a good master plan to destroy Japan...then acts on the responses...and succeeds. And basically all of his success have been just like that, pulled from the blue and then out his ass.
>>7361521
People, as in actual human beings, know who they prefer.
>great detective
>not a confict-driven hunting dog, actually thinks about the society they live in
>wrecks Sybil's shit every time
>cares about people, good boss even to bad employees
>probably a demon in the sack
