What would it look like for any cognitively intact person (not held in bondage or otherwise coercive societal arrangement) to function in the world with the premise they lack free-will?
Let's stipulate the claim free-will is in fact a chimera, and can be irrefutably shown to be such.
And then?
It's evident that those individuals who sincerely claim that free-will does not- cannot- exist, go through their day like the rest of us, employing the same psychological mechanisms to navigate the material and social world. They may be convinced that free-will is a chimera, but they rely on this chimera every waking moment.
The free-will deniers operate in the world no differently from the foolish masses who succumb to the sham of free-will. There is no discernable distinction to be made between the deniers from the (purported) dupes.
If we continue to stipulate that free-will is a chimera, it raises an interesting question why such a thing would evolve in the central nervous system of Homo Sapiens, since the chimera is a universal feature of our species. It appears to have conferred a substantial survival advantage, as far as chimeras go.
Also, the experience of free-will plays a determinative role in social arrangements at every scale. It defines the conflict between pluralistic democracies and autocracies- constraining or eliminating the exercise of free-will is the raison d'etre of autocratic regimes. If I am a free-will denier, I suppose I should make no effort to oppose the establishment of an autocratic regime, because, hey, there's no free-will anyway. But if I oppose the autocratic regime, I'm donning the chimera because of perceived preference, which of course would also be mere phantasm.
Hmm... can't ever function in the world without the chimera of free-will, and denying free-will precludes making a moral distinction between pluralistic democracy and autocracy.
It's quite something to contemplate how much ink has been spilled, how many pixels churned, across how many centuries, to bring us to a point where nothing practical is achieved, and any consideration of morality becomes moot. Cool.
But at least the free-will deniers can proclaim 'Hah! We're right about the TRUE NATURE OF REALITY and the rest of you are wrong.'
Because that's what all this argle-bargle amounts to.
Free will, morality, instinct, conscience, there’s a lot of talk about these things given to or inherited by human nature. But how do we actually define them? Science, philosophy, literature?
What would it look like for any cognitively intact person (not held in bondage or otherwise coercive societal arrangement) to function in the world with the premise they lack free-will?
Let's stipulate the claim free-will is in fact a chimera, and can be irrefutably shown to be such.
And then?
It's evident that those individuals who sincerely claim that free-will does not- cannot- exist, go through their day like the rest of us, employing the same psychological mechanisms to navigate the material and social world. They may be convinced that free-will is a chimera, but they rely on this chimera every waking moment.
The free-will deniers operate in the world no differently from the foolish masses who succumb to the sham of free-will. There is no discernable distinction to be made between the deniers from the (purported) dupes.
If we continue to stipulate that free-will is a chimera, it raises an interesting question why such a thing would evolve in the central nervous system of Homo Sapiens, since the chimera is a universal feature of our species. It appears to have conferred a substantial survival advantage, as far as chimeras go.
Also, the experience of free-will plays a determinative role in social arrangements at every scale. It defines the conflict between pluralistic democracies and autocracies- constraining or eliminating the exercise of free-will is the raison d'etre of autocratic regimes. If I am a free-will denier, I suppose I should make no effort to oppose the establishment of an autocratic regime, because, hey, there's no free-will anyway. But if I oppose the autocratic regime, I'm donning the chimera because of perceived preference, which of course would also be mere phantasm.
Hmm... can't ever function in the world without the chimera of free-will, and denying free-will precludes making a moral distinction between pluralistic democracy and autocracy.
It's quite something to contemplate how much ink has been spilled, how many pixels churned, across how many centuries, to bring us to a point where nothing practical is achieved, and any consideration of morality becomes moot. Cool.
But at least the free-will deniers can proclaim 'Hah! We're right about the TRUE NATURE OF REALITY and the rest of you are wrong.'
Because that's what all this argle-bargle amounts to.
Free will, morality, instinct, conscience, there’s a lot of talk about these things given to or inherited by human nature. But how do we actually define them? Science, philosophy, literature?