Nihilism

[Edwardo Piet]

We could call them choices because that's what we've always called them.

But that won't cut it if part of the definition of a choice is that it is freely made. When we say something like "It's your choice" it's said to mean "It's up to you" or that the person has a free choice. IOW "free choice" is a tautology and you can't have an unfree choice because that would be an oxymoron. So my point is if choices aren't free they aren't really choices because part of the definition of a choice is that it is freely made.

I don't think "because that's what we've always called them" is really an argument when what we have always been referring to doesn't exist. We have actions and thought processes but we don't really have choices.

If you wanna keep calling completely unfree decisions "choices" then go ahead . . . but it's kind of like calling the sun a chariot.

To say someone has choices when their choices are completely unfree... doesn't really make any sense. If they are completely unfree they don't really have any choices.

---

We could call them choices because that's what we've always called them. Thales thought water was a fundamental substance, as did others who followed him. Later on we learned that water was merely a composite of hydrogen and oxygen. But that doesn't make it "not water." It simply means water is not fundamental.

My bold.

This is a false analogy because regardless of the fact that what Thales thought water was doesn't exist.... when we talk of water nowadays we are indeed referring to a composite of hydrogen and oxygen... and we are NOT referring to what Thales thought water was. But when people say "It's your choice" they are making a false statement.