Nihilism

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Free will is real lol go have fun

[Neo-Scholastic]

Also, the matter of free will is far from settled.

Please elaborate on why "no free will = nihilism"

Imho those favoring either hard determinism or compatibalism assume that the physical universe is causally closed. As for me I'm not convinced that it is nor am I convinced that the mechanical theories of causation that underlie determinism, the kind that are like billiard balls an watches, survive close scrutiny.

[The Grand Nudger]

Imho those favoring either hard determinism or compatibalism assume that the physical universe is causally closed.

Theological determinism assumes that the "physical universe" is causally open, particularly to a god that exists somehow outside of or beyond the "physical universe".  Determinism, in any form, is not a comment on whether or not the universe is causally closed or open.  It's nothing more or less than the notion that events are necessitated by antecedents.

As for me I'm not convinced that it is nor am I convinced that the mechanical theories of causation that underlie determinism, the kind that are like billiard balls an watches, survive close scrutiny.

A creator god is a determinist mechanical theory of causation. It's the most absolute expression thereof. It posits an entity as the singular antecedent which necessitates -all- events.

An interesting question, regarding things beyond this universe that have causal potential.....at least as far as it relates to determinism, is this. Are those things, forces, and entities "beyond the universe" made of their own "beyond the universe" stuff? An immaterial stuff. Do those things (and that stuff) have properties and predictable interactions? Would we then be forced to confront an immaterial determinism after escaping physical determinism through the causal holes in our universe?

Proposing something meaningfully immaterial does not explain how that thing is meaningfully free from immaterial antecedent. Our fallen nature as creatures is said to be explained by a blemish on our souls, after all.

[vulcanlogician]

I agree that the fact our decisions are predetermined doesn't mean they don't exist.

However if our 'choices' are ultimately entirely caused by events entirely beyond our control... would it really make much sense to call them '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.

In the same way, we used to think of a "choice" as being fundamental--causa sui. Incompatibilists understand that the causes of a choice are not founded in the self, but rather come about due to causes beyond the agent's control. "Choice" is simply a concise way to describe a complex phenomenon of stimulus response. 

The key difference between fatalism and determinism is not a difference in responsibility and choice. In either case we have no responsiblity and choice. The key difference is that the fatalist irrationally pretends like our actions and mental events aren't part of the causal stream when they obviously are. Our future actions will be entirely caused ultimately by events entirely beyond our control but they won't be caused regardless of what we do.

What we do still matters. It's just that ultimately... it's not us doing it.

Well said.

[Amarok]

Imho those favoring either hard determinism or compatibalism assume that the physical universe is causally closed.

Bullshit compatibilism and determinism could be any form of metaphysics. Once again you say foolish things and act like like your an authority . 

As for me I'm not convinced that it is nor am I convinced that the mechanical theories of causation that underlie determinism, the kind that are like billiard balls an watches, survive close scrutiny

Too bad reality does not need your approval to be so . No wait good thing it does not or we would all be living in a nightmare of a universe .

[Whateverist]

What we do still matters. It's just that ultimately... it's not us doing it.

Who else?

To say it's not us doing it for philosophical reasons is like concluding that a table is not really solid out of consideration for the space between particles at the atomic level.  Both fly in the face of how those expressions are actually used.  In everyday language the table is solid in exactly the sense intended.  Likewise if your body does something, you get the credit/blame whether you like it or not.

[Banned]

The definition of a nihilist or nihilism has changed from what we assume was the original meaning, and it is probably changing now.

I suppose the original meaning was one who does not believe in anything.

That isn't possible, because human beings believe what they think and think what they believe.
The only true nihilist would be a vegetable, and there are a few around.

Nihilism is a wish at best.
For those who may be overwhelmed by whatever, and or can't face exercising their rights and or choices.
It is a desire to return to a world where they can exist without consequence, and still have their needs freely supplied, without input or output (relationships), which is the womb where they came from.

[Edwardo Piet]

Free will is real lol go have fun

It's as real as a square circle.

[chimp3]

I am just a chimpanzee that has no choice but to make choices!

[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.