Nihilism

[Abaddon_ire]

My view on all this is that determinism is not the same thing as fatalism... that fatalism is a huge misunderstanding of determinism, confusing the notions of fate and destiny with causality. Say for instance I had won the lottery in the past... and it was thus part of the causally determined path of my life... then fatalism would be akin to me hypothetically being informed in the past that I was destined to win the lottery, and with that information concluding 'if I'm destined to win the lottery, I may as well not buy a ticket', which is just silly. The notion of destiny assumes that a person can a) know their future and b) with said 'knowledge' not be able to change it. Neither of which I believe can be true, even hypothetically; ie I believe it is impossible to know, even hypothetically as the result of some sci-fi/woo intervention, your future without then being in a position to influence or change it. So though I am a hard determinist... what was couldn't have been any other way, what is can't be any other way, and what will be can't be any other way... with allowances made for quantum randomness... that does not mean I believe in destiny in the sense described of ever being able to know my future.

Though it could be argued that there is a certain amount of 'soft' fatalism in my view... that is, the philosophical comfort I take sometimes from the notion that 'it couldn't have been any other way' about events of the past and present. And to some extent, what will be will be about the future. But where that differs from the notion of destiny is that what will be will be I can't know and it will be causally determined just as everything else is. If I was to dwell on thoughts of 'what will be will be' to the exclusion of everything else... just endlessly repeating it like a mantra and not doing anything else... then what would be would be would be me thinking what would be would be In other words, my thoughts about it are part of the causal stream and could be taken to extremes... but if they were, it seems to me they would be detrimental, and somehow missing the point; thoughts about determinism are not outside it, they are part of it. And regarding the comfort of looking backwards, that too could be taken to extremes; to take comfort from the idea that it couldn't have been any other way is to essentially write off an event by blaming the universe Though that does indeed provide comfort, especially if the event is/was outside your control, it does mean that if taken to extremes and relied upon to the exclusion of all else, then similar to making what will be will be a mantra, it ignores local/more immediate causality and thus opportunities for learning from the past, which is not good. But neither extreme is a problem, at least for me, because thoughts of the comforting implications of determinism are at best a dry, philosophical comfort; whether looking to the past, present, or future, they cannot compete with the emotional demands of life; even if you wanted to, it is no more feasible to drop everything going forward and think nothing but 'what will be will be' than it is to ignore the immediate causes and effects of an unpleasant past or present event in favour of dry philosophical comfort.

Quantum stuff does confuse this view a bit, but not much; it means (to me) that looking forward there is a certain amount of quantum randomness potentially or actually influencing causation going forward... such that going forward it is potentially less predictable... but looking backwards at the past, though things may have been able to have been another way if quantum randomness had gone another way, it went the way it went and therefore from the future looking back vantage point, it was what it was and couldn't have been any other way. So though I class myself as a hard determinist, I would say I am getting softer as it were, because of the unknown influence and unknown extent of that influence of quantum physics. But in all practical terms, I'm a hard determinist.

Load of unnecessary wordy bollocks if you ask me, but you won't because you prefer the unnecessary wordy bollocks. Frankly, most of philosophy is functionally useless.

[Edwardo Piet]

I subscribe to scientific indeterminism in physics in the sense of quantum unpredictability. But I also subscribe to philosophical determinism.

Everything is determined, but that doesn't mean we can predict it.

[emjay]

My view on all this is that determinism is not the same thing as fatalism... that fatalism is a huge misunderstanding of determinism, confusing the notions of fate and destiny with causality. Say for instance I had won the lottery in the past... and it was thus part of the causally determined path of my life... then fatalism would be akin to me hypothetically being informed in the past that I was destined to win the lottery, and with that information concluding 'if I'm destined to win the lottery, I may as well not buy a ticket', which is just silly. The notion of destiny assumes that a person can a) know their future and b) with said 'knowledge' not be able to change it. Neither of which I believe can be true, even hypothetically; ie I believe it is impossible to know, even hypothetically as the result of some sci-fi/woo intervention, your future without then being in a position to influence or change it. So though I am a hard determinist... what was couldn't have been any other way, what is can't be any other way, and what will be can't be any other way... with allowances made for quantum randomness... that does not mean I believe in destiny in the sense described of ever being able to know my future.

Though it could be argued that there is a certain amount of 'soft' fatalism in my view... that is, the philosophical comfort I take sometimes from the notion that 'it couldn't have been any other way' about events of the past and present. And to some extent, what will be will be about the future. But where that differs from the notion of destiny is that what will be will be I can't know and it will be causally determined just as everything else is. If I was to dwell on thoughts of 'what will be will be' to the exclusion of everything else... just endlessly repeating it like a mantra and not doing anything else... then what would be would be would be me thinking what would be would be In other words, my thoughts about it are part of the causal stream and could be taken to extremes... but if they were, it seems to me they would be detrimental, and somehow missing the point; thoughts about determinism are not outside it, they are part of it. And regarding the comfort of looking backwards, that too could be taken to extremes; to take comfort from the idea that it couldn't have been any other way is to essentially write off an event by blaming the universe Though that does indeed provide comfort, especially if the event is/was outside your control, it does mean that if taken to extremes and relied upon to the exclusion of all else, then similar to making what will be will be a mantra, it ignores local/more immediate causality and thus opportunities for learning from the past, which is not good. But neither extreme is a problem, at least for me, because thoughts of the comforting implications of determinism are at best a dry, philosophical comfort; whether looking to the past, present, or future, they cannot compete with the emotional demands of life; even if you wanted to, it is no more feasible to drop everything going forward and think nothing but 'what will be will be' than it is to ignore the immediate causes and effects of an unpleasant past or present event in favour of dry philosophical comfort.

Quantum stuff does confuse this view a bit, but not much; it means (to me) that looking forward there is a certain amount of quantum randomness potentially or actually influencing causation going forward... such that going forward it is potentially less predictable... but looking backwards at the past, though things may have been able to have been another way if quantum randomness had gone another way, it went the way it went and therefore from the future looking back vantage point, it was what it was and couldn't have been any other way. So though I class myself as a hard determinist, I would say I am getting softer as it were, because of the unknown influence and unknown extent of that influence of quantum physics. But in all practical terms, I'm a hard determinist.

Load of unnecessary wordy bollocks if you ask me, but you won't because you prefer the unnecessary wordy bollocks. Frankly, most of philosophy is functionally useless.

You do you, I'll do me.

[Edwardo Piet]

If all we cared about was functional usefulness then the only good thing about science would be technology and art and music wouldn't matter.

I think that the sort of person whose generic quibble with philosophy is that it's "useless" is also the sort of person who is boring, shallow and simple-minded. Frankly.

[vulcanlogician]

Frankly, most of philosophy is functionally useless.

Oh... no... you... didn't.

[sarcasm] Ever heard of a guy named John Locke? He was looking for an alternative to absolutist monarchy... so he pondered about it in his useless philosophical way... He eventually came up with a form of government that was of, by, and, for the people. Recommended a balance of powers between legislative, executive, and judicial branches. You know... useless philosophy stuff.

I'm not saying his stuff is functionally useful... I'm just saying someone, some day might come along and make practical use of it. [/sarcasm]


We wouldn't have made it out of the dark ages unless people questioned conventional ways of thinking. Philosophy serves a purpose. Someone ignorant of agriculture might deduce that "bread comes from the supermarket" in the same way another person might deduce that our notions of justice and ethics come from "common sense."

[Edwardo Piet]

People who think philosophy is useless know fuck all about philosophy. You can't even make a valid objection against philosophy without being philosophical.

---

We wouldn't have made it out of the dark ages unless people questioned conventional ways of thinking. Philosophy serves a purpose. Someone ignorant of agriculture might deduce that "bread comes from the supermarket" in the same way another person might deduce that our notions of justice and ethics come from "common sense."

Brilliant analogy.

Permission to put this quote from you in my AF sig? It's that good.

[vulcanlogician]

We wouldn't have made it out of the dark ages unless people questioned conventional ways of thinking. Philosophy serves a purpose. Someone ignorant of agriculture might deduce that "bread comes from the supermarket" in the same way another person might deduce that our notions of justice and ethics come from "common sense."

Brilliant analogy.

Permission to put this quote from you in my AF sig? It's that good.

Thanks for the compliment, Hammy. As to your signature...

[Abaddon_ire]

Frankly, most of philosophy is functionally useless.

Oh... no... you... didn't.

[sarcasm] Ever heard of a guy named John Locke? He was looking for an alternative to absolutist monarchy... so he pondered about it in his useless philosophical way... He eventually came up with a form of government that was of, by, and, for the people. Recommended a balance of powers between legislative, executive, and judicial branches. You know... useless philosophy stuff.

I'm not saying his stuff is functionally useful... I'm just saying someone, some day might come along and make practical use of it. [/sarcasm]


We wouldn't have made it out of the dark ages unless people questioned conventional ways of thinking. Philosophy serves a purpose. Someone ignorant of agriculture might deduce that "bread comes from the supermarket" in the same way another person might deduce that our notions of justice and ethics come from "common sense."

OH, philosophy has come up with many useful ideas many of which I endorse. Nevertheless, it has also generated an incredible volume of baloney. If one is willing to insert one's head into one's own nether regions, what is it that you think will happen?

[Edwardo Piet]

OH, philosophy has come up with many useful ideas many of which I endorse. Nevertheless, it has also generated an incredible volume of baloney.

99% of everything is crap though! Not just philosophy.

---

If one is willing to insert one's head into one's own nether regions, what is it that you think will happen?

?

My nether regions will feel nice and tingly? Sounds good to me!

[vulcanlogician]

OH, philosophy has come up with many useful ideas many of which I endorse. Nevertheless, it has also generated an incredible volume of baloney. If one is willing to insert one's head into one's own nether regions, what is it that you think will happen?

FWIW, Russell defends philosophy better than I can...





or if you prefer reading it:

https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~drkelly/Russ...hy1912.pdf