|
|
|
|
|
|
by kstenerud
3690 days ago
|
|
|
So basically, his argument is that, unless our choices are 100% completely independent of our environment, we don't have free will. To be honest, I'm having trouble following his logic here, and advocating living a "lie" so that people don't suddenly go on a reefer-madness style rampage is in and of itself quite silly. We can make choices for good or for worse, and you do so every day. If you're in a bad mood, you can be snarky and mean to the barista at the coffee shop, or you can just suck it up and be pleasant. Saying you have no free will in the matter is ridiculous. |
|
|
Similarly, if it is in your nature (your setting) to be pleasant even when feeling slight emotional strain, you will try to be pleasant. If it is in your nature to let it all hang out, you will let it all hang out.
I'm not necessarily supporting the idea that "there is no free will", but pointing out that it might be a nervous poodle's setting to bite me when I visit my friend. And it might be in my nature to throw it out the window without thinking when bit.
You see this in discussions where people talk about being to choose tea (which they don't prefer) over coffee (which they do prefer) in order to demonstrate their free will. Well, yeah - I guess. But if you're the kind of person who is designed to think it important to demonstrate your free will at the coffee shop, it's in your nature to take your disfavored beverage just to prove your point. Because that's how you are wired.