Like afterlife delusions, it is something that can neither be proved or disproved. Without evidence, leaning either way on it would be illogical.
1 Like
I don’t disagree but once agains much is assumed. I think we’d doing a disservice to the prospective “sole conscious being” by thinking of him as a philosopher making binding truth claims.
You stated to be concerned with the philosophical rather than the psychological variety, so this surprises me.
Ultimately, there is no free will, but as argued by Peter Strawson among others, this knowledge doesn’t impinge on our normal working moral grammar. We are “moral” animals.
Same thing here, I told him it can get worse, oh well he has to do some effort no one can force him…
1 Like
I consider myself an agnostic because I can’t prove one way or another. Can’t disprove either. I believe in a higher power 100%. When it comes to the nature of what’s going to happen when I die. And why. I simply can’t know.
Philosophizing is fun other times it drives me to confusion. Healthy to do some existential pondering and if you’re into reading philosophy I don’t think anyone can oppose that. But when you get consumed by such ideas it’s not always the healthiest. A philosophy I enjoy is of the Tao. Simplicity, and anxiety is talked down a bit.
2 Likes
You’re right. I guess I meant I was looking for a unlikely philosophical refutation for what is essentially an existential problem.
@NotSeksoEmpirico you are avoiding a direct question.
If a criminal commits a crime, should we release him because there is ultimatelly no free will?
You can be an atheist and still believe that God cannot be disproved, at least not by a priori argument. I don’t believe this is a weakness. But let’s be careful with “religion”!
So where are my ten squids?
No, we shouldn’t, but it would be pointless to refer a transcendental authority to sanction our moral sentiments.
Ten squids is a great deal more than 10 quid! 
Damnit, I thought I’d try 
1 Like
Moral isn´t law, even more moral isn´t penal law. They are two different types of orderings. But I bet you don´t want to enter in this discussion now…
We do refer to a transcendental authority to sanction. It´s called “society as a whole”. There are configurations that trascend the individual.
Was that part of your psychosis?
I agree it’s not a weakness unless it consumes you. Like me earlier in my Sz. I know some people can talk intelligently and eloquently and still entertain such philosophical discussions. Like Alan Watts for example and other philosophers. But I’ve really seen and heard watts speak on video so I refer to him most illustratively. But yeah you’re right. I just tend to think people with Sz are easy to be influenced into believing their delusions and these can be tricky topics. But quite possibly you can entertain it. My apologies sir If you’re making an intellectual conversation rather than a delusional one. You see how they can be confused. There’s a thin line between madness and genius they say. I think this can be an example of intellectualism being confused with craziness a lil.
The jury is very much divided on the issue, and I do have a diagnosis of sz.
Ir was a reoccurring thought at the level of idle speculation . Whether a mentally healthy person would entertain such thoughts I wouldn’t like to say.
Perhaps not so idle.
I just bought an Echo Plus from Amazon. Does that help?