You don’t have free will, but don’t worry. (Sabine Hossenfelder)

[Secular Sanity]

Amor fati: If you knew for sure, would it change your relationship? Would you love her even more or less?

Will to power: If it’s not "I will" but "it wills," could you command a perspective—without forgetting that it’s just a perspective?

[confused2]

Amor fati: If you knew for sure, would it change your relationship? Would you love her even more or less?

Will to power: If it’s not "I will" but "it wills," could you command a perspective—without forgetting that it’s just a perspective?

Amor fati works quite well for me. Kind'a dreamlike quality anyway. Apart from not going to Mars and I'm going to try to find out what Mrs C2 does with frozen chickens before she puts them in the oven.

[Syne]

Amor fati: If you knew for sure, would it change your relationship? Would you love her even more or less?

Will to power: If it’s not "I will" but "it wills," could you command a perspective—without forgetting that it’s just a perspective?

Conflating free will to Nietzsche's will to power is erroneous. Free will requires neither transcending the self nor authority over others. That seems to be the misconception that any freedom can be absolute, where in reality, all freedom only exists as defined by its boundaries...much like space is only defined by the relative positions of bodies that inhabit it.

[Secular Sanity]

Amor fati: If you knew for sure, would it change your relationship? Would you love her even more or less?

Will to power: If it’s not "I will" but "it wills," could you command a perspective—without forgetting that it’s just a perspective?

Conflating free will to Nietzsche's will to power is erroneous. Free will requires neither transcending the self nor authority over others. That seems to be the misconception that any freedom can be absolute, where in reality, all freedom only exists as defined by its boundaries...much like space is only defined by the relative positions of bodies that inhabit it.

Well, I think that "will to power" is about redeeming existence. He was entrenched in Schopenhauer’s "The World as Will and Representation" at the time.

"One such reaction to the loss of meaning is what Nietzsche calls passive nihilism, which he recognizes in the pessimistic philosophy of Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer's doctrine, which Nietzsche also refers to as Western Buddhism, advocates separating oneself from will and desires in order to reduce suffering. Nietzsche characterizes this ascetic attitude as a "will to nothingness", whereby life turns away from itself, as there is nothing of value to be found in the world. This mowing away of all value in the world is characteristic of the nihilist, although in this, the nihilist appears inconsistent: this "will to nothingness" is still a form of valuation or willing. He describes this as "an inconsistency on the part of the nihilists." SOURCE

He thought that sufferers were burdened with guilt and sin and led to believe that redemption lied beyond this world. Similar to the story of Job and Job’s resignation to his fate.

You didn’t answer my question though. If you knew that determinism was true, would you love life more or less?

---

Amor fati works quite well for me. Kind'a dreamlike quality anyway. Apart from not going to Mars and I'm going to try to find out what Mrs C2 does with frozen chickens before she puts them in the oven.

It must be really good because you've mentioned it before. I went to this restaurant called the Montauk in Phoenix, Arizona. It was near the seashore. They had the best chicken dish. I tried to duplicate it but it was an epic fail. Do me a favor, will you? Get the recipe from Mrs. C2 and share it with us.

[Syne]

Amor fati: If you knew for sure, would it change your relationship? Would you love her even more or less?

Will to power: If it’s not "I will" but "it wills," could you command a perspective—without forgetting that it’s just a perspective?

Conflating free will to Nietzsche's will to power is erroneous. Free will requires neither transcending the self nor authority over others. That seems to be the misconception that any freedom can be absolute, where in reality, all freedom only exists as defined by its boundaries...much like space is only defined by the relative positions of bodies that inhabit it.

Well, I think that "will to power" is about redeeming existence. He was entrenched in Schopenhauer’s "The World as Will and Representation" at the time.

"One such reaction to the loss of meaning is what Nietzsche calls passive nihilism, which he recognizes in the pessimistic philosophy of Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer's doctrine, which Nietzsche also refers to as Western Buddhism, advocates separating oneself from will and desires in order to reduce suffering. Nietzsche characterizes this ascetic attitude as a "will to nothingness", whereby life turns away from itself, as there is nothing of value to be found in the world. This mowing away of all value in the world is characteristic of the nihilist, although in this, the nihilist appears inconsistent: this "will to nothingness" is still a form of valuation or willing. He describes this as "an inconsistency on the part of the nihilists." SOURCE

He thought that sufferers were burdened with guilt and sin and led to believe that redemption lied beyond this world. Similar to the story of Job and Job’s resignation to his fate.

Nihilism is a solution in search of a problem (the hopeless justifying their feelings)...hence the erroneous notion that existence needs redeeming. Schopenhauer presumes that there is no objective reality "out there"...which is an odd position to defend on a science forum. I've never understood people's fascination with German philosophers. Most seem to illustrate the sort of pessimistic dehumanizing that kind of fits with producing a Hitler (which would make someone like him more historically inevitable than "killing baby Hitler" could stop).

It seems naive to label all suffering as deriving from will when suffering really only comes from bad choices/decisions. Now, I guess if that's all your will can manage, maybe you do have reason to be hopeless. I prefer to think that any human can learn from their mistakes and do better. But then, studies have shown that it does take some degree of believe in free will to make some kinds of good decisions. Is nihilism inborn to some people, or is it a learned belief? Considering the vast number of people who believe in free will, I would have to assume the latter.

"Will to nothingness" is impotent navel gazing. Only moving out from the native state of nothingness is meaningful action possible. You see, nothingness is the actual core of self. So people seeking to deny the self are really just lost and looking for the true self. It's funny how many times people trip right over it without even realizing.

Presuming Job a true story, such suffering is self-inflicted, as Job could have ended his suffering at any time, but freely chose to bear it as evidence of his devotion to god. IOW, he chose to suffer because it gave him meaning. But one should not mistake that as a blanket statement that all meaning must include suffering.

You didn’t answer my question though. If you knew that determinism was true, would you love life more or less?

Studies of belief in free will already answer that. Those who believe they have agency report being happier.

[confused2]

A bit back I mentioned I had dated girls with most of the traits observed in hamsters. Softening food in the toilet would complete the set. Humour intended but I'll check anyway.

[Secular Sanity]

It seems naive to label all suffering as deriving from will when suffering really only comes from bad choices/decisions.

Bad things don’t happen to good people?

Presuming Job a true story, such suffering is self-inflicted, as Job could have ended his suffering at any time, but freely chose to bear it as evidence of his devotion to god. IOW, he chose to suffer because it gave him meaning. But one should not mistake that as a blanket statement that all meaning must include suffering.

A friend lost her son in motorcycle accident last year. He wasn’t found at fault but another friend said that he would never allow his children to ride on a motorcycle. It was insensitive to blame the mother. We look for reasons to justify suffering because it makes us feel less vulnerable to chaos. When something goes wrong, we look for someone to blame. It allows us to ignore the unfortunate chain of events. The story of Job is a Greek tragedy, which works to correct our condemnation.

Job is a story about a righteous man’s misfortune. We’re told about his piety and integrity. His friends state that he must have sinned because he’s being punished. Job says,"Should we accept only good from God and not accept evil?" His friends brought messages of condemnation. God disagrees with his friends and gives a speech about the mysteries of the universe and our limited understanding. He concludes that Job’s suffering was unjust.

---

A bit back I mentioned I had dated girls with most of the traits observed in hamsters. Softening food in the toilet would complete the set. Humour intended but I'll check anyway.

Ah, to prevent it from being too dry like your sense of humor.

[Syne]

It seems naive to label all suffering as deriving from will when suffering really only comes from bad choices/decisions.

Bad things don’t happen to good people?

Sure they do, but things like illness and natural disasters (the problem of natural evils) don't derive from the will either. No amount of denying the self can ward off natural evils. And even in those cases, good people who believe in free will are generally more resilient and bounce back faster.

Presuming Job a true story, such suffering is self-inflicted, as Job could have ended his suffering at any time, but freely chose to bear it as evidence of his devotion to god. IOW, he chose to suffer because it gave him meaning. But one should not mistake that as a blanket statement that all meaning must include suffering.

A friend lost her son in motorcycle accident last year. He wasn’t found at fault but another friend said that he would never allow his children to ride on a motorcycle. It was insensitive to blame the mother. We look for reasons to justify suffering because it makes us feel less vulnerable to chaos. When something goes wrong, we look for someone to blame. It allows us to ignore the unfortunate chain of events. The story of Job is a Greek tragedy, which works to correct our condemnation. 

Job is a story about a righteous man’s misfortune. We’re told about his piety and integrity. His friends state that he must have sinned because he’s being punished. Job says,"Should we accept only good from God and not accept evil?" His friends brought messages of condemnation. God disagrees with his friends and gives a speech about the mysteries of the universe and our limited understanding. He concludes that Job’s suffering was unjust.

Motorcycles are inherently more dangerous, even through no fault of the rider. That's just the reality. And one person taking that as a cautionary tale for his own children isn't necessarily blaming the mother. You may be projecting your own snarkiness (or blaming), as some people just lack tact...especially men.

Blame is a mechanism used to excuse one's own irresponsibility or lack of belief in free will. When you lack agency, you have to fall back to somewhat superstitious notions that some external force is acting upon you, without any recourse of your own. Instead of facing your own choices, you blame others or seek escape...like trying to deny the self (or ward off evil spirits). Blame and avoidance (including ignoring) are poor coping mechanisms.

You should take note that the trials of Job do not derive from any choice of his, so denying the self would not have warded off that suffering. God only spares Job once Elihu (the one friend god didn't seek to punish) points out that Job is too consumed with blaming god. In the end, Job was just as wrong in seeking to blame as his friends were. Blame is not a solution, as it doesn't motivate anything proactive.

[Secular Sanity]

Sure they do, but things like illness and natural disasters (the problem of natural evils) don't derive from the will either. No amount of denying the self can ward off natural evils. And even in those cases, good people who believe in free will are generally more resilient and bounce back faster.

Well then, the moral of the story is that life isn’t a meritocracy.

Blame is a mechanism used to excuse one's own irresponsibility or lack of belief in free will. When you lack agency, you have to fall back to somewhat superstitious notions that some external force is acting upon you, without any recourse of your own. Instead of facing your own choices, you blame others or seek escape...like trying to deny the self (or ward off evil spirits). Blame and avoidance (including ignoring) are poor coping mechanisms.

What about praise? 

Nietzsche didn’t believe in freewill either. He thought it was humanity’s excessive pride that caused the longing for freewill. "The longing to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for your actions yourself and to relieve God, the world, ancestors, chance, and society of the burden." He thought that causa sui (self-caused cause, one that is not the result of prior events) was the best self-contradiction that had ever been conceived.

I am utterly amazed, utterly enchanted. I have a precursor, and what a precursor! I hardly knew Spinoza: that I should have turned to him just now, was inspired by "instinct." Not only is his over-all tendency like mine — making knowledge the most powerful affect — but in five main points of his doctrine I recognize myself; this most unusual and loneliest thinker is closest to me precisely in these matters: he denies the freedom of the will, teleology, the moral world order, the unegoistic, and evil. Even though the divergencies are admittedly tremendous, they are due more to the difference in time, culture, and science. In summa: my lonesomeness, which, as on very high mountains, often made it hard for me to breathe and made my blood rush out, is now at least a twosomeness. Strange.

The Portable Nietzsche
(Letter to Overbeck, 1881)

Where in reality, all freedom only exists as defined by its boundaries...much like space is only defined by the relative positions of bodies that inhabit it.

They say that quantum indeterminacy can be ignored for most macroscopic events.

C2 might be right in saying that it’s dreamlike because that’s how a lot of neuroscientists describe consciousness. They say it’s a dreamlike state modulated by the senses.

If determinism is true then only one future is possible. It would mean that you were always meant to be. Even if it was just a fluke, it would mean that the parameters, constants, and all the laws that govern our Universe allowed for and determined our existence. Strange, eh?

[Syne]

Sure they do, but things like illness and natural disasters (the problem of natural evils) don't derive from the will either. No amount of denying the self can ward off natural evils. And even in those cases, good people who believe in free will are generally more resilient and bounce back faster.

Well then, the moral of the story is that life isn’t a meritocracy.

Life is a meritocracy, nature is not. Life happens in nature, but life is not, itself, nature. Don't conflate choices with happenstance. Merit only exists where we have choices. Which is why those who don't believe in free will don't believe in merit. It requires agency to impute any value to an action.

Blame is a mechanism used to excuse one's own irresponsibility or lack of belief in free will. When you lack agency, you have to fall back to somewhat superstitious notions that some external force is acting upon you, without any recourse of your own. Instead of facing your own choices, you blame others or seek escape...like trying to deny the self (or ward off evil spirits). Blame and avoidance (including ignoring) are poor coping mechanisms.

What about praise? 

Nietzsche didn’t believe in freewill either. He thought it was humanity’s excessive pride that caused the longing for freewill. "The longing to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for your actions yourself and to relieve God, the world, ancestors, chance, and society of the burden." He thought that causa sui (self-caused cause, one that is not the result of prior events) was the best self-contradiction that had ever been conceived.

There would definitely be excessive pride in Nietzsche's own "will to power" (talk about self-contradiction from a disbeliever in free will). Free will does not necessitate bearing absolute responsibility. Having some recourse doesn't require having full recourse. Again, no freedom is absolute, as every freedom is defined by its boundaries. Nietzsche's "will to power" seems to deny boundaries specifically in order to set up and deny the straw man of absolute free will.

A self-caused cause is only contradictory if all causes must also be effects (not a logical requirement). But if all causes are effects, we're dealing with an infinite regression, which is just a perpetual avoidance of any answer. So again, Nietzsche's objections to pride turn out to be the bad coping mechanism of avoidance, only with more convoluted justification. He's just torn between wanting the power of strong men, he resents or envies, and hiding from that power.

Where in reality, all freedom only exists as defined by its boundaries...much like space is only defined by the relative positions of bodies that inhabit it.

They say that quantum indeterminacy can be ignored for most macroscopic events.

And what does that non-sequitur have to do with anything I just said?

C2 might be right in saying that it’s dreamlike because that’s how a lot of neuroscientists describe consciousness. They say it’s a dreamlike state modulated by the senses.

Or that non-sequitur, devoid of any actual science?

If determinism is true then only one future is possible. It would mean that you were always meant to be. Even if it was just a fluke, it would mean that the parameters, constants, and all the laws that govern our Universe allowed for and determined our existence. Strange, eh?

Not strange at all. I'm sure it comforts a lot of people to be completely and utterly absolved for every choice and action they have or will ever make. So comforting, in fact, that it seems to be worth the hole left in their lives without meaning or significance. You see, it's only when you have agency that you can derive your own meaning from life. Otherwise, you're just a passive spectator along for the ride. You can ooh and aah at a lot of stuff, but you're not really steering.