Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Albert Camus: Humanism and Tragedy

hopkinsreview.jhu.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 34 posts

Re: Albert Camus: Humanism and Tragedy

#11

Post by sysbin »

lolptdr wrote: post #9
sysbin wrote: post #8

The best thing I came to realize in life is that free will is an illusion and simply it doesn’t exist. Thus, life has never been worth living because we’re simply forced like a victim sent to prison and whatever we experience is not really our own. Good or evil is simply an illusion as well because of the preceding. I wish I had been educated about this young.

I don't understand. You say you can't experience anything that you own, but you are making a choice to decide that you can't have a choice. This is a circular dependency of logic.

Everything is just cause & effect. It’s impossible to make a choice or decision that’s truly one’s own. Nobody can make a choice or decision without being effected by what encompasses them and with all the external forces being inflicted upon them as well. Even a death like suicide is thus a natural death when it happens because it couldn’t have been different. People assume it could have been different by desiring everything was a choice of our own but in reality we don’t have choice that’s our own.

Re: Albert Camus: Humanism and Tragedy

#12

Post by sysbin »

Emma_Goldman wrote: post #10
sysbin wrote: post #8

The best thing I came to realize in life is that free will is an illusion and simply it doesn’t exist. Thus, life has never been worth living because we’re simply forced like a victim sent to prison and whatever we experience is not really our own. Good or evil is simply an illusion as well because of the preceding. I wish I had been educated about this young.

Philosophy of mind has little to no understanding of consciousness and the will. Most people who have a considered opinion are 'physicalists' who think that the mind is reducible to the physical activity of the brain, but this belief is not based on an especially compelling neurological research programme but on the ontological expectation that all phenomena are reducible to physical processes. That is, they believe…

The mind could only be free if independent from what encompasses it. That’s simply impossible and even if our mind had some quantum physics thrown into the equation. Anyhow this all is a difficult subject unless understanding determinism and processing life with the knowledge for awhile. In either case fate decides the outcome but I wish I knew earlier in life. Maybe I’ll live the same life over but the universe will allow that to happen but that would arguably not be my own doing as well because this life made that desire. All nifty cause & effects...

Re: Albert Camus: Humanism and Tragedy

#13

Post by Emma_Goldman »

sysbin wrote: post #12
Emma_Goldman wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Philosophy of mind has little to no understanding of consciousness and the will. Most people who have a considered opinion are 'physicalists' who think that the mind is reducible to the physical activity of the brain, but this belief is not based on an especially compelling neurological research programme but on the ontological expectation that all phenomena are reducible to physical processes. That is, they believe…

The mind could only be free if independent from what encompasses it. That’s simply impossible and even if our mind had some quantum physics thrown into the equation. Anyhow this all is a difficult subject unless understanding determinism and processing life with the knowledge for awhile. In either case fate decides the outcome but I wish I knew earlier in life. Maybe I’ll live the same life over but the universe will…

>"The mind could only be free if independent from what encompasses it."

No it could be an emergent property that arises from physical processes but is not reducible to them (emergentism). It could be that the mental and the physical are not independent substances but different elements of the same thing, and thus one does not need to be reducible to the other (neutral monism). Or you could be a dualist and claim that the mind really is separate from the physical world.

Or, more sensibly, you could be agnostic because we lack any solid grounds for belief in any theory of the mind.

And again, as I just said, this ontological problem is separate from the phenomenological problem with which the existentialists were concerned. For what the mind is, ontologically, makes no difference to our subjective experience as radically free beings without a predetermined essence.

Re: Albert Camus: Humanism and Tragedy

#14

Post by bigbluedots »

sysbin wrote: post #11
lolptdr wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand. You say you can't experience anything that you own, but you are making a choice to decide that you can't have a choice. This is a circular dependency of logic.

Everything is just cause & effect. It’s impossible to make a choice or decision that’s truly one’s own. Nobody can make a choice or decision without being effected by what encompasses them and with all the external forces being inflicted upon them as well. Even a death like suicide is thus a natural death when it happens because it couldn’t have been different. People assume it could have been different by desiring e…

How did you decide whether or not to post this comment?

Re: Albert Camus: Humanism and Tragedy

#15

Post by sysbin »

bigbluedots wrote: post #14
sysbin wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything is just cause & effect. It’s impossible to make a choice or decision that’s truly one’s own. Nobody can make a choice or decision without being effected by what encompasses them and with all the external forces being inflicted upon them as well. Even a death like suicide is thus a natural death when it happens because it couldn’t have been different. People assume it could have been different by desiring e…

How did you decide whether or not to post this comment?

I didn't, all the preceding events (external forces exerted upon me) made it so.

Re: Albert Camus: Humanism and Tragedy

#16

Post by sysbin »

Emma_Goldman wrote: post #13
sysbin wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mind could only be free if independent from what encompasses it. That’s simply impossible and even if our mind had some quantum physics thrown into the equation. Anyhow this all is a difficult subject unless understanding determinism and processing life with the knowledge for awhile. In either case fate decides the outcome but I wish I knew earlier in life. Maybe I’ll live the same life over but the universe will…

>"The mind could only be free if independent from what encompasses it." No it could be an emergent property that arises from physical processes but is not reducible to them (emergentism). It could be that the mental and the physical are not independent substances but different elements of the same thing, and thus one does not need to be reducible to the other (neutral monism). Or you could be a dualist and claim that…

You're interpreting my definition of what makes the mind different than your own. I consider the mind to be free if independent from what encompasses it. Meaning the ability to choose how life plays out. That's not truly fitting of free will either because even then a person will desire whatever the first experiences force them into desiring. Everything is predetermined. Cause & effect.

Re: Albert Camus: Humanism and Tragedy

#17

Post by Emma_Goldman »

sysbin wrote: post #16
Emma_Goldman wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"The mind could only be free if independent from what encompasses it." No it could be an emergent property that arises from physical processes but is not reducible to them (emergentism). It could be that the mental and the physical are not independent substances but different elements of the same thing, and thus one does not need to be reducible to the other (neutral monism). Or you could be a dualist and claim that…

You're interpreting my definition of what makes the mind different than your own. I consider the mind to be free if independent from what encompasses it. Meaning the ability to choose how life plays out. That's not truly fitting of free will either because even then a person will desire whatever the first experiences force them into desiring. Everything is predetermined. Cause & effect.

No, I am not. The three substantive positions that I described - emergentism, neutral monism, dualism - reject the idea that mental activity is reducible to antecedent physical processes. Agnosticism suspends belief about the mind. Existentialism recasts this as a phenomenological issue; about our subjective experience of radical freedom.

In other words, every one of these positions rejects the idea that we are imprisoned by a physical nexus of 'cause & effect'.

Re: Albert Camus: Humanism and Tragedy

#18

Post by bigbluedots »

sysbin wrote: post #15
bigbluedots wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did you decide whether or not to post this comment?

I didn't, all the preceding events (external forces exerted upon me) made it so.

Does it give you comfort to hold that view? i.e. if everything is completely deterministic then you cannot be responsible for the consequences of your actions.

Re: Albert Camus: Humanism and Tragedy

#19

Post by sysbinn »

Emma_Goldman wrote: post #17
sysbin wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're interpreting my definition of what makes the mind different than your own. I consider the mind to be free if independent from what encompasses it. Meaning the ability to choose how life plays out. That's not truly fitting of free will either because even then a person will desire whatever the first experiences force them into desiring. Everything is predetermined. Cause & effect.

No, I am not. The three substantive positions that I described - emergentism, neutral monism, dualism - reject the idea that mental activity is reducible to antecedent physical processes. Agnosticism suspends belief about the mind. Existentialism recasts this as a phenomenological issue; about our subjective experience of radical freedom. In other words, every one of these positions rejects the idea that we are impri…

Those three positions are substantive? How so.., I assume if you're that loose with the word.. the most widely shared definition of free will should be substantive to you. Even one could say free will rejects the idea that we are imprisoned by a physical nexus of 'cause & effect' and typically what people follow from reading the bible. Evil fairy tales that delude a person. Anyhow I wish I knew of cause & effect very young because then I wouldn't have been grossly taken advantaged of and I assume is the reason the majority of people are conditioned to stay deluded.

Re: Albert Camus: Humanism and Tragedy

#20

Post by sysbinn »

bigbluedots wrote: post #18
sysbin wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't, all the preceding events (external forces exerted upon me) made it so.

Does it give you comfort to hold that view? i.e. if everything is completely deterministic then you cannot be responsible for the consequences of your actions.

I don't see how that would give me comfort in a society that is conditioned and even manipulated to think contrary. I see people in prison and even if they're innocent (in the traditional sense) of the crime. Your rhetoric is typically voiced from people assuming it's not good to understand reality and I typically think what nonsense. I guess similar to how some people preferred everyone assuming the world to be flat. Simply, assuming it's better to think contrary doesn't make reality not so.
Post reply on HN