Episode 666 : Apocalypse by Hat

3 Responses to Episode 666 : Apocalypse by Hat

1. jas says:

   December 30, 2023 at 2:17 pm

   I wanted to clarify one point. When I was talking about the fact that when people are told that there isn’t free will that this changes their behavior, I actually meant that as an argument in favor of free will not against it. My response when the neuroscientist was saying that people begin to behave less ethically if you tell them that there is no free will, was–hey, isn’t that proof that there is free will, because otherwise, how would people choose to start behaving differently.

   The point Will was making about the fact that people might generally behave in one way, but then decide to do something quite different–I don’t think that negates the idea that the decision they made was determined by everything that came before it. If we are picturing a feedback loop version of how events unfold, then quite different events can emerge just because of some very minor change. But I wouldn’t deny that who a person is is a part of that feedback loop exchange. I guess what doesn’t make sense to me (and is the way that some people define free will–particularly from a religious view in which the soul transcends existence) is that something outside of who we are–everything that has shaped us up until that moment–can suddenly come in and influence a decision.

   In some ways I agree with Tony that for all intents and purposes, all of this doesn’t matter. But here’s where I do see it mattering. In the U.S. in particular we’ve inherited this view from the Enlightenment and from Rousseau in particular, that in order for democracy to exist, people have to be free of outside influences. The individual has to be free in a somewhat radical way from their society and the concerns of others. Otherwise their vote is being manipulated in by group concerns. (Just to be clear, I think this is nonsense. I’m just trying to summarize Rousseau/Enlightenment beliefs.) That kind of idea is still very prevalent in U.S. politics/culture. Any kind of explicit belief system (feminism for instance), is criticized as “group-think” whereas the person who is making the criticism represents themselves as completely free of belief systems and acting from some individual basis that is not influenced by society, culture, bias, etc.

   Reply
   • William says:

     January 2, 2024 at 4:00 pm

     Yeah. Self vs. Other is a false dichotomy.

     Reply
   • themagicaltalkinghat says:

     January 4, 2024 at 12:58 pm

     I was actually just thinking along these lines a few minutes ago.

     I was thinking of people who complain when things get “too political” or “putting politics where it doesn’t belong.

     As a proper liberal arts student, I was taught early on in my first Gender Studies class that the personal is political.

     But it’s a common held belief that two sides of an issue contain only one side that’s “about politics.” A great example is the athletes taking a knee. Why do you have to bring politics into our fun sports game? As if every single facet of professional sports isn’t loaded with political assumptions, primary around race, class, and gender.

     I suppose the belief in “objectivity” is the same thing.

     And of course, every time someone says “sheeple.”

     Reply