When did you realize your problems are your own and not caused by anyone else?
Is it liberating or damning to know that everything you have done has lead to the life you now live, that we make our own destiny?
My biggest problem was completely out of my control and it has set my life along a path I would not have gone down otherwise.
Every day I feel like I'm not in the right place and that I was meant to be somewhere else, but it has been altered beyond my control and nothing I can do will change that.
Do you really believe that early environment, attachments, experiences etc. don't constrain us in any way?
There is always a little bit of wiggly room for free will, but less so if you have a broken brain.
Are people really stupid enough to think that the events around them and those that preceded their birth have nothing to do with how they turn out? That their genes and parents and where they were born are just not relevant to any way they end up? That their environment is just this inert thing that exists without interacting with them whatsoever?
What a fucking joke.
Wanna be my sufficiently deterministic bf?
>are you gay?
Sort of. I actually prefer girls, but I'd date a boy if he was cute and cool enough.
i too enjoy being inundated with overwhelming thoughts and feels of violence, paranoia, and irrationality
>if I just think hard enough all the neural connections and chemical behaviors of my brain can be rewritten and altered to adequately correct all dysfunction
if only people weren't trying to stab me everywhere I went, that'd help
I wouldn't say everything is my fault
I could had a better childhood and upbringing and that snowballed but yeah you're right at a certain point you can't blame other people for your shortcomings feels good I feel in control
Probably about a year ago, spent fucking ages blaming everything apart from myself. Took some responsibility, realised that any issues I had could be relatively easily resolved, and have been making steady progress forward since then.
It's definitely more depressing at points having to take responsibility for when shit goes wrong, but doing that and making conscious effort to improve on that is really quite liberating, makes failure feel less like failure, and makes it less likely I will next time.
People here like to blame fucking everything on "muh genetics" or "muh early childhood"without any real knowledge of them (unless you have a crippling genetic disorder, your genetics aren't at fault, and it's entirely possible for an individual to change their personality or reduce flaws at any point throughout their lives), because it's just simpler to go "not my fault" and never deal with the the idea that they're the only reason they're continuously failing in life.
Damn anon, are you the victim of a political assassination? Even with that example though, the obvious reaction is that you shouldn't become the fucking president if you aren't willing to take the risk of being the number one most endangered person in America.
Date someone on your level, being unattractive or slightly under the average height (genetically cursed is like <5'3) is the pettiest fucking thing to call a genetic curse ever, nearly 85%(possibly slightly more) of the population is <6', which I assume you're counting as being short.
Yeah, that's exactly what happened anon, JFK was just the victim of a random shooting, and totally not a targeted attack on the president of the US as a result of his policies.
Overly simplifying an argument to the point where it suits your view is a fallacy anon.
Nearly everything in our lives is a result of an action we took. This doesn't mean that it's impossible for something external to influence you, but the extent to which it does so (excluding fucking murder, which is a stupid point seeing as you're not dead) is nearly entirely dependent on your actions.
You can't exactly, but it's definitely possible to get a basic idea. Your level means more "who are you generally around?", as well as the obvious not expecting super attractive people to throw themselves at you if you don't have an exceptional feature of your own.
I wonder if this is the kind of guy who could successfully pull off "bad breath game" (it's a thing I read about on a pickup artist site--they said that if you look really hot and are an "alpha male", bad breath makes you even more attractive to women because it shows a devil-may-care dominant attitude that the ladies love).
That is easily one of the stupidest thing I ever heard. What the fuck is wrong with you people?
It's like you don't even consider the fact that people (yes, even including women) are capable of thinking for themselves. Sure, some people might think like that, but they're retarded and are worth avoiding.
Eh, my life is pretty good desu senpai
Sure, I don't have many friends or get out much. I haven't been laid in God knows how long, but I never put myself out there, so it's not like I failed at that or anything.
I don't have any regrets. Regrets are stupid. And so is chasing bullshit desires.
Deciding to go back to education after two years of suffering from psychotic depression with an addiction to benzo's is a pretty big one I'd say.
Or maybe deciding to leave a codependent relationship before I got dragged back into the cycle I was stuck in for ages?
Or even shit as simple as not chasing after someone I found attractive because I had better shit to focus on.
But to be clear, do you seriously think we lose our free will when we're influenced by something else? That we're incapable of seeing something and going "Wow, that looks great, not for me though"? Can I get some idea what definition beyond "Choice made of your own volition" you have for free will?
Because you can't go "if you have absolutely any exposure to anything ever you have no free will, therefore I have no ability to improve the hand I'm dealt in life due to my lack of ability to truly make decisions". There's absolutely nothing to support that apart from you saying it.
>When did you realize your problems are your own and not caused by anyone else?
Wow, that's pretty general.
Took me less than five seconds to think of this:
A gang of thugs bust down your front door and remove your limbs.
"Boy, it sucks being a torso."
"ur porblemrs r curasersd bi u n nohbahuuody esle huuuutrrrrrr"
A hypothetical situation that has nearly no chance of happening to anyone ever, and doesn't apply to you isn't an argument anon.
It's like going "gravity is a force that causes objects unsupported to fall towards the earths center", and arguing that with "Well gee but what if there was a planet that had gravity that made things move away from the center of the planet?" or any of other examples.
Speak in the real world, don't take shit to absurd extremes that are obviously exceptions to the rule.
A meteor strike isn't an argument against the fact that generally we direct our own lives.
>A hypothetical situation that has nearly no chance of happening to anyone ever.
Alright, took me less than five seconds to think of someone breaking into my house and stealing my phone.
>Implying people don't have horrible genetic conditions
>Implying people don't suffer accidents which result in permanent damage
>Implying people aren't born with horrible mental conditions such as schizophrenia or bi-polarism
>Implying molestation, rape, bullying don't occure
>"b-but those don't happen to you!11"
How do you know? If your statement isn't universal, I can count myself among the counter-examples.
>It's like going "gravity is a force that causes objects unsupported to fall towards the earths center", and arguing that with "Well gee but what if there was a planet that had gravity that made things move away from the center of the planet?" or any of other examples.
It's really not though. Gravity is a description of the universe. "You are the cause of ALL OF YOUR PROBLEMS" is a philosophy for simpletons.
You decided to not improve the security on your house. And once again, I've been saying all along that you can't always influence what happens to you entirely, but you can definitely impact how it effects you. Don't buy phones you can't easily replace, for example.
Genetic conditions generally can be handled, as can accidental injuries or mental illnesses. Schizophrenia in particular is easily managed assuming you see a doctor when you start getting negative symptoms to start off with.
And absolutely no philosophical statement is universal, clearly there are exceptions to this statement. Would "Assuming you don't suffer from unmanageable birth defects, you are entirely able to influence your life towards achieving whichever goal you may have in the face of any adversity short of death or having your brain made completely unable to operate on higher levels"?
Seems obvious you can't make an entire philosophical argument in one sentence, and even my last one reads more like safety clauses than arguments as a result of that.
Sure, my point was that listing abstract and incredibly unlikely, though theoretically possible examples doesn't invalidate something we know is true. Gravity was just an example, I'm sure there's better ones. Like saying that "With regular maintenance, you can keep a bike operational near indefinitely" and someone states that "What if someone cuts your bike in half, melts it down and turns it into cans?". Once again, average example, but you get my point. An example where a certain logic may not apply doesn't change the fact that to pretty much anyone alive, you can always improve your circumstances, and are never without the ability to somehow do better, or live better.
>Deciding to go back to education after two years of suffering from psychotic depression with an addiction to benzo's is a pretty big one I'd say.
What caused you to do that?
>Or maybe deciding to leave a codependent relationship before I got dragged back into the cycle I was stuck in for ages?
What caused you to do that?
>Or even shit as simple as not chasing after someone I found attractive because I had better shit to focus on.
So you're saying the fact that you had better shit to focus on CAUSED you to not chase after them.
>But to be clear, do you seriously think we lose our free will when we're influenced by something else?
We don't have it to begin with, but yes, if we're "influenced" by something else, we don't have free will.
Look up the word "influence" in a dictionary and get back to me.
>Because you can't go "if you have absolutely any exposure to anything ever you have no free will,
>therefore I have no ability to improve the hand I'm dealt in life due to my lack of ability to truly make decisions". There's absolutely nothing to support that apart from you saying it.
No. I didn't say that, and it doesn't follow from anything I did say. You're conflating free will skepticism with fatalism.
You can improve your present circumstances if the current circumstances (including your mind state) compel improvement.
We're hedonic machines. Basically all we ever do is try to improve our current circumstances in some way or another. Even when we do stupid shit, it's in a misguided attempt to improve things somehow.
Yeah, I'm not going to argue with you when you're claiming that free will means you're making decisions for absolutely no reason. Free will doesn't mean you have no influences on what you're doing.
Free will is the ability to act on our own volition, by our own discretion without the constraints of necessity. Making random decisions is not free will, it's just random choices.
In my case, the decision to pursue a harder path in order to escape a situation that made me miserable is not proof of my lack of free will. I decided to do that, no-one made me, and that's what free will means.
>Yeah, I'm not going to argue with you when you're claiming that free will means you're making decisions for absolutely no reason.
Then what does it mean? If everything happens for a reason (which is to say, everything is caused), then everything is determined.
>Free will doesn't mean you have no influences on what you're doing.
What does it even mean for "you to influence what you are doing"?
If you want to eat a cookie but you don't because you don't want to be seen as greedy or gluttonous, that just means you're following the hedonic imperative. If your desire to not be seen as gluttonous weren't there and you still wanted to eat the cookie, presumably you'd eat it unless there were some other cause compelling you not to.
>Free will is the ability to act on our own volition, by our own discretion without the constraints of necessity. Making random decisions is not free will, it's just random choices.
Let me get this straight.
If something happens by necessity, it didn't happen by "free will". Agree with you there.
If things happen randomly or without cause, those things can't be caused by "free will" either. Agree with you there, too.
So what's left?
Either everything happens by necessity (as it was determined by the state of things the moment before, and everything that moment was determined by the previous moment, and so on), or some things happen randomly or without cause, randomly, and those things can't be caused by free will either.
So neither of those allow for "free will".
What else is there?
>In my case, the decision to pursue a harder path in order to escape a situation that made me miserable is not proof of my lack of free will.
It's a great example of you following the hedonic imperative.
>I decided to do that, no-one made me, and that's what free will means.
What are "you" other than the product of your genetics and environment?
>get shot by gunman out of no where
It was your destiny.
Okay, glad we're actually discussing this at this point.
>Either everything happens by necessity (as it was determined by the state of things the moment before, and everything that moment was determined by the previous moment, and so on), or some things happen randomly or without cause, randomly, and those things can't be caused by free will either.
This is where we disagree. Necessity is things where you have absolutely no choice about whether you do them. Breathing is a necessity, you can't voluntarily not breathe, your body will just force you to. Same with your heart beating or other things of that nature, you can't choose not to do those.
You're absolutely able to choose to not work a job, however, or not live in a house. Those are not things you're forced to do somehow, you can choose those at any point (even if they may not be the best decisions).
Necessity doesn't mean "something you saw made you think, and via your individual thought you came to the conclusion you wanted to do something". You're still choosing to do that thing, and are not forced to, even if you may be influenced by something you saw.
>It's a great example of you following the hedonic imperative.
While I hadn't heard of the hedonic imperative (and admittedly, I'm only seeing one kind of average source really talking about it), I'll argue your point. You're arguing I'm choosing that path of least resistance, correct? One that maximises pleasure and minimises pain? And that all humans will do that?
Because that doesn't hold up under examination. People constantly make decisions that long term result in more pain, such as those who abuse drugs (my past self, for example). According to what I'm seeing about the hedonic imperative, it should be literally impossible for an individual to make any sort of self destructive choice, due to their lack of free will. Yet they still clearly do.
Free will can't be argued against by saying "generally people will choose the happiest option
If she was wearing an obviously provocative dress and put herself in a dangerous situation, you better fucking bet I would. You can absolutely minimise the risk of being sexually assaulted in that manner.
>You're absolutely able to choose to not work a job, however, or not live in a house.
How do you know that the laws of physics allow for those to be real possibilities?
>Necessity doesn't mean "something you saw made you think, and via your individual thought you came to the conclusion you wanted to do something".
Necessity in this kind of discussion normally means that things inherently follow from prior states.
>You're still choosing to do that thing, and are not forced to
You seem to be claiming that I can act contrary to the laws of physics and my brain state. There's no evidence that this is the case.
>even if you may be influenced by something you saw.
What is "influence"? Merriam-Webster defines it thusly
>the act or power of producing an effect without apparent exertion of force or direct exercise of command
>the power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways : sway
I don't see how "influence" is distinct from "compel" in any way that matters. No, I didn't post all the definitions of "influence", but those are the definitions relevant to the discussion at hand. If you want to look at the other definitions, feel free.
>You're arguing I'm choosing that path of least resistance, correct?
That wouldn't necessarily be accurate. Sometimes people are compelled by the hedonic imperative to undergo trials because they're under the impression that undergoing those trials will lead to the good.
I'll try and address the rest of your post in my next comment because I'm getting close to the character limit. If I don't actually reply (it's very late and I might fall asleep), my apologies. If you want to continue this discussion at some point, call me out in another thread relating to free will and I'll probably remember this discussion.
>How do you know that the laws of physics allow for those to be real possibilities?
What? Because people choose those all the time maybe?
>Necessity in this kind of discussion normally means that things inherently follow from prior states.
Fair enough, and you're right, I should have clarified, in this case, view necessity as having literally no options, and only being able to follow one path.
>There's no evidence that this is the case.
Of course there is. People constantly act in ways different to you, despite you being biologically nearly the exact same. Are you arguing that because you have not yet made a different decision to the one you're constantly making (as in, you can't exist in 2 presents at once), you can never deviate from the path you're currently on? How does that even make any sense, logically, they're not even related.
>I don't see how "influence" is distinct from "compel" in any way that matters
Because compulsion implies that you are unable to choose differently. You can always choose something different to the decisions your influences have told you is best for you, rebelling against your family is an example of this. Nothing in your life suggests this is something you should do, your influences all point to the contrary.
>they're under the impression that undergoing those trials will lead to the good.
I'd disagree, this is too large an assumption to make. Self-destruction does not necessarily lead to any good, long term. Injecting heroin is not seen a trial, nor is continuing to exist as a junkie. It's simply a refusal to better your life despite the myriad opportunities for you to do so.
And yeah, that's fine, I had to cut mine short too. Good to have any discussion above "Fuck you normies get out chad reeee" or just assertions of facts with no logic behind them on this board.
>Had no parents to buy me food since i was 12
>Had nowhere to live and function like the rest of my peers since i was 15
>hurr durr all ur prublemz are caused by urself
I agree to small extent. I am responsible for what i did (or rather didnt) do since i turned 18. Kinda hard to do anything with no money, no family and no place to live though. Thank god for my gf who took me in when i was 17