Anyone who touches grass knows that the common connotation is that affirmative steps have been taken. In this context, those steps take the form of graduate level courses

What you call a “shortcut” merely describes a model.

You accuse me of using YouTube knowledge, but I’m pursuing a masters in philosophy while you’re here saying “yes but have you considered that the mind uses schemas to process information”. Nobody doubted that and only someone who learned psychology on YouTube would think this is insightful

This is already a metaphysical position lol

The existence of anything metaphysical is implied by the existence of anything

This does not address anything I said.

The fact that your brain interprets sensory data does not tell us about what the affect of aestheticism has on your view of art (in fact, the latter presupposes the former). It’s like if I made a comment about literature, and you pointed out “well your eyes take in light, you know”.

If you “looked into psychology”, you’d understand that cognitive behavioral therapy, for instance, involves altering mental models which results in altered perceptions.

I don’t like how you act like this is some uncontrollable thing happening in the brain, and not the result of cultural attitudes about art and morality. If someone reads and internalizes the aesthetic ideas of Susan Sontag, Harold Bloom, and Oscar Wilde then they will approach works of art from “problematic” artists much differently

> do you really think this is how the majority of people think about “self”?

No existentialist in the history of philosophy has held that most people are existentialists.

I didn’t mean the self was entirely relational, i said the essence can be found in relations. no existentialist would say that the self is defined by its relations, the self is defined by values — but obviously relations and values will interact, and for a Christian existentialist like Kierkegaard examination of your most important relationship will reveal a an agapic love which underlies the Christian’s existence

But even if I did hold that the self is entirely relational, you’d still need the self because without it, what are other people in relation with if not some particular “I”? A wife might be disappointed to discover she’s not actually married to anyone in particular!

Nazis Are absolutely about caring for others, acting in service of your volk is the most honorable ways to act. They weren’t interested in American b style individualism, but rather a particular group identity

You also only address the most shape conception of the self, but the existentialists (especially Kierkegaard) remind us that the essence of the self is found in your relationships and love for others. The development of the self comes first, they say, but who are you if not someone who does good for the people they love? In this conception of the self, selfishness results in the loss of the very self it aimed to improve

You know I think we actually agree on a lot here, to the point that I’m not sure we disagree on much. I definitely agree that “free will vs determinism” reflects and promotes a confusion about the notion of freedom, the only thing I’m struggling how you’re not a compatibilist — “free will is real but not how you think” is still a way of believing free will is real!

What’s bothering me here is that the statement that “‘certainly decisions are made by freely acting entities’ but nonetheless, free will doesn’t exist” seems to imply as confusing a notion of free will as any.

I think you and I are actually pretty close in what we think is going on, we just disagree about what “free will” is. I do not think free will describes anything about the likelihood of a given decision, but rather the mechanism by which it came to be. If I make the decision to hug my mom instead of punching her 100% of the time, I would say I’m more free than a scenario where whether I give my mom a hug or a punch is not predictable (I say this because sometimes I hear free will libertarians say they are free because their behavior is unpredictable, which is strange to me).

So if an event occurs because my self existed (in whatever sense it does exist) to order things in that way, then I’m satisfied I made that decision freely. I believe this is a pretty mainstream position among compatibilists.

Perhaps you’re thinking “this is such a strange understanding of freedom”, but I think the stranger understanding is the one where freedom requires power over the movement of atoms in the Big Bang

Okay, I can work with that.

I think a problem here is that saying that free will is phenomenal is not the same as saying it’s “illusory” or not real. Phenomena is real, it’s just real as phenomena and not as noumena. Space, time, and causation are also “merely” phenomenal, but I don’t think we’re going to deny that they therefore don’t exist. If free will turned out to be “as real” as cause and effect, then I think almost just about any believer in free will would feel vindicated.

What set of philosophers are you defining that leads you to your conclusion?

Not a gotcha, just trying to understand your position.

Are there events that occur which require me as an agent to affect them? If yes, then there is free will, if not, there is neither free will nor me

I literally have no idea what this means

It’s not actually contradictory, either. You can think someone’s ideas have or could have a negative effect on society even if they don’t intend for that

Yes