u/Other_Attention_2382

As Nietzsche and Russell strongly believed was the case.

If Compatibilism does not argue that we do not create our base desires and character then what about the origins of moral responsibility itself and how by definition everyone had absorbed them through environment whether we like it or not.

You could say Dennett has an optimistic view on human nature compared to Russell and Nietzsche's skeptisim, but based on what exactly?

Everlasting punishment in hell doesn't sound very moral.

Was even the ridiculous blood letting connected to morality?

"Under the influence of the Catholic Church, physical disease was frequently conflated with sin and moral corruption. Purging the body via bloodletting was equated with spiritual purification—literally draining away "corruption" or "badness" from the flesh"

Well thank fock science put the brakes on that.

"Wherever responsibilities are sought, it is usually the instinct of wanting to judge and punish which is at work. ...the doctrine of the will has been invented essentially for the purpose of punishment, that is, because one wanted to impute guilt. ... Men were thought of as 'free' so that they could be judged and punished—so that they could become guilty." Nietzsche

"Those eager to punish are driven by malice, not justice. They mask their cruelty as morality." Nietzsche

If concepts like free will and moral responsibility were explicitly invented by priests and moralists so that people could be judged as "guilty" and this gave society a legal and moral mandate to unleash cruelty (via punishment, shaming, and hellfire) onto others with a completely clean, self-righteous conscience, then does compatabilism and moral responsibility revolve around an optimism about human institutions and self regulation that created blood letting and eternal damnation that itself created a feedback loop of dysfunction and a kind of generational trauma over decades?

Nietzsche argued that the concept of free will was manufactured by the ruling priestly class to make mankind "guilty" and punishable.

If we look at history through this lens, the evolution of Compatabilism ​ and modern moral responsibility​ can be viewed as an attempt to use a system that was originally built on domination and generational trauma.

If free will was invented to make humanity "guilty" so that power structures could unleash cruelty with a clean conscience then why look to society's version of moral responsibility that invented eternal damnation in Hell and bloodletting?

Was Compatabilism and moral responsibility really born from the "we" or more from the select and the chosen "we"?

That if freewill and moral responsibility itself was born out of a desire to inflict cruelty with a clean conscience then Compatabilism itself could be accused of causing the seperation it says it tries to irradicate.

Peace ✌️

A life long Compatabilist commits physical assault and after the action believes he could have chosen otherwise through acting on internal desires without external coercion (in a hypothetical or conditional sense).

Psychologically COULD he somewhat get a pass on guilt and shame about the incident compared to a freewill believer because he acted out of the same determinism hard determinism uses, or should he base his actions on social psychology?

They must base their understanding of guilt and shame on social psychology.

On paper, from a psychological and sociological standpoint, a Compatibilist does not get a pass on guilt and shame, and in many ways, they may experience these emotions even more acutely than a libertarian freewill believer.

Does this highlight Hard Determinism and Compatabilism are talking about things through different lenses?

From a Determinism perspective that moral responsibility itself fosters guilt, shame and retribution.

That forcing an unnatural, dogmatic code of moral responsibility onto children fills their subconscious minds with intense guilt and shame from the off. Think the famous still today Catholic guilt and​ the original Calvanist non meritocracy and every part of human nature is corrupted by sin. Total Depravity >>> To modern day Meritocracy.

Compatibilism assumes a clean, vacuum-sealed environment where an adult acts on "their" desires. But social psychology shows us that desires are never clean, they are deeply contaminated by early conditioning.

Acting on internal desires (unconsciously built in guilt and shame to those very desires) without external coercion skips the ultimate source of guilt and shame?

The Compatabilist functional tools of guilt and shame vs the psychological toll of guilt and shame - Hard Determinism.

That the compatibilist framework often traps the individual in a more acute cycle of psychological distress than libertarian free will or hard determinism.

Social alignment vs the ultimate source of behaviour.

Acting on internal desires skips the ultimate source part.

Hands together now ;

Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya...

By Determinism definition everyone on here has different experiences and so different biased perceptions based on experience.

Compatabilism, Hard Determinism and Non Duality agree that thoughts appear like bubbles and we are only AWARE of them after they happen.

Compatabilism, Hard Determinism, Non Duality, and Eastern philosophy and modern science all agree with Hume's fleeting bundle of perceptions self self.

So thoughts appear like bubbles without our permission to form a fleeting bubble of perceptions self made by experiences we didn't choose.

Physicalism claims that awareness is just a temporary byproduct of brain tissue. Non-duality claims that awareness is the fundamental, primary reality in which everything, including the physical brain, appears.

If we all agree we are largely the product of our experiences and environment is the decision to "choose" a temporary byproduct of brain tissue view over consciousness is primary, as much an emtional decision as anything else given how little we actually understand about consciousness?

And do the mystics kind of have a point regarding logic and science hits a wall regarding how important it is seing as consciousness is a kind of complete mystery to the experiential non self made smart and the dumb?

If we are all the product of experience does it kind of make thoughts themselves kind of prejudiced dumb or rather....overated irrelevant bubbles appearing in consciousness?

The irony of non-duality is that it actually levels the playing field completely. If there is no "self made" self, what is left?

Science and formal logic are dualistic by nature. Subject >> Object. Capitalism is subject object based. Compatabilism fits capitalism's subject object base and holds onto a self made self by its fingernails. (Ducks bun thrown at head)

Psychology says our "characters" are largely made up of coping mechanisms. It could be argued even psychology itself is a coping mechanism. The Calvanists needed one. From the God of the wheel of Fortuna to the God of preserving Meritocracy itself today.

The great Christopher Hitchen's went after religion but how much was that driven and influenced by the logic of him analysing his mother's suicide pact with a failed clergyman?

Richard Dawkins famous atheism and focus on "Truth" whilst admitting consciousness is kind of a mystery.

But if consciousness is a mystery then does a mystery kind of naturally lead to mysticism making sense as much as logic?

Physicalism + non duality kind of go against compatibilism from a science and experiential perspective awareness is what remains when you realize an independent, separate self does not exist.Then why choose psychicalism over awareness itself?

Psychicalism reinforces awareness itself being our real "identity" and awareness reinforces hard determinism.

Compatabilism and Hard Determinism could be seen as talking about two different subjects and never the twain shall meet.

Compatibilism talks about the Social/Psychological subject.

Hard Determinism talks about the Ontological subject.

Awareness itself tells you there is no self made you? Science backs it up.

Should we focus on our identity being a product of our experiences or the awareness itself?

Hard Determinism and non duality are two sides of the same coin. Compatibilism is just a description of how the content of the coin behaves in a social matrix. It has nothing to say about the metal the coin is actually made of.

Capitalism, meritocracy, and even compatabilist legal frameworks rely on the myth of the self made person that science and experiential inward focus tells us isn't there.

Aka illusionism.

If you as a Compatabilist even just kind of agree with Spinoza that true freedom comes from understanding everything happens out of nessisity to come to what is often considered the highest form of Ethics in Spinoza's philosophy.

Then is the average person that is ignorant of causation at an unfair advantage to the classical compatabilist?

Classical compatibilism holds both people equally morally accountable for their actions, even though the ignorant person never stood a chance at genuine self directed freedom.

IF true freedom requires a deep, philosophical understanding of causal necessity, then moral responsibility is no longer about "good will." It becomes an intellectual privilege.

Does this expose a fake baseline of freedom which could align with Strawson's Basic Argument where you cannot choose your base character and go behind yourself?

So does Classical physics based Compatabilism assume a kind of functional inner psychologist that they came across by good fortune?

Hume and Bertrand Russell are often viewed as not believing in strict causation with their "Psychological projection" and "casual lines" which possibly allows for a kind of inner psychologist? Buy hasn't science moved on from that?

On the one hand hard physics says we are a product of our experiences and genetics so there is no real self, and on the other I am no different in my intellectual understanding capability to a well educated philosopher?

The capitalist meritocratic system requires praise and blame to function which you could say is part of the average persons "intellectual understanding" through the cause and effect that we all believe in on here. We have all been conditioned to believe in moral responsibility not the completely bonkers "everything happens out of nessisity".

Its why Spinoza was completely ostracised. The average person thinks no free will is bonkers. Are they at an advantage In their ignorance?

I mean whadafuq?

✌️ Peace

If everyone agrees that building a healthy sense of a self is necessary for a child then could you view this as natural progression for people who accept hard determinism as reality : Childhood - Strengthen the ego >>> Hard Determinism - Accept the causal chain >>> Non duality -Transcend the ego?

How do you look at Freud's view on the ego and self vs Modern psychology and Non Duality and how its relates to capitalism with its reliance on meritocracy?

Is a Dzogchen monk isolated from the concerns of a Freud's psychological necessity ego? What boundaries does a Dzogchen monk have to form in a monastery?

Does modern psychology want to hold onto praise, blame and hope?

Sigmund Freud did not believe in transcending the ego. Instead, his psychoanalytic theory explicitly prioritized strengthening the ego so it could better manage the psychological conflicts of daily life.

"Freud would fundamentally disagree with Dzogchen. He viewed a distinct, isolated self not as a delusion to overcome, but as a hard-won psychological necessity"

"Freud viewed the human condition as inherently split and conflict-ridden. He famously remarked that the goal of psychoanalysis was merely to transform "hysterical misery into common unhappiness"—a stark contrast to the absolute liberation taught in Dzogchen"

"Modern psychology sits right in the middle. It values a strong ego for daily functioning, but increasingly validates the Dzogchen view through neuroscience, relational psychology, and existential therapy"

Has science gradually moved more away from Freud's views on this?

Too different and great in their own ways to choose which one is better?

How much does Hume's "Reason is slave to the passions" and reason cannot make us care or act, say about "consciousness".

From a purely logical standpoint, no amount of factual data inherently contains a command to do anything.

Modern science and psychology seem to strongly support Hume's : "Fleeing bundle of perceptions self".

Eastern philosophy and Hard Determinism seem to quite align on the self and ego.

• "Buddhism teaches "Anatta," meaning there is no permanent self, only a continuous stream of changing mental and physical states"
• "Hard determinism states that all actions follow past events and physical laws, leaving no room for a truly independent ego".

Hume would likely agree with key aspects of Buddhism regarding the nature of consciousness and the self? Both independently arrived at a similar "bundle" view that rejects an unchanging, permanent soul.

If we are basically primarily survival machines and to be conscious is to first experience states as good or bad, threatening or inviting, then how much does memory and experience play in consciousness?

What good is awareness if you are being water boarded, etc? Disassociation over awareness?

If Modern hard determinism views The Will as a product of physical, biological, and social causal chains rather than a purely innate metaphysical force. This materialist reframing strips away metaphysical pessimism, potentially aligning Schopenhauer's thoughts closer in reach to the non-duality he was so fond of?

Is it his view on The Will that keeps the pessimism in place?

Or is his pessimism a better description of reality?

Hitler. Bless him. Rough childhood, failed at art school, targeted minorities.

When Stalin's son was captured he was rumoured to prefer his son to be executed and die with honour.

The Roman Empire built a society heavily focused on status, class division, and civic elitism.

Good vs Evil = seperation.

Praise and blame creates a barrier to Hitler understanding his chain of cause and effect.

Everything we learn is from others or brain states and experiences we had no choice in creating.

Peace to the evil believers. ✌️

The idea of the school seemed to be a kind of experiment to see how the children would evolve without strict rule, dogma, so you could say without external coercion.

The school experiment looked like it might have turned into something like The Lord of the flies, but without the murder.

His daughter who went to the school said the experiment affected her, and she even turned to Christianity which is kind of funny considering her fathers view on religious dogma. It seems she felt she needed rules and structure in her early life.

The son who also attended suffered alot later on with schizophrenia etc.

Although I guess in a way they kind of had to follow their fathers rules of no rules.

Does any of this align with Galen Strawson's Basic Argument? : Problem children arriving at the school with internal desires they didn't form combined with no external coercion?

Or would you say it highlights children need to understand consequences? Like sheep that need to be guided.

The idea of the school seemed to be a kind of experiment to see how the children would evolve without strict rule, dogma, so you could say without external coercion.

The school experiment looked like it might have turned into something like The Lord of the flies, but without the murder.

His daughter who went to the school said the experiment affected her, and she even turned to Christianity which is kind of funny considering her fathers view on religious dogma. It seems she felt she needed rules and structure in her early life.

The son who also attended suffered alot later on with schizophrenia etc.

Although I guess in a way they kind of had to follow their fathers rules of no rules.

Does any of this align with Galen Strawson's Basic Argument? : Problem children arriving at the school with internal desires they didn't form combined with no external coercion?

Or would you say it highlights children need to understand consequences? Like sheep that need to be guided.

If Hard Determinism + A block universe is reality then does one need to make assumptions and essentially a leap of faith of what is this mystical thing around us is?

Or is the leap of faith what it's about?

If Hard Derminism is similar to Rupert Spira with regards to freewill and the self, but also has the heavy weight of science behind it why do people choose to prefer mysticism over stuff that is heavily science backed by people like Einstein?

Hard Determinism essentially means there is no freewill and seperation from others. Rupert Spira thinks there is no freewill and no seperation.

What makes someone like Einstein find comfort in cold Hard indifferent Hard Determinism vs someone finding comfort in mysticism?

In everyday life, we do not inspect our minds to "find" a desire before we act, rather, our desires are manifested in the actions themselves.

Acting from a childhood base of "Bundle of fleeting perceptions" "Reason is slave to the passions" self you did not author. Because the mind is a bundle of passing perceptions and passions, your current desires arise from past causes outside your control.

Meaning free will and basic desert do not exist?

"Hume suffered from what 18th-century physicians called the "Disease of the Learned"—a severe nervous breakdown characterized by depression, intense anxiety, listlessness, and psychosomatic symptoms. This breakdown was triggered directly by his obsessive, isolated philosophical brooding.

Connecting his breakdown to his theory of "acting on internal desires without external coercion" ;

He seemed to possibly believe that humans are completely ignorant of their ultimate nature, and his view on freedom could be seen to be more on the lines of something like : We are biological machines driven entirely by internal impulses, and the best we can hope for is that external forces don't get in our way?

If you put it together with his "Reason is slave to the passions" and "Bundle of fleeting perceptions self", then could you view him as having a very pessimistic view of freedom?

So for Hume maybe the compatabilist "Acting on internal desires without external coercion" actually means : internal desires are entirely determined by prior causes outside of our control?

For many "acting on internal desires without external coercion" could be interpreted to mean being judged on your most recent bundle of perceptions self, but what Hume actually meant was : acting without external coercion does not mean your choices come from a vacuum or a chaotic bundle of thoughts. It means your actions flow predictably and naturally from your fully determined internal character and desires?

A sort of strict causation meets practical psychology.

Maybe Galen Strawson who is seemed to be sn expert on Hume, go's into this in his book on Hume? And I'm guessing it inspired his Basic Argument?

Aka, something acts on their internals through an indifferent inevitible external coercion/fate?

Surely someone becoming a psychopath is either/or/and a result of genetics, trauma, or biology and brain damage.

No choice involved in any of that.

Kind of Hard fate whether one ends up an empath or a psychopath?

What seperates Charles Whitman's brain and actions from the psychopath regarding free choice?

Whitman remained fully conscious and painfully aware that his thoughts were abnormal.

Does it suggest that conscious self-awareness and the neural circuits for impulse regulation operate via different pathways?

Are the psychopaths internal desires entirely shaped by external coercion? So Compatabilism is at best a necessary psychological functioning illusion built for society to handle hard fate?

If the Grandaddy of modern Compatabilism Thomas Hobbes strongly believed in God's absolute omnipotence and a deterministic view of the universe akin to predestination or hard necessity, i'd say Charles Whitman's suicide note might agree with that, except he would likely swap God for indifferent Hard determined fate, and reject the choice enabled concept of Good vs Evil that allows him to be branded as Evil.

Compatabilism originated in ancient Greco-Roman philosophy to reconcile fate with human moral agency in a time when you couldnt escape a belief in fate. Leaving no choice but to re-define freedom.

Nobody chooses their most important cultural norms base - their upbringing.

Nobody gets to decide to choose empathy over psychopathy after those first "cultural norms".

If Compatibilism can look at 1st and 2nd order desires, you could also look at 1st and secondary cultural norms. John Wayne Gacy's childhood cultural norms could be seen to make him have a hard determined view of state cultural norms. A determined rage against secondary cultural norms. The clown suit represents 1st cultural norms and the killings represents the projection onto secondary cultural norms.

1st order cultural norms are far more powerful than secondary cultural norms.

If Marty Mcfly went back in time and killed Hitler as a baby everyone would be labelling it as morally responsible.

Compatibilism can be seen as Top down. Capitalism relies on praise and blame/meritocracy. Calvanism gave power to the state and the self. The justice system is built on praise and blame, etc.

Believing in good vs evil, us vs them keeps Satan worship alive.

Nobody chooses their Psychological foundations and first cultural norms.

Nobody suddenly chooses to be an empath or a psychopath.

Nobody chooses their desires and thoughts or mental illness.

Nobody chooses to rage against society.

✌️ Peace

Would Compatabilist's agree with this description of Compatabilism? ;

If our most primal instinct and biggest drive is protecting the "self", Compatabilist's believe we should be judged by that self even if that self is an illusion (and they believe possibly a necessary illusion to function in society)?

Compatabilism as a sort of re-definition of freedom that allows it to sit between the scientific lean towards science backed fatalism and meaningless of existence in an indifferent universe VS evolutionary self serving drive?

And "Reason is slave to the passions". Reason cannot make you care or act. So evolutionary drives drive an individual's reasoning.

A sort of meeting halfway between the cold indifferent hard facts of science and a universal biological drive to identify as an autonomous self serving self?

If Hard Determinists and Compatabilist's largely agree reason is slave to the passions then those passions need a re-definition of freedom for society?

So Compatabilism could be seen as navigating Psychological evolutionary savage drive reality with metaphysical nessisity reality?

We might be fully determined but that doesn't stop us being driven by another invisible force that tells us we are not for survival?

If strict causation Compatabilism believes in the same fate that a Hard Determinist does, then they both essentially believe our lives are pre-determined. That the way we die has already been determined.

Compatabilism re-defines freedom to keep moral responsibility.

The founders of Compatabilism, the stoics believed is a devine fate.

What seperates modern psychology from the likes of Sapolsky and Sam Harris?

Spinoza believed that understanding everything happens out of nessisity gives the only freedom worth caring about as it seperates passive emotions from active emotions.

What seperates Modern psychology from the above?

Would society adopting Hard Determinism be healthy considering we might be hardwired to believe we are in control?

If strict causation Compatabilism believes in the same fate that a Hard Determinist does, then they both essentially believe our lives are pre-determined. That the way we die has already been determined.

Compatabilism re-defines freedom to keep moral responsibility.

The founders of Compatabilism, the stoics believed is a devine fate.

What seperates modern psychology from the likes of Sapolsky and Sam Harris?

Spinoza believed that understanding everything happens out of nessisity gives the only freedom worth caring about as it seperates passive emotions from active emotions.

What seperates Modern psychology from the above?