As you can probably guess, it was partly to do with that thread that I started this one. Incidentally, I think I was trying to show that "at least" the illusion of free will does exist, even if free will itself doesn't exist. The reason I was discussing it was because I thought it was interesting, although still rather pointless. Where does thinking about free will or whether I exist really get anyone anywhere?
I´m not sure what would qualify for "getting us anywhere". I don´t know what you have in mind as criteria when determining that something gets you somewhere.
With the example of "freewill/choice/free agency" and a lot of concepts that directly depend on this, I do think it makes a great difference in many ways you view the world and your fellow beings.
Fully realizing that there can´t be such a thing as "freewill" has changed my world and my life dramatically (and definitely to the better, I may add). I would count that as getting me somewhere.
I also found it interesting that - while usually the "truth" appears to be the most highly valued goal of our contemplations - I learned that you had no problem working from a concept that you concede is an "illusion". Being a pragmatist myself, I don´t have a problem with that - I just found it surprising.
It prompts the next question (which also could be considered "philosophical", if you will): What is required for you to base your views on something that you know is an "illusion"?
To tell from your strong reaction towards my arguments, it seems to be even a quite important "illusion" for you, maybe even one that you feel you can´t do without.
That´s why the question I have asked you also was even more important than the question whether "freewill" is logically possible:
What do you get out of the idea of "freewill" (IOW: Where does it get you? What would be a good reason for me to adopt it in the way you do?
(I think we better discuss that in the other thread, though. Your last post there as well as a very interesting post from cantata are waiting for a response. I haven´t posted much in the period CF was messed up, but I haven´t forgotten about this thread). Today everything seems to work smoothly.
Well I acknowledge the fact that I might have missed a big point to philosophy in general, considering I have never once studied the subject, so I felt I'd make it quite clear that calling philosophy pointless could be ignorant or idiotic on my part.
Well, being ignorant and being an idiot are two very different things, aren´t they? My dilemma: If thinking of someone as an idiot, I won´t even try to explain what he´s missing. He´s an idiot and can´t understand it, after all.
I do think you are missing something. I don´t think you are an idiot.
Here is a potential explanation: Could it be that you don´t think of those views that you hold as "philosophy", but only of those views that you personally feel are somewhat "off"?
Like: Believing in "freewill" (or the "illusion" thereof) is not philosophy (but rather that which
you find self-suggesting, natural, normal), but denying "freewill" (or questioning the usefulness of this "illusion" is philosophy (because
you find it absurd/off/weird)?
Still though, it all seems rather pointless to me. Virtually any other subject I can see some clear benefits to it, but I really don't see any benefits to a lot of philosophical arguments other than "it is interesting". If that is all there is to it, then fair enough.
To the contrary, I think that philosophy is the way we construct our reality. Our greatest power, our most important tool - with a great practical impact.
Like, if your (not as in "you" personally) philosophy only allows for black and white, there will be no shades of grey and no colours in your world. Our concepts create our reality, and that´s all we have, after all.
