• SenK@lemmy.caOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Even your counterarguments rest on the assumption that this is true. You suggest that if it’s not a support system they must be “inherently” good or evil, completely ignoring the more likely possibility that there are countless other variables that could factor into what kind of person someone becomes.

    Like what? You have inherent factors (genes) or environment (the support network, “the village that raises the child” etc.).

          • SenK@lemmy.caOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            That’s not how burden of proof works. Just because a lot of people (particularly those with culturally Christian backgrounds…) “believe” it’s real, doesn’t make it so.

              • SenK@lemmy.caOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Dennett is just a determinist who really, really doesn’t want to admit he is one (probably because he’d have to admit he’s wrong and everyone hates doing that, particularly white men at the top of their fields). I’ve read him and watched his debates.

                I said “culturally Christian”. You can’t just shake off the centuries of Christian philosophy that has informed Western thought by just “not believing in God”. One of the symptoms of that specifically is the belief in free will, as Christianity requires there to be some kind of a pure, untarnished essentiality to people that can choose to be evil or good. It’s been hammered into us in media since we were kids, baked into everyday language.

                  • SenK@lemmy.caOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 months ago

                    He’s a compatibilist. Which I admit we can then break down into compatibilist determinist, which is a different thing from a (hard) determinist.

                    Which I characterize as a determinist who really doesn’t want to admit to being one.