Report Blog Entry
I don't really know shit about fuck, I just wrote this because some libertarians are annoying when they judge people in unfavorable conditions. Hmu if you see errors/inconsistencies.
When we attack people's choices it's important to have in mind a philosophical position when it comes to free will.
-Determinism = Cause & Effect is all there is, the whole world it's a series of causes and effects.
-Free Will = Free choice is possible independent of external factors.
Let's analyze how thought is possible.
Leaving aside the neuronal processes necessary, thoughts are dependent on external stimuli, our sense organs and their function.
The content of our thoughts is formed by the things we perceive with our sense organs, we can only think in the parameters we experience(smells, images, sounds, textures, taste).
So even at this fundamental step of analysis, we can't step out of our parameters, we can't imagine a new color for example. - we are limited to the elements we have access to.
I will be talking about children, not teens or adults:
As we grow up we observe and learn the elements, but because we are humans, things can impact us a certain way and therefore cause us to add layers of judgment. This ability to add layers of judgment allows us to view the world through symbols, when you were little your mom wasn't just "another person", you might have seen her as a pillar to your existence and well-being, therefore if there's someone a kid might trust during his/her development years, it's his/her caretakers, the kid builds the foundation of his/her judgments values based on how his/her caretakers react to external stimuli. After some time the kid has to socialize and therefore will be part of a "social group", the type of "social group" the kid is in it's dependent on the needs he/she has and whether or not he/she has access to it. The kid's self-image is dependent on the group's reaction to him/her.
So now we see how the caretakers and the social group the kid grows in affects his/her judgment of other things (what is good/what is bad based on how my caretakers react to the specific thing),(am I good or bad based on the feedback I receive from the group).
When the kid grows older he/she has a foundation of what is good/bad but can still be influenced by other people based on how he/she sees those people. The kid will be more likely to trust and take new advice from a person that is compatible with his/her value judgments. Even when the kid befriends someone that "apparently" isn't compatible with his/her value judgment, it still is, "that someone" might be really incompatible in certain areas but really compatible in others.
Even as an adult one can change his/her worldview, but it does not happen usually, at least not too drastically and if it does happen, it happens bit by bit, changing the judgment values slowly to another position.
This means that the kid will more likely be similar to other kids in his environment because they had similar access to things for the most part, of course, there are exceptions, but those are not an exception from this hypothesis, the "exceptions" just happened to have access to other elements at other times of their lives that affected them differently.
That means people born in better societies (societies that are skilled at meeting biological/psychological/emotional needs) will be better people (will have the necessary emotional and physical health to pursue their desires).
Now we have to address the "desires" part, the same rule applies, how do you know what you want? Based on the external information you receive, how do you know you want an expensive car? Because you observed how people with expensive cars are treated and you also want to be treated that way. Our desires are shaped by our environment and biology.
Now we can see how upper class, middle class, and lower class people are very different in their worldviews.
The Upper and middle class are more *likely* to believe that their achievements are their merit or magnify it and more *likely* to be blind or underestimate their favorable conditions because it's beneficial to their self-esteem.
Lower-class people are more likely to believe that their lack of achievements is not their merit because it wouldn't be beneficial to their self-esteem.
Now we can also see that we shouldn't judge people in less favorable conditions because there are a lot of factors that influence the human's condition, no human wants to be in a miserable condition (miserable according to the individual's standards).
Comments
Displaying 2 of 2 comments ( View all | Add Comment )
Red Monaca
This is a very interesting write-up. I agree with the broad strokes of your analysis (the way people understand and interact with reality is dependent on and conditioned by the pre-given nature of the reality we're thrown into, and historicity plays a big part in differentiating ourselves with others), but there are some blind spots here I'd recommend you to explore further.
The way you described the emergence of desire is similar to how René Girard explains it: via the compulsion to imitate others. His is certainly a compelling account, although a question that needs asking here is the process by which this happens, of how my desire comes to be dissimilar to others. This question of desire is also one of the questions that psychoanalysis as a discipline rests upon.
The opposition of free will and necessity (or, in your words, determinism) is one of the central problematics of metaphysics, ever since Kant first broached it in his first and second Critiques. There are three positions one can occupy with regard to this question: compatibilism (free will and necessity are compatible with each other), and incompatibilism (and giving favor to either free will or necessity). This is a very thorny and difficult problem, and one that Kant solved... with the help of the figure of God (not the Abrahamic one, but the general, deistic one). Despite that, I'd recommend you to explore the philosophical literature regarding this.
Vice Valentine
Good perspective, I agree depending on how you are raised really affects one’s state of mind. As we grow older and as social media expands we tend to lose ourselves due to the things we see online. The desire to reach more and be more. As adults I feel like we tend to lose our state of mind with unrealistic goals and dreams that are so rare. Although we shouldn’t give up to be better people I think it’s best to be who you are regardless of how you were raised and the influences in your life. As long as you contribute a positive part to this life I think we’ll all be okay.