I think the idea of “free will” was raised as more of a reaction to the notion of “determinism,” which I think is also a mystical notion, along with “objective” and “reality,” unless they are defined in a practical way. Practical ways would be “objective: other people agree with me” and “reality: sensations that matter to me over the long term.” (But they are almost never defined this way in philosophy.)
I don’t know about this (and I mean I don’t know if I understand this paragraph) let me further illustrate:
I would say so much as there is communication between two or more people there has to be a use of “rules” that we go by. These “rules” are not mystic principles that govern over us - rther they are the neccessary consequencces of intersubjective dialogue (currency itself may be seen as an example of this) - if the words exist they must be good enough. Problems just arise when people look at these “rules” or words as “things in themselves” and not a consequence of action. The fact that something happened is what makes it necessary, it is not a fact that something will necessarily happen.
In the way I understand Mises: Whatever words he used were just the most convienent at the time. In a way we could call what he described “socialism” (he is after all using the assumtion that all relevant people are social), or whatever - it doesn’t matter. What he is pointing out is there are atomic facts that “push” - if “community”, “nation”, “good” or whatever was real in the sense of a manifest force and not a “word in itself” it would be no more or less of an atomic fact as “I”. It would be an equal propisition - and would act, consume, and will on it’s own and for it’s own as it’s own force just like ever other atomic fact.
To worry about him being an “individualist”, “capitalist”, or whatever is missing the mark - these words are means to an end not things in themselves. Nobody worries when we say an “Oxygen atom wants to fill it’s outer ring” - or when a biologist refers to “greedy reductionism”.
So in terms of something like free will vs determinism: either/or could be right in so much as they are being used correctly and according to the “rules” or what is being talked about - same as a hammer and a saw. In terms as “idealistic” or “mystic” things as themselves, or governing metaphysical principles they are nonsense. Likewise a hammer is a hammer “for our purpose” there is no idealistic “great hammer” out there.
On an amusing note we can even turn idealistic language on it’s head via dielectic to serve a purpose for making sense of things.
But what we can say is, simply, that some words are more useful than others. Especially, some are more clear and less ambiguous than others. When I call a term mystical, I’m calling it a certain type of ambiguous.
I don’t see the point of it being debate. There’s going to be a point in your life when you die, whether there’s free will or not, and you can’t change that. You can change and vary all the things leading up to that point, but once you’re dead you’re dead, and you’re not free to do anything after that.
Well, first, it’s probably better not to concern one’s self with things they can’t change anyway. When I die this life no longer exists, so I better concern my self with one that I know is objectively real than one that there’s no consensus with. Second, what sources do you have from the dead? You a necromancer or something?
First, you are dismissing the possibility of life after death a priori.
Second, I like to keep an open mind. Its rather bold to claim that there is no life after death simply because you assume there is no life after death.
Neither of us could confirm or deny, it’s just a different world view. Mine shifts to a “world affirming” or accepting one from a world denying one, whether you live now and what you do now affects you now, not later, or one where you work for a life after this one.
Do you reject the possibility of an experience that would constitute subjective proof of life after death?
I see your second point as a false dichotomy. And I think it is silly to be dogmatic about something you admit you do not have evidence for or against.
I don’t reject UPG, but it’s nothing to base a foundation on, only for that individual.
I’m not being dogmatic at all, I’m basing it on what I know and can prove as far as I can go. I have no knowledge of an after life, so why alter how I live my earthly life now for some unknown chance at reaching some form of utopia and euphoria when I die? Instead of dwelling and preparing to meet some maker or god at my death I’ll live what’s best for me now, and I’ll suffer the consequences on this earth in this life for any decisions that have negative impacts, not later. Again, it’s just a different world view.
I could take it further on the existence of gods/goddesses and other spirits and so on. Do spiritual beings exist? Maybe, but do people appease said things for luck in life now, or after death? It just depends on where you lay importance, life now, or an unknown life later.
I am sorry if it seems like I am calling you out for what amounts to a religious belief. You just seemed to be making a blanket assertion, not based on evidence, but on the lack thereof. That would be like me saying that the population of australia is zero because I have never seen evidence that people live in australia.
I am not so much concerned with how you life your life but whether you make claims you cannot support. “there is no afterlife” is different than “I have no reason to posit the existence of an afterlife”
it actually all depends on what belief system is under consideration. You cannot make blanket dismissals of characterizations from a state of ignorance and have any confidence in their accuracy.
How am I moving the goalposts? Controlling dreams equates to having your entire perceptual history at your fingertips. It’s as close to a God as I could currently get.
You are talking about little more than using your imagination. That is completely removed from the shared reality of events in the real world.
Unless you also buy into the whole “astral projection” nonsense, lucid dreaming won’t reveal anything that isn’t already in your mind.
That’s true, having an understanding of praxeology will not create information or cause anything to manifest in the real world.
The point was that mentally interacting with only your own thoughts (i.e, lucid dreaming) is not unrestricted action at all - real events occuring in the external world are not experienced or affected by it.