Further musings have made me realised that the previous post on procrastination touches only on a small point of a larger point that could have been discussed, which is about priorities. But as I have always believed, there is a need to ask simpler questions before moving on to deeper ones. So we begin by asking a more basic question like why do we procrastinate, then now we move on to ask: Why do we do things when there are more important things to be done?
On this eve of 3 tutorials 1 lecture 1 test and 1 assignment due (basically all my 5 mods are screwing with me on the same day), I am writing a blogpost. I watched some stupid cooking tv show that was really entertaining. And the tutorial that was supposed to be completed at 10am this morning is still 2 questions away from completion, and I have not touched on my revision on Chinoiserie art. Maybe it is just that I am less afraid of bad results this semester, maybe I am unknowingly prepared subconsciously and therefore do not feel tense about tomorrow. I do not know.
But the point here, IS, I have no idea why am I doing what I am doing. Which part of my free will is determining the order of priority for things to be done? If again like procrastination it is determined by some chemicals in the brain or our subconscious that we cannot control, then is that free will at all?
I can only propose 2 answers to this query as of now, both of which I do not have proper explanation for. It is just an intuition, I guess (again, where does this thought come from?).
1. The brain is reasoning out procrastinating and the ranking of priorities so fast that we do not realise it. We are making the decision but we do not know the process and simply have the answer - intuition - like how we know 1+1=2 without actually doing the calculation, simply because the process has been done to death before. And like the 1+1=2 equation, most of us do not care why it is so but simply what is the answer, just like our brains when processing some of our thoughts.
2. What I have been saying so far about logic - as in the logic in logical free will - is but a construct. Logic itself is controlled by morals, experience and generally whatever our environment has taught and shaped us, and therefore to be "logical" socially is to be illogical theoretically. Logic therefore has no correlation with free will in this sense.
More things to write in the future:
1. The new argument for hedonism seems to be developing in how we think about Ditto, a virtual character in the Pokemon series that spends its day having sex with other creatures of the game until the player gets sick of the game. This seem to add together the oyster and experience machine experiments together. Perhaps I can write a full post on this.
2. I realised the question of the year: When is my mind, mine? has not been explored on this blog before and I really should write about it. Of course after we finish the Vietnam history essay, we must, because that is of higher priority. Or is it not?
3. I really thought I would have something more interesting to write after today's philosophy class, but it turned out to be me talking to myself like a madman in class today. Next week I will be purposely arguing for eating meat and torturing puppies in hope the class reacts and rebut my obviously skewed morals, at least in this society. Will collate some of the replies from there and add them here. Anyway, I'm making two main rebuttal towards Norcorss: Firstly, I argue his view of morals is highly ethnocentric, expecting all to behave like how he perceives of moral beings. Eating dogs and cats is fine in where I was born, so how does he argue that? The morals of all my people are wrong? That just proves how ethnocentric he is. Secondly, he is in full denial of sadistic pleasure. He doesn't even address it, and is a sadistic person not necessary a moral person? What if he is a great philanthropist that has some form of ant burning tendency? Is there such thing as a scale for net moral to determine whether a person is moral or not? And to return to the first point, by whose standards?
No comments:
Post a Comment