This is the point. Ironically, you don't live at all like you are the mere product of Ramu's philosophy. You are (rightly) offended at any suggestion you are not self-possessed, don't have your own opinions, and are a mere product of a causal or fateful chain.-1- wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:23 amAhem. You are denying the very aspect of ownership. According to you, my clothes are not mine, my toes are not mine, my wife is not mine.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2019 2:48 amNo, you're not.
You never had an opinion in your life. None of us did. Instead, we just "danced to our DNA," as Richard Dawkins puts it. So you don't think, anymore than a rock has to "think" to fall off a mountainside. Like it, you are merely the product of a cascade of inevitable causes. Your opinions are not actually yours: they're products of the Big Bang, or rather, of whatever caused everything that caused the Big Bang. Nothing more.
Yet there is an inevitable sense of things belonging to me. My toe is not your toe. My clothes are not worn by anyone else.
So why do you choose to claim to believe in theory what you clearly don't believe in practice? That would be my question.
But in chain causality, that is NOT where the buck stops. The "buck" regresses infinitely into the past (an impossibility, it's true; but that has to be the supposition). So again, I have to ask what the attraction is to believing something that is a) rationally impossible, and b) practically unliveable?I own THEM. That's where the buck stops.