Nothing like the old argument between Determinism and Libertarianism. I fall in with the latter camp, the camp of the Underground Man, of course. This is an interesting discussion, but the Libertarian argument seems a little weak.

Bond rant tomorrow, if I can be responsible and somehow work on my 12 page and 3 page papers which are both due on Friday at the same time as writing a halfway intelligent post.

Kritik der Animationskraft

First, a confession.  I’ve been terribly tempted to quit blogging.  It seems like centuries since I last engaged fruitfully with an anime season, and this being an anime blog, what’s the point if I can’t do that?  Aha, but 2013 is supposed to be the big Leiji year, and if I kill the blog now I know I’ll be forced to come up with a new one just to cover the new CG Harlock film and stuff, so I might as well keep this open.

But is this even my choice?  Am I not bound to keep my blog open, prodded as I am by a series of causes and effects stretching out back to the beginning of time?  Am I not a helpless, little lamb being taken to the slaughterhouse that is the end of all life? Ghostlightning will not accept this sitting down.  And so we talk…

View original post 1,348 more words


2 comments on “

  1. The libertarian argument IS weak, as I said it’s become a matter of faith for me now… so far from the Sartrean “condemned to be free” idea(l), which is something if I remember correctly, Sartre left behind himself.

    I need to believe in freedom because I want to both take credit for achievements I’m proud of (choices I made), and be able to hold myself and others accountable for their actions and decisions.


  2. I cling to the idea of one having free-will. Of course, there’s something to be said that developing habits seem to limit one’s free will, but one is responsible at least for having taken the first step in beginning that particular habit. And, while one normally responds to particular situations according to one’s character, there’s no guarantee that one will always respond in the same way to the same situation every time that situation occurs. We also have the power to deliberate on the best course of action, and the result of one’s deliberation does not seem to be a foregone conclusion according to scientific laws.

    And I have my doubts whether personal decisions can be reduced to upbring thence to chemical stimuli and finally to physics. That seems too much of a stretch.

    The most important thing, as you note, is how society can function without being able to assign guilt or merit to people sans free-will. Under such a system, a murderer kills someone and could not have acted otherwise. Then, can one really punish such a person if he could not act otherwise? If he is not morally culpable? It’s too difficult to imagine a society existing under such ideas.

    I’d stick to Aristotle rather than Sartre. Under Sartre, not only is man “condemned to be free,” he doesn’t even know what to use his freedom for, which partly explains why Sartre became a Communist. 🙂


Legens, scribe sententias tuas.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s