Loughne Nuts and Knee Jerks 🔗 1439057904
So there's been a lot of talk about the bozo what popped rep. Giffords, 2 Judges, a kid and a few others. Personally, I could care less about what happens to people that I not only do not know and are physically removed from me by several thousand miles; there are plenty of other more local things that have more worthwhile claim on my emotional capital. Nonetheless, one cannot escape talking about it, as the mainstream media has made it their mission to keep people's minds off of the things that could actually matter to them and replace it with sensationalist bullshit. I don't blame the media for this entirely, it would not be so popular if people didn't need something to keep their minds off of the mundane reality of their lives. Otherwise people might get bored and start riots, businesses, or do something meaningful with their lives; and we all know nothing good can come of that...
So, why write about this at all? Well, had the story stayed "Congressman survives assassination attempt; the nation is disappointed", there would have been nothing to say. However, like Columbine, 9/11, and many other incidents, people have started falling over themselves to excuse or explain his behavior in one way or another. That anyone thinks we will ever know the true motivation here is humorous; people can (and have) acted crazy and kept secrets to their graves. Nonetheless, it's a chance for the state-worshipers and quacks to trot out their old chestnut of a theory that nobody is in control of their own thoughts or actions.
That of course, is what I take issue with. This belief, at it's heart, is nihilism; when nobody is in control of their own actions, nothing matters at all. If we are but clockwork, and controlled by some other force, this raises two interesting questions:
- How would changing anyone or anything purported to be the "corrupting influence" change the outcome? Furthermore, how could we change it in the first place?
- Who or what is the puppet master of this diorama?
The first question, being largely rhetorical, answers itself. The second, however, is more interesting. The statists believe that collective figments of our imaginations (governments, corporations) have control over our lives, and believe that authority to be legitimate, even when they consider the direction they are being controlled unwise. They do not stop to think that their ability to think critically about their leaders' policies invalidates the legitimacy of any control over their lives by these institutions. Nor do they consider the origins of these institutions requiring free will at some point; the hardest of the hard core will fall back on a "turtles all the way down" argument when push comes to shove.
Speaking of turtles all the way down, it is especially humorous when I hear atheists espouse these sort of arguments, as they elevate something (be it simple algorithms in DNA, chemicals, people, or institutions) to godhood in the process. This is because even with the best theory supporting this nonsense yet (that of quantum probability and the many-worlds interpretations) still says jack squat about what or why one quantum event happens as opposed to another. There's just as much evidence that our thoughts control quantum probability as that of some god doing it (I.E. No evidence whatsoever). You will find that when it comes to whether things are predestined or whether our will is truly free, that there is no evidence supporting EITHER SIDE!
So, in conclusion, what the media is really doing here is not talking politics; it's talking religion. 'Cause when it comes to consciousness, UFOs, gods, and other things without conclusive evidence either way, you gotta HABEEB something. So, given that choice, I chose what any completely rational (read: emotional) person would do, and chose free will. Because otherwise there's no hope for the future, and people can read your minds.
For those of you still
unconvinced led to believe that we aren't in control of our actions, and that our excited utterances reliably convey our intent, consider this:
- Loughner stated that he could read people's minds. This belief seems to be in line with yours.
- He also believed that grammar was controlling our actions. This belief seems consistent with yours.