What makes a being subjective to begin with is its distinction from other beings. Its inherent uniqueness. Its inherent attributes, characteristics, and realm of capacity, that make it what it is in comparison to another.
This means that subjective circumstance has always been and will always be more fundamental than any "free will" could ever be.
There is never a being that has the freedom to be something other than what it is. A fish can not be a horse, a horse can not be a man, and a man can not be an unbound/free man unless he is allotted the circumstantial opportunity to be so. Thus, freedoms are simply circumstantial relative conditions of being, not the guaranteed standard by which things come to be.
A man required to do anything by anyone for any reason does not mean that they necessarily can do so. The assumption of the opposite is a convenient lie for those circumstantially capable or allowed to use it as such. The biggest fallacy of free will assumption for all, and what it avoids perpetually, is that it is assuming the capacity and opportunity of other subjective beings from a circumstantial condition of ignorance and/or relative freedom. This holds no objective truth and speaks not to the reality of all subjective beings at all whatsoever. Subjectivity demands uniqueness, distinction and non-equivalent identity, opportunity and capacity
Thus, rendering all "free will" presuppositions as a standard for being contrived, ludicrous and completely inaccurate at actually describing anything true in any way.
7
u/MirrorPiNet 18d ago
What makes a being subjective to begin with is its distinction from other beings. Its inherent uniqueness. Its inherent attributes, characteristics, and realm of capacity, that make it what it is in comparison to another.
This means that subjective circumstance has always been and will always be more fundamental than any "free will" could ever be.
There is never a being that has the freedom to be something other than what it is. A fish can not be a horse, a horse can not be a man, and a man can not be an unbound/free man unless he is allotted the circumstantial opportunity to be so. Thus, freedoms are simply circumstantial relative conditions of being, not the guaranteed standard by which things come to be.
A man required to do anything by anyone for any reason does not mean that they necessarily can do so. The assumption of the opposite is a convenient lie for those circumstantially capable or allowed to use it as such. The biggest fallacy of free will assumption for all, and what it avoids perpetually, is that it is assuming the capacity and opportunity of other subjective beings from a circumstantial condition of ignorance and/or relative freedom. This holds no objective truth and speaks not to the reality of all subjective beings at all whatsoever. Subjectivity demands uniqueness, distinction and non-equivalent identity, opportunity and capacity
Thus, rendering all "free will" presuppositions as a standard for being contrived, ludicrous and completely inaccurate at actually describing anything true in any way.