I'm a Brainlet, can someone explain how there can be a "becoming" under a deterministic framework?

>>24486572 (OP)
>relating to the philosophical doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will.
Why do you think determinism precludes events unfolding or developing over time?

>>24486584
Wouldn't hard determinism make change meaningless? "Change" or becoming is just an inevitable, mechanical process.

>>24486640
If by becoming you mean using one's will to freely choose a goal, then striving toward its accomplishment, yes, that would not be possible given determinism. I don't know if Nietzsche addresses it, but it is a real problem.

An acorn is determined to grow into an oak, but it still becomes an oak.

>>24486760
Which one of the billion of acorns do you mean?

>>24487207
the one that eventuates into the oak, retard

>>24487208
Which one of the hundreds of million would that be?

>>24487210
That's not for the acorn to know, I guess

I've been seeing more and more people equate determinism with Nietzsche. people just don't read anything or research anything do they.

>>24486572 (OP)
Jo thanks

>>24486572 (OP)
Why are so many people here obsessed with reifying totalitarianism?

becoming contrasts with being, these have nothing to do with inherent randomness, being is just a weird religious concept developed by plato that amounts to schizophrenia, being is platos theory of forms, look that up I dont want to misquote plato on what he thought, but its important to understand because its a hugely common error that people have (plato tries to give it some objective significance through his theory of forms) where they think theyre OBJECTIVELY right. literally, just because their opinions SEEM correct (aligns with an ideal form)

>>24486572 (OP)
The answer:
There can't. The destination of things is something The Lord knows. Ain't in our nature to know our fate or see anything in such a comprehensive manner as only The Logos sees. So we can literally just self-actualize our little hearts out. Amen. Praise be.

>>24487386
lolz!

>>24487386
He doesn't subscribe to determinism?

>>24486572 (OP)
>muh metaphysics
>muh the guy who said the whole argument was worthless can only tell me to go do something

Yeah you keep sitting around trying to figure that one out. You only get 1 shot at life bro.

>>24486640
>"Change" or becoming is just an inevitable, mechanical process.
>>24486572 (OP)
are you 5? that's all inherent in nature, but you don't know the future, you are not Laplace's demon, so it doesn't matter that the world is deterministic, you wouldn't know if it was or not in fact, there can ever be proof that the world is deterministic or no deterministic, those are guesses about the future which nobody knows

>>24486640
It's not meaningless just because its predetermined. Leibnizian monads are constantly changing or 'becoming' but still exist within a metaphysics of meaning.

>>24488827
It sounds like he definitely was a determinist:
>In The Gay Science, Nietzsche praises Schopenhauer's "immortal doctrine... the non-freedom of the will."

>The "non-free will" is mythology; in real life it is only a question of strong and weak will.
If this statement accurately captures his thought, then it seems Nietzsche that humans were automatons with two possible factory settings, weak or strong, loser or winner, prey or predator. This absurdly reductive picture does suit the quality of the rest of his ideas.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche_and_free_will

>>24490323
>that humans
*thought humans

>>24490323
makes me wonder how Nietzsche would've felt about quantum indeterminacy overthrowing atomistic determinism.

>>24486572 (OP)
Neechie wasn't a determinist, he just didn't believe in absolute free will.

>>24486572 (OP)
>deterministic framework
Not a thing.

>>24486572 (OP)
There is no such thing as “determined”, biologically even every aspect of your being is ever-changing; developing and degenerating, evolving or devolving, forming and reforming.