3 ms·
"If we aren’t in control, it doesn’t change anything whether or not we assume that we are in control. But if we are in control, it would be very hazardous to ou
by sjclemmy 11y ago
"If we aren’t in control, it doesn’t change anything whether or not we assume that we are in control. But if we are in control, it would be very hazardous to our well being to assume that we are not in control"
I love the logic of this argument - it has so many applications - think about applying it to the climate change debate.
- fnovd 11y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager The fallacy here is that there is no downside to belief and that finite losses spread over infinite scenarios are still finite. Applied to controlling one's own destiny, the issue is that there is a middle ground between having no control and having complete control. Obviously it is a waste to believe you have no control and to do nothing. It is also a waste to believe you have control of everything: I'm not going to control the weather or other people's moods, so it is a waste of effort to even attempt to do so. The question, then, isn't if we can control our destinies, but how much we can control. Identifying the areas in which your effort would produce a desired effect is paramount. Though of course, due to our population size, you'll always find people who bet it all on black day after day and made that moonshot due to their unfounded yet devoted belief that the universe would unfold the way they wanted it to.