Even if you didn't have the ability to choose otherwise, it doesn't follow that you didn't make a choice.
The free will question
Thats retarded. Of fucking course you can't choose what you believe or who you are. You make the decisions you do based on how you feel about whatever input, which is different to someone else because of you. What would 'deciding what you'd decide' even mean? Its nonsense.
"You can't choose to do something you wouldn't choose to do lol free will bfto"
Free-will is the dumbest unquestioned shit there is. Read Spinoza. Man thinks he's free because he's aware of his desire but unaware of the causes that determines him.
By knowing the causes that determine our desires, we can achieve a kind of meta-position and this is the path of true freedom, by unshackling ourselves from external determinations and become ever more active in our lives.
Personality of choice is an illusion. If I were anyone else, I'd have done the same choices as them because I'd literally be them. I'd have their name, lived their past moments, I'd have had the same upbringing, values, disappointments, success and abilities.
kuscholarworks.ku.edu
en.wikisource.org
and Part 4 :
en.wikisource.org
Keep in mind this is probably one of the hardest reads of western philosophy but probably the greatest intelligence accelerator there is. I'd suggest grabbing a paper copy of the ethics and peruse through it whenever you feel like it. Part 1 and 2 are more about metaphysics and offer a somewhat interesting yet obscure synthesis of medieval scolastics.
From part 3 and onwards, Spinoza deals with things we experience on a daily basis such as :
Grab a paper copy and read about this. Also read about stoicians, epicureans, read about theological debates about predestination, read about social science, learn as much as you can in as many fields of knowledge as possible. Learn about social science, read about bourdieu, habitus, cultural capital.
A challenger appears
youtu.be
yawn.
Don't really think you're cut out for philosophy if you can't read 10 pages or listen to a ten minute lecture to be informed enough to actually comment on it.
Sorry but I have no interest in reading that specifically. How exactly can philosophy be an emancipatory tool if it shelters itself from readers who actually need it? All this form fetichism to reach lukewarm conclusions already made a billion times before.
This is a paper given to intro students, and you're telling me you can't understand it well enough to actually address any arguments in it, but you expect your ideas, which are also not in any way original and you aren't adding anything besides "akshually babby fuck totally okay great scholastic heretic (but still theist) say so," to be taken seriously?