LOL, the red coats with cars, that’s one way to depict it. We’re definitely moving on up, but the opposite can also happen if man doesn’t take responsibility for the individual identity/self. We can also revert back to nothing and consciousness to restart from the beginning.
Yes, that is all too easy.
But where are we going?
I believe freedom needs to be guaranteed by numbers. And I think that people like us should have an organization. I don’t see another way of meaning anything world historically in a capitalistic world but to act as a kind of phenomenon that co-determines the whole order.
If practicality of the idea is considered I never waver from the idea that organization in terms of philosophy and specifically in terms of my particular environment of it, is the only option. I think that is ultimately what Plato left us with, considering the world that came of the idea of the ideal. The philosopher may just knoow best of all how little he knows, but that is still sufficient to speculate with authority on other matters, and thus be of vital importance.
Im sick and tired of all this marginal shit were supposed to represent. Ive turned myself into a troll too many times just crashing like the waves on the blunt inability of philosophers to organize, but thats what needs to happen before the elections beyond the coming one.
The ideal of reason must prevail.
I am with you, I advocate organization as well. We know little but can also see what one may or can know/understand later on, if collectively aligned, which is why we need organizing. To progress quick and to the best of our ability. Bees build hives with a colony, not a single bee. We function similarly, then people like to say “we can’t replicate the pyramids”, in a collective state we could.
We can see the future but until organized, the possibilities remain somewhat confined to now, until we collectively function and choose a path for good. One that is not self destruction I mean.
In spite of your best (and laudible!) efforts, I think my pertinent summary of all the “talking past each other” that has been going on, still continues regardless.
It’s possible that the distinction I highlighted simply hasn’t been considered, if it has been noticed at all - that people have resolved simply to continue to talk about only what they want to talk about.
It’s possible that the distinction I highlighted has been considered, and the fallacious “Motte and Bailey” strategy has been adopted as follows: “I acknowledge Silhouette’s point, however you cannot deny that freedom is a term that’s used to describe a higher quantity of known and possible options, therefore Silhouette’s point is invalid”. The method of this fallacy is to challenge my point with “the bailey”, and when called out they retreat to their point “the motte”, which nobody has been disputing in the first place, demand that that cannot be disputed and therefore they are right, and by association (another fallacy) with me as the one who challenges them as an opponent to their point, I am perceived as wrong. It’s probable that, if this is the case, it’s not even a conscious line of “reasoning”. The ego can be a tricky thing to someone who isn’t constantly trying to catch it performing its protective gymnastics such as myself.
This reminds me of another point I made on a different thread:
I would hazard a guess that this whole “flood of active “Free Will” threads recently” that I mention later in that same post, is a result of these differing approaches to “truth”. The ones who want only to feel empowered side with Free Will, and the ones who are interested in reality independent of wishful subjective thinking side with Determinism. Incidentally this is all covered in my “Experientialism” that distinguishes between utility and truth.
It would be the more “advanced” question, philosophically, to debate which of these approaches is more valid - if any at all! However, the predicted response will be the Nietzschean “This world is the will to power—and nothing besides!” from the worshippers of utility and “whether either of these approaches is valid at all” from the worshippers of truth. And for any retards it will be to simply repeat their same points about how I am wrong and why they think this is, as if they’re not reiterated it a thousand times and as if I’ve not already covered it a thousand times (but like I said, either only being interested in their own point, or “Motte and Bailey”): the fallacy of “Proof by Assertion”.
Another more “advanced” question would be how to address this divide, however the utility zealots will simply power past the question to drive home their own interests and points regardless - answering the question perfectly through their actions: that it cannot be addressed and the antagonism will remain.
But happily, the law of free speech is proven by a lack of resolution, and supports the perpetual thesis vs. antithesis dialectic, with only the geniuses looking past the current version to form a new synthesis that becomes the new thesis, and the loop is in fact never escaped at all.
Evolutionarily speaking, it is likely that the two approaches are modern manifestations of the strategists and the warriors: the ones who figure out how to win the fight and the ones who carry out the strategy (provided they subscribe to its sense). These days, with local peace and a lack of enemies, the fighters turn against the sense of the strategists who most threaten them, and fight a dumb war out of a compulsion towards conflict, and the strategists lose hope of any smartness and a dissipation of conflict ever being actioned. That’s how u end up with reality TV presidents championing the dumb but entertainingly stimulating war. Instead of anyone actually smart, pick someone dumb who doesn’t know they’re dumb nor do the dumb, because their idea of smart is creating conflicts for the sake of having something to plough through by their dumb definition of smart.
well put. the difficult part is distinguishing the two types of people who believe in freewill. there is the type that is truly motivated by the pursuit of truth but who has, presently, been unable to understand how and why the theory is nonsense. the other type is a little more complex. it could be that they are able to grasp the truth of determinism but something keeps ‘over-riding’ their complete submission to it… and this is where we start forming theories about the disposition of such people. now i’m not one to ever claim the ‘sub-consciousness’ is accessible to real examination; it’s rather a by-product of a notoriously confused concept used (and abused) philosophically… the ‘consciousness’… (why isn’t there a sub-sub-consciousness, and a sub-sub-sub-consciousness, too?). however, i do believe that while there is no such intentional psychic structure guiding or ‘controlling’ what ‘comes to the surface’ of conscious thought - with the exception of instinct… but instinct is unintentional automated reflex - there can be certain patterns of ideas that when kept and practiced over long periods of time, become cognitively habitual because they serve to support more immediate and intentional directives. so for example, if i’m a very angry and dissatisfied person, i’m going to want to believe that this is because something isn’t ‘right’, or what it should be, out in the world (rather than looking inward and questioning my own constitution). i’m going to want to blame and incriminate… and for that, i need the theory of freewill. now most people are in such a state - very dissatisfied with something or other - and it would be a terrifying thought that would shake a person to their core, that their dissatisfaction is instead a result of their own weakness and/or naivety. this is one of the origins of ressentiment (and resentment), but more so the first because it contains a special element not present in the second.
the logical order runs like this: first, there is no teleology in nature. no categorical imperative for any action. no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ (only as hypothetical imperative… which is different). as such, anyone who does not understand this first and foremost is going to build a worldview that will lead directly to superfluous disappointment. btw i’m a nihilist if you don’t know [struts]… so i’m giving you exclusive coverage from a hawk’s eye view how this plays out in most people. so without this critically important first admission, people naturally begin to both expect nature and the world to be a certain way, and then become angered when it is not. next they set out to enforce what they think is ‘right’, find resistance, and then become morally offended. in order to sustain this feeling of ressentiment, they need to believe, first, that they are ‘right’ (when they are not), and that what they are right about is accessible to everyone else (when it is not, on account of the inherent problems of language). but most importantly, they need to believe that others can freely choose to agree with them, or not. without this, they cannot become angered… and they need to be angry so that they avoid questioning themselves. how often does it dawn on someone that perhaps the gravity of a perceived offense is so severe not because of its strength… but because of their weakness? do i feel cold because it’s cold outside, or because i have bad circulation? did i not dodge the punch because it was too fast, or because i was too slow? we always want to place the origin of our disappointment, displeasure, frustration, on something, anything, but ourselves. we expect that the world should conform to and move in the direction that we want it to - and we devise all kinds of philosophical ways to convince ourselves that we are right about the direction it should move in. when it doesn’t, we wage an imaginary war with it to give us something to do (if we aren’t engaged in a real war which would demand too much of our time to give us the luxury of pretending to be a hero).
anyway it’s hard to say which of the types are present. artimas is too young to have accumulated the necessary rancor and bitterness to need the theory of freewill to substantiate his ressentiment. biggy’s just a gadfly and argues for sport. he couldn’t care less either way (in good nihilist fashion). urwrong has somehow married ayn rand to thor and has this romantic vision of the noble warrior who ain’t a bitch and has freewill cuz that nigga ain’t 'bout to do what anyone tells him (which as we have concluded is neither here nor there). jakob and the pez, i’m not sure about. they’re kind of like the wonder twins so i imagine that they’re psychically linked so that whatever the one believes, the other believes. i think they’re more in line with urwrong’s approach; freewill as POWERRRRR!!! wonder twin power, activate!
alright now look. i’m not, as a nihilist but not in spite of, saying that this matter is not important. it isn’t, says the nihilist in me. it is, says the human in me. and if it is, there can be no advancement, no improvement, until this is first understood; that there is no freewill. not even a smidgon of it. no real philosophical work can be done toward the improvement of man otherwise. well i should take that back. i should say… no understanding of the ‘troof’ can be had until then… but then what does the troof matter? we’ve lasted this long on the basis of countless lies, so clearly the species need not know or tell the troof. but some of us are, like you mentioned, the real deal, in hot pursuit of the troof come hell or high water… and we shall not stop until we get our hands around its neck.
all we can do is practice a little patience and take the time to help the one’s who aren’t already lost forever. there’s a ‘cut-off’ point around thirty or so when it becomes exponentially more difficult to clear the accumulated mess out of the philosophers head… so we’ve got to act fast, bruh. and you can’t save em all. if you tried, you’d save none of em. pick out one that for whatever reason has drawn some admiration from you. i like artimas because he’s a pink floyd pot head who’s never read a lick of analytical philosophy. i find this to be quite endearing. i used to be like that. a little astrology here, a little jung there, maybe a few pages out of the tao of physics or a couple paragraphs from some random online article on quantum mechanics, an irresistible attraction to the fascinating history of paganism with all the cool symbols and stuff… and fuck it, i was ready. you ask me anything and i got the answers.
this is that youthful confidence and healthy arrogance that is needed in building a solid thinker. ecmandu is a lost cause. this guy needs the theory of freewill like the desert needs the rain, man. i mean this dude gets out of bed looking for something to resent.
let’s see, who else. i think that’s it, ain’t it? karpel and surrep75 are determinists, aren’t they? i dunno. i really stopped reading these threads weeks ago. i’m only going on a vague memory of who said what.
oh peacegirl. just adorable. she’s a sharp chick… but that’s not what’s so lovable about her. it’s that she thinks this exalted book of hers is some groundbreaking discovery, and her insatiable enthusiasm about it is something you don’t have the heart to disturb. it really doesn’t matter that nothing new has been said in the freewill/determinism debate for a century… but to watch her running around shouting ‘look look, everyone! you won’t believe this!’, is simply… adorable.
i should give my nihilist caveat now: i am only in this for the money, and this is difficult to explain. i, personally don’t give a shit either way whether there’s freewill or not. that is to say, i’m not going to be any less disgusted by someone because they have no choice. in fact, and ironically, sometimes i’d rather people have freewill so i could attack a single thing rather than a whole zeitgeist. a single person would be a much easier target… but due to there being no freewill, i gotta attack the mother ship, the grand narrative, the whole frickin’ paradigm, … fuck it, GOD HIMSELF, to take care of a single shmuck.
you know what? i’m gonna say it. NOBODY APPRECIATES ME, sil. nobody ever thanks me for the things i don’t say. these folks have no idea how fortunate they are that i’m retired, man. if we were back in 09 i’d be chewing on their bones right now. jesus i’m an arrogant prick. if i were you i wouldn’t like me either.
shit i forgot meno. troofully, i can’t ever make heads or tails out of anything he says. now i know the guy ain’t dumb because once in a while there’s a clear but extremely brief identifiable semantic and syntactical connection between words… but then… poof… it’s gone. it’s like he has irritable vowel syndrome or something. but i think he’s a freewillist because i think he’s religious.
The Pragmatic argument for Free-Will and Determinism.
Pragmatically, it doesn’t matter whether any biological organism is “free” or not, determined or not. Instead consider that most people (and probably most life forms), believe they are not free, Determined, cannot escape their (pre-determined) fate, and therefore, choices are illusions, created by the mind in response to stressors. The environment and life is hard, suffering exists, and so the evolved conscious-mind has developed a defense-protocol, to spawn illusions within the mind, so as to “block-out”/Ignore stress-stimulus. Nobody is free. Nothing is free.
But that doesn’t stop some rarer individuals or a minority of biology, to act as-if they were free, or more, to think as though they were free-to-think.
Are then, all thoughts illusions? To a Hard Determinist like Silhouette, he must say yes. All thoughts are illusions, and Un-real. Thoughts can never be, in any way, correlated to Reality. Thoughts are not similar to Reality. But to what degree, Silhouette must answer for. Here Hard Determinism is stuck into a bad position. Even if it were true, then it would be utterly weak and unconvincing. There could be no thought possible, that were close or similar to ‘reality’. There could be no measure. And any and all thoughts, are necessarily insane. Necessarily divorced from Reality. Necessarily fractured, broken, and schizophrenic. Accuracy would be impossible, to compare the ‘real’ world and environment, to conceptions and visions of it. Cognition is utterly flawed.
Thus it is to the Hard Determinist, that a “magic” is in everybody’s mind. Somebody/Something Higher is twisiting and jerking at the strings. Something is manipulating all minds, all consciousness, all organisms. There is a Grand Authority, Manipulator, First Cause, Creator. Without such, Hard Determinism could not reconcile any simple logic, as logic itself is another flawed manifestation, divorced from reality.
Another illusion spawned by the mind. And this is the grand-thesis, the meta-narrative, the Metaphysics, of Hard Determinism.
The only alternative, pragmatically, would be then to guess at illusions, and say that randomly some are Real-er than others. We can never know. And it doesn’t matter. All people can do, all any organism can do, is Guess. And in so Guessing, organisms take risks. And this could be Real-er too than the alternative (Determinism). Cognitive entities, Intelligent, are always guessing at one illusion or another. And sometimes they are closer to “Reality” (we can never know what that is).
Perhaps then, those who keep “guessing rightly” would be least Determined, and so Un-determined, according to the Determinists.
This is as-pragmatic as it can get, to reconcile a Hard-Line stance (Silhouette) with anybody else. To him, any and all senses of freedom, choice, blame, attribution of cause, must be Illusions, conjured by the mind, to quell any and all deep seated environmental stressor, because that is all any cognition could ever be.
Silhouette cannot progress Descartes. A shame. But if he could (were determined to be), then he could use this ‘Pragmatic’ argument as a ladder, to climb to a higher rung.
Hope? I don’t have, or need, any hope for Silhouette. But hope is another product of Freedom, that has yet to be discussed.
Perhaps that has something to do with you and an understanding more so than him having a syndrome?
I confidently say I understand what we have discussed, Meno and I.
Ohhhh no you don’t.
I made a similar argument in the ‘new discovery’ thread, UrWrong
“Yes external to you or to any individual. The context of which other individuals have chosen for themselves of which they are at a higher, lower or equal to position in terms of conscious/awareness/will but it is only by choice one can rise higher or sink lower.
Yes and those are things that are consistent and common sense, do you really have to sit to think about whether you should or not take a shit or eat an apple like you do with the arguments or proposition of free will? You don’t hold those things up to the same standard of thought right, because it’s common sense? It is our consistency in use of ‘free will’ and our value attribution along with our deep analytical dissecting of free will and ourselves that creates the illusion of its not existing or existing, it is what creates the question of which the answer is mostly subjective, not always objective, due to not being able to portray the internal complexity and extent of option/possibility in a present continual moment, to any external individual outside and separate to oneself, the external vision appears as only one choice, they can’t see the thought process or feeling behind the other options. And since it appears as a one choice then you can use that argument peacegirl uses “couldn’t have chosen different” but doesn’t take into account the internal complexity behind it of being able to in fact, choose differently.
You or anyone in general whom uses free will to determine or state it is weak or not free. The argument for freewill that you call weaker than determinism, has been created by our comfort in routine and look at what has happened in society, we have people who act terribly and take no self responsibility, a lot of whom play victim to their contextual situations and deem themselves weak with no free will. Yet they still have will yes? How do they function at all otherwise consciously, yet they condemn themselves to not having a ‘free’ will, and become powerless to their own situations by giving power to the situation, which the situation is determinism, cause and effect without understanding it.
There is power in determinism as well though, it’s the use and understanding of determinism that grants the power of estimation for future, the term ‘free will’ is merely the semantic label of the infinity that is inside determinism, the never ending possibilities/opportunities. Free will is the power that may be achieved and understood, determinism is merely the method or system in getting to that power by value attribution. We are a timeless awareness, we can know a future event before it even happens by using determinism and the mind and this is power, we are now /free/ to not take that path of cause and effect due to our logically deducing it to being ruin or maybe we do take it because it helps humanity, even if ones own satisfaction is at risk, it just would seem reasonable and necessary. For every deterministic cause and effect scenario, there is a freedom of will to be gained from it. And there are an infinity of scenarios to choose from. Make sense? In this infinity, we may or may not find ourselves.
I’m on both sides man I see determinism because I use it myself but it’s the endless infinite of possibilities inside determinism via deducing through will, that frees itself.
Maybe both don’t exist, maybe both do. I just don’t pick one side because I can see them both. If I can choose to plan my entire life with my own will and I put myself intricately into context or environment after I have deduced that context or environments effects, I can and will be free by my own abuse/use of the system that is determinism.
I have felt more pain than pleasure in my life… it’s not that I feel good about free will, I just want others to understand or see that it comes after and it’s a continuous cycle of using determinism to get free, I can only see it as an absolute due to it being an infinite but an infinite is not an absolute because it is a continuity. One may say, well how are you free if you have to use this system before hand? It’s not about the use of it, it’s about choosing what its used /for/, that’s where the freedom comes to play. If I can choose my own environment and environment alters genetics and personality, then I can effectively use that system of determinism to be free to the extent of my choosing and make or discover my own being from there on after.
I agree that arguments can be a Xanax but I gain no pleasure in an attempt at being correct or arguing for free will, I’d much rather be wrong. Being right doesn’t matter to me because my being right or arguing for that sake alone, does not help humanity as much as humanity needs.”
Except I do and there’s an entire thread “subconscious” that proves it.
How do people convince each-other, and themselves, of Freedom?
Isn’t it through acts of Victory, Achievement, Excellence, Virtue, and Nobility? All forms of Greatness (and therefore, back to Power), are what signal Freedom. Most humans cannot high jump 5ft. An Olympic athlete can. Most humans are not free to high jump 5ft. Only a select few, are.
Only a select few of humanity, is Free, to do what others cannot.
Most of humanity is bogged-down, dulled, slowed, enslaved. Most of humanity has low morals, low cunning, and low expectation. Thus it is when a ‘Higher’ walks among them, a Superior (to their Inferiority), that slaves are reminded of Freedom. The inferior envies the superior. All look ‘Up’ to Nobility. Nobility is a characteristic, a derivative, of Action and Victory = Achievement. Slaves are convinced that nobility is merely born, because this is how they idealize success and freedom, as being “simply born into it”.
This is another reason/cause why the slave-mass, the Majority, Humanity, cannot conceive of Nobility or Excellence, within themselves, and so idealize the Noble caste, Idolize them (godliness), and wish to be them, but never can and will. They lack the power, because they lack the drive (Will).
So ofc, as from Promethean, Silhouette, Peacegirl’s deterministic sense, the gap will not be bridged between the Free and the Un-free, the Enthralled.
To proclaim faith, adulation, and loyalty to Determinism reeks of Victimization. It screams to the world, “I am a Victim and I deserve your attention, your help, your patience, your love, and I will pull you down with me at the first chance without hesitation!!!”
What’s the difference between Free and Un-free? The Determinist is bound by Causality, claims to be “Scientific”. The “Scientific Experts” and Physical Theorists say so (overlooking the word ‘theory’), (Appeal to Authority by the way) therefore, it must be true. My Master says so. Therefore, it must be true.
Why are all these so-called “Philosophers” or philosophy-enthusiasts, so willing to latch onto other minds, rather than developing their own, their individuality, their “own thoughts”, uniqueness, and creativity??? Where are the “Philosophers” who can think outside the box, around here? Where are those who are not bound, restricted, and so easily limited?
The Victim-complex is an extension of the Slave Dialectic, which is an extension of Nihilism, which is an extension of Judæo-Christian-Abrahamism. It is simply put, a bad habit, or more so, the worst habit. As mentioned to Prom earlier, it spawns from this Absolute-Monarch history. Those who have been yoked and broken in the fields, for centuries and millenniums now, have little-to-no Hope. They are thoroughly broken, mind, body, and soul. The essence of them, is Un-free.
This is why here, and elsewhere (Advanced Freedom thread), I pose the question to any-and-everybody, with few responses thus far, how, if possible, can the Un-free become free, or is that a good idea in the first place? Is it not a waste of time, even if it were possible?
Like yanking the slaves from the Platonic cave, the Light scares them, and they recoil, sprinting and clawing their way back to the safety of the Cave. Light burns them (Vampires, Undead, Demons, etc). They are afraid of Light, the sight that it gives, and the warmth.
Afraid to Live.
I sound “too hopeful” perhaps, as-if I don’t know the costs, sacrifices, and risks of attaining Freedom.
I can only re-assure those doubtful, that I might indeed. Because it is a great cost, sacrifice, and risk, to chance to attain Freedom. What does it mean to “think freely” except to dispute, doubt, and argue against, all those you have been born with to trust? Your own parents, family, friends? Your own teachers, professors, and wise men? Your own society? Your own culture? Your own race, gender, and specie?
Quickly you will find isolation, distrust, contempt, then hatred, and anger, and fear. Once the break is made, the Fear begins. You will separate from the Mass. Then you become a Threat, for no other reason than to become Unknown. Because to become Unknown is the basis of all fear. People fear what they cannot understand, lack the intelligence and capacity to. These impulses are primal, biological, and instinctive.
So maybe I do know, just a little bit, about freedom. As-if I haven’t spent a lifetime poking a hole in the wall of my prison-cell. But seeing the light of day is more than worth it.
What is a common quote among all the ‘Great’ literature, figures, leaders, and historical wise-men, except the shared attribution of Freedom?
“The Unexamined life (the Un-free) is truly, not worth living…”
it would never cross the mind of a barbarian who had just slayed a hundred kings and broke a hundred laws, whether or not he has freewill. of course he might find the subject interesting if he were sat down by a philosopher and given a course, but in the end he wouldn’t care less. and that’s because this question is not important to him, and that’s because whether or not he is ‘responsible’ or ‘guilty’ or ‘culpable’ is not important to him. he either does, or does not do, and whether or not he enjoys what he does is all that matters. this barbarian is afraid of no man, no authority, no rules, so whether or not he believed in freewill couldn’t be something influenced by fear. if anything at all changed as a result of him believing in freewill, it would be his attitude toward others, not himself. in the same way, if he discovered that he was ‘determined’, it would change nothing about his attitude toward himself, only others. he doesn’t feel stronger in believing in freewill, neither does he feel weaker in believing in determinism.
those preoccupied with this matter are either struggling with their own conscience, or with how to deal with the conscience of others. but in either case, the currency of this matter comes from a struggle. it is not some disinterested philosophical topic like lockean secondary properties, something that if either true or false, would essentially change nothing existential. philosophers don’t sit down and begin writing about freewill without feeling some kind of emergency looming in the background. either they’re trying to instantiate guilt, or remove it. the weak try to make guilty, the strong try to make innocent… but the strongest barbarians have no interest in doing either. their nerves, like their blades, are made of steel.
we need more barbarians and less librarians.
In the beginning of my Advanced Freedom, I demanded from others to paint a picture of freedom, as you do just now. That’s not the end though. Is freedom only a matter of victory, confined to one example of a barbarian warlord, one success among a million failures? Only a fighter can be free? By your example, you expose your own idealization of freedom, which cannot be had by most, and perhaps not cared for by most. Can then, women never be free, as they would most likely never participate in such a fantasy? Or that other races or ethnic groups, also careless? Is freedom only found in warfare, in militarization? And then what, are the fruits and rewards of freedom only sex?
Sure you can paint a pretty picture. But it’s only one in a museum.
So who is the librarian, exactly?
What I offered in Advanced Freedom, and here, is a different look and perspective on freedom than most can or will.
Perhaps freedom most manifests in Creativity. And each and every human has their own fantasy (as a barbarian warlord), an idealization of what they can possibly imagine as “most free”. Isn’t this a central topic of most religions, of most cults? Of gods? That everybody idealizes and idolizes a manifestation of some “greater form/self”?
By the way, Prom, what happens after all the challenges and resistances are overcome?
A lifetime of pleasure, excess, opulence? Is that the end-goal of any and all ‘Freedom’?
And that freedom is merely a means to an end (to pleasure)?
At least your perspective is “free from” (pain) and “free to” (pleasure). It seems a little too simplistic to me. I’m not saying you’re wrong though …yet.