There is no “evil” when one is always ignorant to parts of the context in their intent and you can’t be both wise and evil, so there you go.
Not sure how nature can compel anyone to do anything externally when the very “compelled” being is the very same nature itself in different form and content. Determinism determined itself free by wisdoms/knowledges existence. That’s consciousness and the universe is inherently selfish, creation/manifestation holds traits of creator/spawner.
It’s funny too how people think they have no choice but to participate in this loop of malleable energy, I assure you if you have seen the nothing, the void, you would want to stay participating. Welcome to nature with comfort and complacency, seeing the incomprehensible breaks and baffles the mind like a stretching rubber band. We’re not “compelled” to be here by nature, we’ve chosen it but that seems to be just another lost memory.
Artimas , Peacegirl wrote,
"]Look how far we’ve come, but this formal transition will catapult us into the Golden Age of man — an age where there is no war, crime, or poverty
excellent. now that the human species has finally stopped bullshitting around, we can focus our collective efforts on space colonization, exploration and expansion.
the headlines will read: the year two-thousand-something… when humans got their shit together and finally stopped behaving like monkeys.
[/quote]
Just remember we couldn’t help but go through the necessary stages of evil to reach this turning point in history!
[/quote]
There is no “evil” when one is always ignorant to parts of the context in their intent and you can’t be both wise and evil, so there you go."
Ignorance really, is not bliss, contrary to popular opinion.
That frames the intensional of the natural progression, belies it’s intentional objectives."
It seems as of this qualification muzzled indications of how and why it was done this way.
Or rather, how or why!
The only loop is that which goes nowhere but is everywhere, nowhere to go.
there is no such thing as ‘evil’, but as close as we can come to calling someone evil would involve identifying the disparity between intent and action… so yeah, you’re sorta right. but really this quality ‘evil’ only amounts to incompetence, which is what we call that rift between one’s beliefs and one’s actions. in the context of this thread, this rift was identified as the incompetence of any individual or state that believes these three things in unison: that the structure of their current society is not conducive of excessive conflict, that partaking in such conflict purposely is immoral, and that those who do have objective knowledge of ‘right and wrong’ (of which there is none) also have the freewill (which doesn’t exist) to choose one or the other. it is these three systemic errors in reasoning that combine to produce the sum total of such egregious incompetence. now if anything were ‘evil’, it would be this.
but there’s more. what here appears to look like an excess of power as it is usually understood - the ruthlessness of a society that holds itself together even while these three fundamental errors are operating… and how this seems to demonstrate a body that is strong enough to incorporate its errors without jeopardizing its vitality - it is really a total absence of power in that this society demonstrates that it needs to lie in order to function. and here is where the problem of ‘intent’ is raised, and how what is most simply just a kind of incompetence now becomes something gross and contemptible.
that so many centuries have been spent in designing the erroneous theoretical and philosophical background against which western capitalism has evolved, is quite frankly astonishing. if it stood only on social darwinism and had the courage to accept the logical consequences of this premise, it wouldn’t be so contemptible. but it had to not only create an order in which a minority could live and prosper off the productive energies of a majority, but also devise carefully thought-out ideological trappings which would help it sustain itself against what would result from pure anarcho-capitalism. such things as ‘equal opportunity’, ‘moral right and wrong’ and ‘freewill’ would become cornerstones to this process. finally the glaring incompetence reveals itself to those who have greater insight into the machinery. these three fabrications aren’t just lies, but useful lies to a system that is so weak and with such cowardice, it cannot prosper without them. if it stopped holding to these lies, social darwinism in its purest and most volatile form would take life and quickly eliminate those who’ve relied on such lies to sustain their places of false power.
anywho what i’m saying here won’t make much sense unless you are able to assess great spans of history, their social and economic structures, and the respective ‘philosophies’ that backed them through their development. there is a very distinct pattern or direction of thought from platonism to analytical philosophy; the first comes into existence to back the aristocratic contempt for materialism… the last comes into existence to destroy that entire lineage of lies.
disposing of the myth of ‘freewill’ is a surgical strike against the status-quo and, ironically, frees those who are oppressed by such tyranny from being subject to the operant conditioning of guilt… something that is critically important to the status-quo for keeping those who are subordinate to it, under control.
it really is a big deal, dude… i mean as far as the social sciences are concerned. get the idea of freewill out of the heads of people and western capitalism will suffer a tremendous blow. greater attention will be paid to those environmental factors/circumstances which statistically produce crime and conflict, than ever before. and that’s precisely what the capitalist/conservatives don’t want to happen.
oh cool here’s a rough analogy for ya. take an animal (poverty stricken criminal) that’s infested with a parasite (capitalism). the parasite hijacks the mind of the animal (philosophy of freewill and objective morality) and makes the animal believe that not only was his crime of stealing ‘immoral’, but also that he had a choice not to steal.
in doing this the parasite is able to regulate and keep manageable the dysfunctional behavior of the animal that it has caused through its infestation. the animal becomes a zombie that the parasite can continue to feed off of.
For the above reason i suspect that pro-forma, the positivist group is not only a defensive approach , but a harbor for instigating a reduction into an absurd epoch, literally!
There is no sense in entertaining data, that belies the sense of certainty through which it can make sense of it.
Here an intensional structural requirement develops , leading to a supposed and overblown arsenal of political power.
It will continue the conflation until it needs no further justification, because it will become independent of
It.
It all fell apart where the social power through authority lost credence.
Loss of political power is replaced by it’s figurative counterpart.
So go and figure$
However, the ‘parasite’ is the generic middle man, without which absolute.control would need to be exercised, it would morph into the auto-immune virus that brings the systemic ‘evil’ back into an unsustainable feedback system.
Which is factored in, where the epoch is sustainable only by utilizing an absolutely variable resource system.
Not bliss but lack of consciousness is innocence, that’s why babies, mentally incapacitated and animals are innocent.
And what is proposed instead of capitalism?
The ones who are expected to loose innoscence, do not include the last two. Babies , of course to puberty are included. So let’s not put all in one grab bag. The gloom and doom of disqualification is a natural process, not a categorical imperative.
It’s been awhile since I’ve been here. It seems this thread got completely off track from the original intent to explain why man’s will is not free and what this means for the benefit of all mankind.
So how would that have a benefit to mankind if it were true? My stance is still that both exist and operate from each other.
Because responsibility for one’s actions is increased, not decreased. The impact of this knowledge is huge because it prevents what blame and punishment could not accomplish.
Blame and punishment even in a free will state is still not useful though. Why do those things only seem useless when “operating out of determinism” and not a will that is free to the extent of its understanding?
Artimus: So how would that have a benefit to mankind if it were true? My stance is still that both exist and operate from each other.
Peacegirl: Because responsibility for one’s actions is increased, not decreased. The impact of this knowledge is huge because it prevents what blame and punishment could not accomplish.
Artimus: Blame and punishment even in a free will state is still not useful though. Why do those things only seem useless when “operating out of determinism” and not a will that is free to the extent of its understanding?
Blame and punishment in a free will state can be justified because it is believed a person who did wrong had a choice to do otherwise and now has to pay. The belief in free will is the cornerstone of our present justice system. Under determinism, punishment cannot be justified knowing that will is not free. How can you justify punishing a person for that which he had no control over?
You mean in a determined existence people have the freewill to decide whether actions are determined or not? Whether punishment is correct or not?
We still have the ability to choose between options (which many people define as free will), but the choice, once made, was never a free one.
Choosing, or the comparison of differences, is an integral part of man’s
nature, but to reiterate this important point…he is compelled to prefer of
alternatives that which he considers better for himself and though he
chooses various things all through the course of his life, he is never
given any choice at all.
“We still have the ability to choose between options (which many people define as free will), but the choice, once made, was never a free one.”
Peacegirl says the above: quantum distinctions can be likened to Leibnitz’ imperceptible differences as two spheres approach identity, therefore if we cannot differentiate them, our responsibility for choosing the wrong path is worthy of absolution.