“Once again, the word ‘free’ is misleading. Yes, man has the ability to make choices in a particular direction, but you will soon see that this does not make his will free.”
Yes because we are free to substantiate and deify any prior claim, thus although we are free to do it, once it’s done, it has bearing wether we believe it or not. Even the most absurd notions become a symbolic sub-strata, substantially pre-integrated in the mosaic of beliefs and laws which connect to the present , as a necessary ingredient.
Greek myths and ideals are as necessary to the eschotologycal beliefs of Western religion, as they were formulated in ancient past.
Meno, that’s what this author was saying all along. I can’t stay here with the diversions unless the thread gets on track for why I posted it to begin with. I’m asking you and others to think about the authors proof of no free will and how we can actually create a better world for all.
The bearing it has is very minuscule in most cases Meno. Right now most of humanity is in a state of deadlock. Most people talk, very few people take action. The future is uncertain for most human beings.
Let us also take into account that we should be contemplating a much more immense number than the population of the earth before jumping in bed with such childish notions. Saying that we only have 8 billion variables to take into account when making changes to our future is ridiculous at best. What is the current number of corrupt variables that we must take into account? This does not stop with human beings anyway…
Both of You are special ed, so the deterrance IS apropos. The nature nuture contraversy hinges on the memetic genetic uncertainty, and the point taken is the problem sustains it’s shadow as the shadow sustains it. It is so deep rooted that the types of depth psychology that entertains them can not even yet overcome the primal power of the will in sexual and other taboo.
The latent power of naturalistic fallacy has not broken through the freeze of the frozen remains of pre naturalism. The value of thick layers of crystallized diamond structures become symbolic artifacts here to stay. Can’t beat it.
The liberalism of a hundred years will suffer terribly changed demarcations with the waning of the idea of a worldly sustained empire, and the ultimate war in this regard, do You incline to believe is the source of Man’d insecurity.
The Blakean cosmic struggle between literally the benign and the other rise forces has reduced morality to atrophy, but engrained in a volumous shadow, and as such, nothing will or does diverge from the primary dubstances : earth, wind and fire.
My argument is not with peacegirl. My argument is with anyone assuming they are at the top of the “save the world” hierarchy in this era. Not even the current paradigms are enough to save humanity from itself when the end comes. No messiah has been able to fix this problem yet and most species have a limited timespan of existence. Humans are currently and arrogantly assuming they can overcome their own extinction. There is a lot of “wannabe” saviors but clearly, none of them have the right stuff. As far as peacegirl is concerned, she is promoting a book, I appreciate her continued effort in promoting that book and hope she can make a difference - I hope we all can but the time for following any given singular person has passed. If we look back through history and see how the idea of following one paradigm and one person and one god has worked out, what do we see? We were never meant to be the same anyway and we were never meant to all hold one belief. It is all so obvious and yet, more than 95% of us don’t see it. How many times do we have to see the same old failures before we actually learn something?
I appreciate your words Meno - they do have value.
Nothing changes the fact that everyone needs a “reality check”. We all have work to do - we can all add something to our collective experience. All of us…
So far humans seem to be the only species that knows what extinction means.
It is the only species that has the capacity to consciously make other species extinct and has done so with relish.
It is also the only species that is capable of inhabiting ANY terran environment and knows how to take its own environment with it such as hostile places like Antarctica and the moon.
It is highly unlikey that humans are going to become exitinct any time soon. We migh loose half our population and bring about a mass extinction over the globe, but we are going to be around to stay for a long time.
I think this might be our biggest problem. Personal greed and self interest without the immediate consequences and virtual invulnerabilty with the right resources make humans the most destructive of itself and other species.
But we will be the last macrospecies to go exinct.
It’s gonna be us, our friendly gut bacteria, and any living things that we like the taste of till the end of time.
Time will tell - I estimate that I will be dead before any proof of what I am saying will come to fruition - I hope so anyway. Until then, I have a lot ahead of me that I will happily pursue.
Redemptive power does have tremendous power even ex-nihilo, if presume extra ordinary communication.
Without falling into the paradoxical cave of confusing persons and states of minded situations.
The fire part of earth wind and fire deflects the dangers of plaguing with Kundalini fire before tending to earth. The wind shifts, and the snake uncoils upright spitting venom., the organic hosts, viral and bacterial orthogenetic symbolic counteragents, yet inceptive builders of immunity.
If they do not kill us, they will strengthen our resolve with stronger growths of instinct to survive.
Don’t bet on it, time demands immediate action and conversion to a Zen like total belief in the individual power to prevent extinction. In many mansions and universes the possibilities of conjugated and multiplied criteria can move inordinate mountains of impossibility to great heights where the tiny bubble of time can explode like a ticket to ride.
Time in a bottle, eternity in a micro second.
Don’t blame or try to blame nerves on angst, then peace would prevail.
You fail to read the necessary nuances. In most cases, what we are being asked to follow nearly always comes back to one person. Why is the author’s way better than any other way? This is the part you are failing to prove.
Yeah as with mine right now i’m in spiritual and legal fight for my latest little ‘kid’ grandson who breaks my heart if I can not regain at least joint custody with the paternal grandparents who really should see the flick ‘intolerance’ or anything with some heart in it that almost any being can understand.
it’s not really as much fun as one could imagine, it’s a trip of daring to go under ground then stifled for lack of air, surface, take a few deep breaths and go back again and again and again.
And inexplicably there, down way deep, one can see for miles & miles & miles.
There was a time, ca.1968 summer of love when the young, at heart saw the predicament, briefly.
A new revival may, must be at hand. The techno liberals this time compensating for the huge Grey shadow that inexperience created.
I feel your pain, Meno. I just lost my mother to death - she had a stroke. A lot of family members very upset as you can imagine. When it comes to our children though, what life throws at us can be even more painful.
I hope so < like a revolution of sorts that is. Humanity has lost its collective mind < figuratively speaking that is.
I gotta make some room to smile each day if possible, even through the mourning process.
Yes, clicking over to the real deal free will world, that’s basically my point as well. But there is the language we use in the either/or world and the language we use in the is/ought world.
Back to Mary’s abortion above.
Doctors can discuss her abortion as a medical procedure. A procedure that is rooted in human biology and medical decisions. Will they really have to stop and first reach a consensual definition of each word before moving on to the next word? Possibly, in rare situations, but, no, they won’t in the vast majority of abortions.
Now, ethicists – all along the deontological and political spectrum – can discuss the morality of the abortion. They get to the part where they need to define words like “freedom” and “justice” in regard to either the fate of the unborn or the fate of Mary with an unwanted pregnancy.
Others either grasp the distinction that I make here in regard to dasein, conflicting goods and political economy or they don’t.
Or, instead, back to the assumption that we don’t live in a real deal free will world, the seemingly surreal part where I insist that everything related to Mary’s abortion and everything related to our discussion of anything at all here is but the inherent/necessary manifestation of the only possible reality.
And, yes, that would include any “exchanges” we have with polishyouth.
