Okay, in regard to what I [compelled or not] construe to be your own “fulminating fanatic” harangues regarding all things Trump on the Society, Government, and Economics board, how, more specifically, is this applicable?
In regard further to a particular context…immigration policy for example.
How are you yourself a part of those things influencing outcomes here? What are you able to determine given the manner in which, say, Libertarians construe human freedom, or, instead, given the manner in which Saint construes determinism above.
Given that our exchanges here are at least on some level able to be shaped and molded by autonomous minds, let me point out yet again how I seem able to bring “metaphysical” objectivists of his ilk down to “retorts” like this.
As with Sculptor, he will participate in a discussion that qualifies [in my view] as an actual exchange of philosophy. But eventually I press him with arguments and with questions he is unable to respond to in an intelligent and civil manner. He’s completely stumped and the only recourse he seems to have access to then is either “retorts” or “huffing and puffing”.
autonomy: 1 : the quality or state of being self-governing especially : the right of self-government 2 : self-directing freedom and especially moral independence personal autonomy.
Then the endless “technical” squabbles that revolve around differentiating autonomy from volition from free will.
But he can will himself to think through all of the variables in his life that prompted him to think what he does here and now. And he can will himself to proactively seek out the understandings of those who think other than as he does.
I merely make the distinction in a free will/autonomous world between understanding all that is needed to be known about performing Mary’s abortion and all that is needed to be known in order to judge her choice as either moral or immoral.
This is such a preposterous question given my own understanding of this issue, I won’t even attempt to rejoin. I mean what are the odds that we will ever really understand each other given a gap this wide?
It’s just that, again, given the way in which I do understand this issue here and now, we are both wholly embedded in the only possible exchange.
No he can’t do that. It would mean that he had greater understanding “of the variables” than an identical person in a determined world. Where would this understanding come from?
Similarly, where would the motivation to “seek out the understandings” come from?
Logically, the abilities of a free-will person are as limited as the abilities of an identical determined person.
If you were more of a listener and less of an arrogant prick we might still be having a conversation.
Your trouble is that you don’t see to be able to hold an argument, whilst you have learned to attack others’ points of view. You are basically an empty vessel with nothing to offer.
Okay, you came to ILP to post this. Now, given the manner in which I understand determinism, the laws of matter are such that there was never any possibility that you would not have – could not have – come here to post it.
And the way in which I understand free will, you may or may not have come here given any number of variable combinations in your life that pull and tug you in different directions. Variables that you are only more or less able to understand and control.
Thus your “understanding” of the variables in a wholly determined universe is entirely fated by all that we still don’t know about how mindless matter evolved into living matter…evolving here and now into us on planet Earth.
Same with “motivation”.
Same with “logic”? What does logic mean in a universe where all matter – including us – can never interact beyond the parameters of what the laws of matter sustain.
Then the mystery that revolves around whether the laws of matter are derived from a God/the God; or whether a God/the God was derived from the laws of matter. And then whether one and/or both have always existed or came into existence out of nothing at all.
And then the part where we fit our moral and political prejudices regarding Mary’s abortion into that.
My guess: that here your guess is as good as mine.
What recourse do I have here [in the real deal free world] but to come back to this:
Note to nature:
Straighten him out here.
Besides, “sadly”, “happily”, it’s all as one to the laws of nature. Right? Or are you just one more run of the mill compatibilist?
Okay, given your own understanding of determinism how is this word salad not relevant to the abortion wars?
Well, the issue for me is in noting the satisfaction that you seem to accrue in configuring into just another one of my Stooges here… in a world that I have to acknowledge, given my own frame of mind “here and now”, was never not going to be other than as it must be.
Note to nature:
uh?!!!
Wow, just like me, nature repeats itself!!!
Note to others:
So, given the real deal free will world, does “uh” cut it for you given the points I raised? Or, instead, have I managed to reduce yet another one here down to this “uh” mentality.
What I don’t understand is how we can finally pin down once and for all if either side here was ever actually able to think, feel, say or do anything at all other than as the laws of nature command them. Given Saints, obsrvr524 and/or your own understanding of determinism. Because, given my own wild ass guess “here and now”, nope, it is as though one of you confronted both sides spitting on each other in a dream: the brain fully on automatic pilot.
Only now awake. How is it not – re nature – on automatic pilot then?
Great, another hopelessly obtuse intellectual contraption. Again, how is this applicable to the abortion wars?
Also, to your “greater satisfaction”, you posted it. Given your own understanding of determinism was there ever the possibility that you could have opted not to post it? Can you freely rethink it all through again and then come back here tomorrow and change your mind?
More to the point, was I ever able to have done otherwise given your own understanding of determinism?
Right, like that is not the conclusion any number of determinists come to.
I’m sorry, but: HUH?!!
Physics, chemistry, biology, geology, meteorology, etc. etc. etc., are just codes written by us?
Or, if not that, we’ve been here before when you noted that nature doesn’t compel us. It just is what it is. Only we have no idea going back to a comprehensive understanding of existence itself if there is a teleological component to nature. Something along the lines of, say, the No God Buddhist religion. Or the many pantheist narratives.
We just don’t know. Well, not counting the many metaphysical objectivists we’ve encountered here at ILP over the years.
Again, are you one of them?
And if you just shrug and say nature “is what it is” what does that tell us about the human condition given that it is clearly a part of nature.
Please explain to us how I have managed to not make a point of two above. After which I will try to explain why I am convinced that I reduced you [and obsrvr524] down to avoiding responding to them.
We don’t respond to them because we know that they are merely diversions toward a different obsession you have. It is a shame that you cannot see how easily we can see that.
Given his own understanding of determinism, was there or was there not a possibility that our exchange here could have been other than as it has, in fact, “naturally”/naturally/"naturally" unfolded.
Also, was he able to invent/discover RM/AO only insofar as he was fated to given my own understanding of determinism…or is his understanding different?
And, if it is different, how does RM/AO function when human interactions revolve not around the either/or world of science and mathematics and logic but around the is/ought world pertaining to such things as conflicting moral and political value judgments in regard to Mary’s abortion above.
I’m sorry but, apparently, nature now compels me to give you one more chance here to rise above petty retorts and Kidstuff huffing and puffing.
If I don’t have free-will, then I either post or not post. If I had free-will, then I either post or not post.
The same possibilities exist in both cases. The same thing happens in both cases. The same variables are at play. But you assign a special meaning, a compulsion, to the ‘determined’ action.
Why?
Start with one question and briefly focus on it … what abilities does a ‘free-will’ person have that a ‘determined’ person does not have?
Ignore gods, abortion and any other diversions for now.
Well, let’s just say that, compelled or not, we understand the meaning of “answer” here very differently
That in and of itself explains a lot to me. The Capital Letter intellectual contraptions. But, okay, take PHT to the abortion clinic and explain to us one more time how you would describe it to those protesting that abortion as immoral.
Would James try to convince us that this either is or is not an actual option for mere mortals given his own understanding of the human condition.
Imagine John is in court on trial for raping Jane. His defense: “if I don’t have free will then I either rape or I don’t rape her. If I have free will then I either rape or I don’t rape her.”
Are you telling me that if science and philosophy could in fact finally come to the definitive conclusion regarding whether we do or do not have free will, it’s all the same to Jane?
Or, sure, I’m still the problem here. Your point trumps mine [given my current understanding of free will] but I just don’t grasp it.
But my whole point is that, given the manner in which I understand God/No God in regard to conflicting goods, focusing in on John raping Jane above could never be construed as a diversion. It’s an actual behavior chosen in an actual set of circumstances.
And the ability a free will John would have is the capacity to opt not to rape Jane. After, say, a discussion with me in which I asked him to think back on his life experiences in order to probe how he came to want to. And why he might come to think instead that he shouldn’t want to.
As always - diversion to a different topic for a different thread in order to play your game by your rules - and insult anyone who won’t go along with your nonsense rules -
iambiguous contenes with - X
iambiguous contends with - Y
iambiguous contends with - Z
iambiguous contends - and contends - and contends
We just don’t want to play that way - try growing up and using adult rules - you might like it.
