It’s funny, because when people talk about freedom politically anymore it is very reminiscent to slavery and bondage.
Can you really blame people for their disillusionment?
That creature was thrown in captivity, we all live in a state of captivity, it’s just a more entertaining state of captivity because we have things like the internet now
1 Like
1 Like
How does Determinism redistribute blame, except to blame God for all wrongdoing and earthly Evil? That’s what you’re implying, correct? “The Universe” is to blame for drunk drivers killing vans full of families and children?
No no, we can blame people. We should blame people.
1 Like
Before their fins go all crooked, sure. It’s the human-whale equivalent of being circumcised.
1 Like
Of course we can blame people, and we do. Why is any distribution of blame a given if there is a better way to achieve what all the blame in the world could not?
1 Like
I do not blame anyone…I simply report what I see.
Their disillusion is part of empire decline. An empire that built its myth on ‘liberty’ (freedom) would create masses of disillusioned when it falls.
I actually said that it is BECAUSE the Empire of Lies is in decline that we see so many Americanized minions rejecting free-will. They no longer trust anything they once believed, including their own senses….and so a man can appear to be a male but might really be female, because the Judaic mind trusts what it hears, more than what appears.
Denial of free-will is based on how they CHOOSE to define ‘will’ and, more importantly’ the Platonic way they CHOOSE to define ‘free’. Metaphysis used to dismiss physis.
It is a defensive reaction to psychological trauma. A way of coping, of protecting the ego….of surviving.
If self-deceit serves survival then they adopt it, because they place nothing above their survival.
This is why philosophers are so rare…..and these are no philosophers.
1 Like
Because harm, pain, suffering, hate, war, conflict, competition – all are parts of Nature, the Core of Nature if you will.
Your denial of this obvious fact, bleeds into your delusions of a Cosmic, Infinite, Pre-Determined Secular Utopian Universe.
1 Like
Free Will is something God gave us so we can do whatever we want.
2 Likes
Our senses can be deceptive in trying to prove free will, as this author argued in Will Durant’s defense of free will.
1 Like
You’re jumping to conclusions RealUn. I’m not deluded, but your definition of what you think determinism means, IS the problem.
1 Like
You again…
I don’t have to prove free-will….you, and I, and everyone experiences it daily.
Just as I do not have to prove my existence, nor strength, nor being alive…
The act of willing, and having options is experienced.
The rest is about your self-deceiving mind-games, motivated by this romantic ideal of peace on earth.
Salvation.
I repeat…because you offer nothing but nihilism…
The irony is that you CHOOSE the definitions of ‘will’ and ‘free’ which you then negate, because they are metaphysical, Platonic, and unreal. Un-realizable.
You CHOOSE these definitions because they are absurd….no being, not even a god, could meet such criteria….and you do so to negate your agency, because you seek salvation.
You CHOOSE a definition of freedom, akin to Abrahamic salvation….and you do so for only this one qualifier, and no other. You don’t do so for the qualifier ‘strong’ as in ‘strong willed’….nor for the qualifier ‘life’….but only for the qualifier ‘free’ because your motive is not truth but absolution.
You don’t start with the observable act, but with the definition no actor can ever perform, because it is intentionally absurd and supernatural, and unattainable.
Using your methodology we can claim life is illusory…if we CHOOSE a definition of life, as being nothing less than immortal, perfect, eternal, complete…metaphysically ideal… and the fact that we do not understand everything about how it emerges only helps us negate the existence of life.
So, you are a coward and a hypocrite….and a bad faith psychotic….and there’s no value in discussing anything further with you on this or any other matter.
2 Likes
I don’t have to prove free-will….you, and I, and everyone experiences it daily.
The act of willing, and having options.
PEACEGIRL: No one is denying that we have options. This is the problem with definition, not reality.
The rest is about your self-deceiving mind-games, motivated by this romantic ideal of peace on earth.
I repeat…because you offer nothing but nihilism…
PEACEGIRL: This is the opposite of nihilism because it is not a quiet resignation. It is a change in what we know about human nature and how we can use this knowledge to create a better world.
The irony is that you CHOOSE the definitions of ‘will’ and ‘free’ which you then negate, because they are metaphysical, Platonic, and unreal. Un-realizable.
PEACEGIRL: There is no irony. I am using a definition that is reflective of what is going on IN REALITY. You are correct in that we have to define the words accurately, or we are talking at each other, not to each other. The way determinism is defined is problematic, and this has caused a division in our being able to reconcile “doing of one’s own accord” with having no choice once a choice is made (i.e., determinism).
You CHOOSE these definitions because they are absurd….no being, not even a god, could meet such criteria….and you do so to negate your agency, because you seek salvation.
PEACEGIRL: As I said, the way determinism is defined is causing the issue, not that we have no free will.
You CHOOSE a definition of freedom, akin to Abrahamic salvation….and you do so for only this one qualifier, and no other. You don’t do so for the qualifier ‘strong’ as in strong willed….nor for the qualifier ‘life’….but only for the qualifier ‘free’ because your motive is not truth but absolution.
PEACEGIRL: You are jumping to conclusions. The fact that our will is not free helps us in recognizing that we are not deserving of blame but of forgiveness. That doesn’t mean people should be let out of confinement if they hurt others. But imagine a world in which we can prevent those actions that have previously led to blame and punishment that are no longer necessary?
You don’t start with the observable act, but with the definition no actor can ever perform.
PEACEGIRL: I’m not sure what you mean by “no actor can ever perform?”
Using your methodology we can claim life is illusory…given our definitions of life, as immortal, perfect, eternal…metaphysical… and the fact that we do not understand everything about how it emerges.
PEACEGIRL: Where in my methodology (which you have no understanding of yet) where the conclusion that life is illusory, or any of your other charges against me, are true?
So, you are a coward and a hypocrite….and a bad psychotic….and there’s no use to discuss anything further with you on this or any other matter.
PEACEGIRL: Wow, why the accusations? You aren’t even curious what I’m talking about, yet you know everything about me? Maybe you should ignore my posts then.
Our senses can be deceptive in trying to prove free will, as this author argued in Will Durant’s defense of free will.
I don’t have to prove free-will….you, and I, and everyone experiences it daily.
The act of willing, and having options.
PEACEGIRL: Again, I am not arguing against this. I know we have options.
The rest is about your self-deceiving mind-games, motivated by this romantic ideal of peace on earth.
I repeat…because you offer nothing but nihilism…
PEACEGIRL: I am not denying that we have agency. I am just trying to show you that because we have agency, we have moral responsibility, but this responsibility is not in full force, which is why we can manipulate it to doing things that we would not otherwise do. I know you don’t get it. I hope you stop coming to premature conclusions.
1 Like
I have Royal Blood. I know a thing or two about Free Will.
2 Likes
Ah, so now you’ve shifted….
Moral responsibility?
Define morality.
What is morality?
How can morality prevent us from doing things we “would not otherwise do”?
Does morality come from god, or does it evolve, because it offers an advatage?
How is morality encoded and then corrupted by humans?
You remain clueless.
1 Like
Satan corrupts Morality.
I don’t know to whom this post is directed, but I’ll try to answer it. The word “morality” brings up the idea of what most think of as correct behavior. The phrase “moral responsibility” also brings up issues for many because, once again, the word “moral” is a judgment by others as to how someone “should” behave, when “shoulds” are also moral judgments. Moral responsibility is the elephant in the room in the free will/determinism debate because it appears that determinism doesn’t seem to have an answer in this regard. [Moral] responsibility is the great divide between these two schools of thought. If you want to define morality as conscience, it appears we are born with it. Whether we use it is up to the environment in which we live.
“Correct behavior” according to what standard?
Do you believe there is only one universal standard? What is the standard based on?
You are clueless, just from what you said….you have no clue You just repeat phrases as they were told to you.
Calling something moral is a value judgment….ALL value-judgements are evaluations based on an objective.
Your objectives are not universal.
Ego, free-will.
No it’s not…animals will, they have a degree of free-will….and they do not share YOUR ethical standards.
Free-will has NOTHING to do with morality….they only do for you, because YOU’ve associated will with a Judeo-Christian Will….God’s will..
Right…..we, as social species, have an innate, natural selected, sense of morality…because otherwise social cooperative strategies would be impossible. All social species have the basic tenets of morality - like altruism, tolerance, collective identity, sympathies/antipathies, bonding/love etc.
Morality is a method of disciplining individual free-will to collective interests
It is BECAUSE life has free-will, that it must be restricted and directed, and sublimated.
This is not unique to homo sapiens…. What is unique to one species, is that humans encode them….they convert them to words, and write them down and declare them to be divine.
And then they modify them…..they alter them to create larger groups, by reducing individual free-will.
Let’s call such modification “ethics”, to contrast them with naturally selected, innate, moral impulses.
So, what differentiates ethical systems, if anything?
Are they all the same?
Is YOUR ethical standard universal? No, it is not, because YOUR objectives, YOUR motives are not universal, even if they are popular. YOUR Abrahamic/Marxist ethics are not a universal standard.
I don’t know to whom this post is directed, but I’ll try to answer it. The word “morality” brings up the idea of what most think of as correct behavior. The phrase “moral responsibility” also brings up issues for many because, once again, the word “moral” is a judgment by others as to how someone “should” behave, when “shoulds” are also moral judgments. Moral responsibility is the elephant in the room in the free will/determinism debate because it appears that determinism doesn’t seem to have an answer in this regard. [Moral] responsibility is the great divide between these two schools of thought. If you want to define morality as conscience, it appears we are born with it. Whether we use it is up to the environment in which we live.
1 Reply
Reply
2
“Correct behavior” according to what standard?
Do you believe there is only one universal standard? What is the standard based on?
You are clueless, just from what you said….you have no clue You just repeat phrases as they were told to you.
Calling something moral is a value judgment….ALL value-judgements are evaluations based on an objective.
Your objectives are not universal.
Ego, free-will.
No it’s not…animals will, they have a degree of free-will….and they do not share YOUR ethical standards.
Free-will has NOTHING to do with morality….they only do for you, because YOU’ve associated will with a Judeo-Christian Will….God’s will..
Right…..we, as social species, have an innate, natural selected, sense of morality…because otherwise social cooperative strategies would be impossible. All social species have the basic tenets of morality - like altruism, tolerance, collective identity, sympathies/antipathies, bonding/love etc.
PEACEGIRL: Whatever the reason, we are born with a rudimentary conscience. I was only establishing that fact, not getting into the reasons for it. And btw, animals do not have free will, as you so casually stated as if it were fact. Animals do seem to have a conscience whereby they do not kill for fun (at least most don’t) but rather for survival. I am not interested in discussing an Abrahamic god or any god for that matter. I am only interested in discussing whether we have free will or no free will, and the implications thereof.
Morality is a method of disciplining individual free-will to collective interests
It is BECAUSE life has free-will, that it must be restricted and directed, and sublimated.
PEACEGIRL: Your premise that we have freedom of the will is unfalsifiable, so the rest of your argument is unsound.
This is not unique to homo sapiens…. What is unique to one species, is that humans encode them….they convert them to words, and write them down and declare them to be divine.
And then they modify them…..they alter them to create larger groups, by reducing individual free-will.
PEACEGIRL: The free will you are afraid of losing (and what is not under discussion) is not being removed by the truth of determinism. There is no need to feel threatened by determinism.
Let’s call such modification “ethics”, to contrast them with naturally selected, innate, moral impulses.
So, what differentiates ethical systems, if anything?
Are they all the same?
Is YOUR ethical standard universal? No, it is not, because YOUR objectives, YOUR motives are not universal, even if they are popular. YOUR Abrahamic/Marxist ethics are not a universal standard.
PEACEGIRL: I don’t have an objective. I am only stating what [I believe] is a universal truth, not an Abrahamic/Marxist standard. Ethical standards were created for good reason. Not to have standards of right and wrong would have led to chaos in a free will society. Truly, there are no ethical universal standards other than the one standard that applies to us all, and that is, our desire not to have something done to us that we don’t want done to ourselves. Everything had to be exactly as it unfolded, but that does not mean we cannot build a better world with greater understandings.
Of course you do….
Maybe you are lying to yourself, or to us……but you do have an objective.
What objective does morality have, in all species?
Survival of the group, at the expense of individual freedoms.
You believe in universal morality and cannot explain how and why it evolved?
And if it hadn’t you would not claim that it was inevitable, would you?
So, after the fact, you continue to claim that the world could not have been any other way…making morality a divine mission, right, hypocrite?
Whatever crap you tell yourself, you are an Abrahamic…since you’ve adopted its core ethical claim, that the world is governed by god’s will…and it could not have been any other way…..and we must acknowledge this…..as sinners, right?
So, for your ilk, all that remains is to acknowledge and udnerstand god’s divine will, or what he has determined for us?
Right hypocrite?