New Discovery

Social Forums Non-Philosophical Chat
61

As a consequence of knowing what it means that man’s will is not free,
all carelessness is automatically removed because to hurt someone who will
not blame you for doing what you know could have been prevented had you
not been careless, gives you no choice. Driving a car under these new
conditions, unless you know what you are doing, is equivalent to playing
with a loaded gun; and if you can get any satisfaction out of standing
around while the parents weep over the death of their child just killed by
you who will not be blamed or punished in any way, then, my friends, you
will be able to do the impossible. Consequently, a great responsibility is
placed upon the shoulders of anyone who has anything whatever to do with
cars, and instead of being anxious to drive each person will be more anxious
to make certain that he really knows how first.

The miracle about to unfold
is that once all mankind are taught what it means that man’s will is not free,
and certain other changes are made which I will soon discuss, people are
permitted to see, well in advance, a situation that is too horrible to
contemplate; consequently, the only avenue open for needed satisfaction is
to prevent it from arising because there is no way they can do anything
afterwards…under the changed conditions. This means that whatever the
other driver did that caused the accident would be listed among the
DON’TS OF GOOD DRIVING and no one would desire to go against
these. People in a hurry to beat a traffic signal will do just the opposite,
never try to beat it, and never be in a position where they are forced to go
through a red light, or screech their brakes. If, however, there is no traffic
coming and the light is red, there is no reason to stay because its purpose is
to stop the other traffic so they can go.

As for whether we need permission from the government to drive? In
our present environment we need a license and before this is granted we are
given certain tests to see if we qualify which means that part of our
responsibility has already been shifted. In other words, people who are
really not qualified to sit behind a wheel are made to think that they are by
receiving permission, and should someone make the comment, “You
shouldn’t be allowed to drive”, the response would be, “The government
thinks so or I wouldn’t have been given a license.” In the new world there
will be no such thing as a license to drive because man has become of age
and can now assume responsibility for himself, therefore, the only person to
tell you that you are sufficiently trained and ready will be you yourself. No
driver henceforth will ever again be issued a license by a government
agency to determine his qualifications. This means that the division of the
Department of Motor Vehicles which determines the eligibility of a new
driver by administering a passing or a failing grade will be permanently
displaced. The fact that certain inadequate standards were set up for others
to determine our qualifications allowed many unqualified people to assume
they were qualified because they passed the required exam. We will never
again have to prove to anyone but ourselves that we are qualified to drive
and our vehicle is in good condition.

We can see very clearly why our
responsibility must increase to the maximum degree since this is the only
way we can prevent what we don’t want. Where before we couldn’t wait to
pass the test so we could finally go wherever we wanted, we will not be that
anxious to sit behind the wheel until we know for sure we can drive without
causing collisions or delays. Even driving instructors will never tell us
when they think we are ready because they would not want to assume this
responsibility. What they will do is teach us all the causes of accidents and
delays, and show us how to handle a car properly. They will have a
thorough course of training which will include all the causes of accidents
through carelessness, but it will be up to us to determine whether we are
capable of driving without hurting anyone by comparing our ability with the
tough driving standards set up by the driving schools. Today we say –
“Obey the laws or else you will be punished.” Tomorrow we say – “Don’t
obey the laws of good driving if you don’t want to, but if someone gets hurt
as a consequence it will be impossible to blame anybody but yourself.

There will be no need for speed limits because nobody will desire to travel
at a speed that endangers others, although specific guidelines will be set up
to help drivers ascertain when it is prudent to slow down under difficult
road and weather conditions. Driving a car becomes a very hazardous
profession in the new world because the very thought that someone might
get hurt for which there would be no blame or punishment and no questions
would be asked as to whose fault it was, compels everyone to become an
extremely skillful driver before undertaking what could very easily lead to
the kind of accident just described, and there is no more unbearable form of
punishment than to know that you are responsible for someone’s death or
serious injury. However, to launch this new world and create the
environment necessary to prevent crime, war, hate, and all the other evils
plaguing our lives we must remove every form of hurt to us that could
justify retaliation, which is a separate problem that will be solved very
shortly.

62

“Although I agree with everything you have demonstrated so far,
reluctantly, and think it is absolutely marvelous, I can’t see how you can
satisfy the whole human race and that’s what you must do with your
equation which includes communism as well as capitalism.”

“You keep forgetting one thing. I am not the one who will solve this
problem. The astronomer who first observed the invariable laws between
the planets, moon and sun didn’t cause the eclipse; he perceived certain
relations that made him aware it would occur at a certain time. And just
because I have observed the invariable laws inherent in the mankind system
which allowed me to see the end of all war and crime because of what it
means that man’s will is not free, does not mean that I am causing this to
come about. The most I am able to do is reveal God’s laws, which gives me
no choice but to move in a certain direction for satisfaction because we are
all a part of His laws.” Let me recapitulate certain salient points.

Man is compelled by his nature to move constantly in the direction of
greater satisfaction and when he is blamed for hurting others through
carelessness he is permitted to find satisfaction in one of three ways. He
can apologize; shift his responsibility to something or someone else as the
cause for what he knows he has done, or if there is no way he can shift his
responsibility, he can pay a price for the hurt he knows he caused.
However, when he knows well in advance that all mankind are compelled to
excuse everything he does because it is now known that his will is not free,
while he knows that he doesn’t have to hurt anybody unless he wants to, for
over this he knows he has mathematical control, he is given no choice but to
do everything in his power to prevent a situation from which he cannot find
any satisfaction. How is it possible for him to find satisfaction in carelessly
hurting others when he is denied an opportunity to apologize, to shift his
responsibility, or to pay a price of atonement for what he did? Since this
will eat at his conscience, and since he knows this well in advance, he is
given no choice but to prefer the alternative that offers greater satisfaction
and in this case the only avenue open is for him to prevent such a situation
from arising. I realize that there is quite a difference between hurt that
results from carelessness which is something a person really doesn’t want,
and deliberate hurt. There is also a vast difference between the blame that
follows a hurt and blame that is in advance which is a judgment of what is
right for someone else. This latter blame is discussed thoroughly in the
chapter on marriage, where it is also demonstrated how such advance blame
or judgment of others must come to an end out of mathematical necessity.
This is the kind of blame that tells you how to wear your hair, how to dress,
how you should live. It is the bully in various forms. These things are your
business as long as nobody is hurt by what you do. You will understand
this much better as we proceed.”

The belief in free will and the concomitant blame are equivalent to the
thrust of a rocket in getting a satellite into space, for without it we could
never have reached the outposts of this Golden Age. But just as the
astronauts shed their excess baggage when their rocket has expended its
energy in reaching orbit, so likewise will we shed this theory and all the
blame that helped us reach this tremendous turning point in our lives. Well,
is it any wonder this discovery was never found because the solution
actually lies beyond the framework of modern thought since it cannot be
understood in terms of our present knowledge? As I said, there are no
precedents. I realize how difficult it must be for you to conceive a world
without liability insurance and the Department of Motor Vehicles, but you
will learn soon enough that millions of people are going to be permanently
displaced from their manner of earning a living but they will not be hurt in
any way, so don’t jump to any conclusions; just be patient. If you are
slightly less skeptical and more willing to continue the investigation, you
will see how effective are these laws as God puts an end to all war, crime,
adultery and divorce. But first, I shall reveal my second discovery which
will play a vital role in the new world.

63

Why should I justify my actions to myself? Is not the feeling of power (what the writer calls “satisfaction”) justification enough?

If hurting them is my main purpose (which would make me a sadist), seeing them hurt will give me satisfaction whether they blame anyone or not. But they may also be hurt indirectly. For instance, if I stole a Playstation 3, this would hurt people financially. My purpose, however, is not this hurt but the pleasure of being able to play on the Playstation 3.

I believe all existence is will to power (not need for power; also, power in the full sense of the word (not just domination/control over others)).

Wrong; the absence of free will means the absence of responsibility.

Really? Is this inborn? Sounds like faith to me.

64

They have done studies that even 2 year olds feel a sense of responsibility when they see another child getting hurt. This is not faith.

65

Am I a person? What is a person? Is a person a living human body? Or something about the body? Earlier on in this thread, I asked you what you meant by “we” - I don’t believe you answered. Perhaps you did not understand what I meant. It was actually the same question I am asking you now.

I only desire to gain, and exercise my, power. Whether this is at someone else’s expense is of concern to me only in so far as it may have repercussions for me (which would again diminish my power). In the future world you envision, there will be no repercussions, so I will be able to pursue and exercise my power to my heart’s desire.

Aha! There we have it. “Madman” will replace “sinner”. But what is mentally ill, what is mentally healthy? What is sane, what is insane? Who decides what is normal? If these statistics are anything to go by, did the original writer not say that in the '50s, 98% of the people he monitored had a problem with determinism? Does this not make the remaining 2% - including the original author - “crazy”? Was not Galilei “crazy” for thinking differently about the shape of the earth? Or is truthfulness never crazy? In that case, am I not the sanest of the sane when I emphatically declare that there is nothing inherently wrong with hurting people?

It does not just mean that. Power means simply: ability. If I am able to play on the PS3, I have to power to play on it.

And domination/control over others is bad? Why? Is it inherently so? Is it written in the stars? Am I insane for not finding domination “bad”?

If the will is not free, there is no responsibility and hence no need to justify irresponsibility.

If will is not free, then there is nothing to excuse, nothing to justify.

“They have done studies”. I am not convinced.

66

Both of you are correct in different aspects of the argument. PG, or the author she is citing rather, is correct in proposing that the human animal is rationally “economic” in its social interactions, and in cases where there are consequences, such a “law”…and the risk is not worth it…alternatives will happen that seek to establish the same end, but after compromising. The compromising is the rational act…the initial instinct and desire to disregard the “law” is the raw passion without the intellect. Once rationalization occurs in a social setting…which is the only setting man has ever been in…the concept of individual will-power becomes something dynamic and “diplomatic”.

Sauwelios is correct in saying that there is no “consequentialism” stopping a violent act. Which is to say, the only thing that I should allow to stop me is my own decision. There is only my decision, and that is all that is important.

But individual wills must, and do, conspire together for power, as Nietzsche put it. It is here that diplomacy occurs and rational control over the passions. A Nietzschean ethic, ironically, only works out in practice and not in theory- his ethics are ethics which ignore consequence and order. In theory, there should be no compromising or submission, since this is degenerate and weak. In such a scenario, society and civilization is just a waiting period until total dissolution. No wonder, then, that PG is correct in that ethical decisions are not involuntary acts of power and will force only, but rational choices occuring within an economic system or dynamic. Only after a large society is formed can Nietzsche’s ethical system take life and begin working. The conspiring for power is now a secular expression of the same dynamic that allowed for the organization of the society in which the secular ethics take life. Although all acts of will are not answerable to anyone else, they tend to compromise and enter into diplomacy, agreement, mutual consent, and negotiation.

You may say that the intellect here is just another expression of will, and it is of course. But the moment this will begins coresponding with another will, it becomes social.

67

You don’t have to be convinced. Go look up studies and you will find this is true. We are not born sinners, and we are all born with a conscience.

68

I’m not exactly sure what you are saying in 'alternatives will happen that seek to establish the same end, but after compromising. Obviously, we are a thinking species that is constantly choosing between alternatives. Raw passion is controlled by conscience, but in our free will society, it often did not matter who was hurt as long as our needs got met. In the new world, this will be impossible. There is an entire chapter on dating and marriage. So many changes are going to be made that it’s hard to answer these questions without creating more questions. Any other kind of raw passion (such as a desire for a creative endeavor) is given full expression in this world because no one will be standing in anyone’s way or telling them what to do.

There is nothing more diplomatic than solving international conflict that can be sustained by a universal law that supercedes all manmade laws.

Sauwelios is correct in saying that there is no “consequentialism” stopping a violent act. Which is to say, the only thing that I should allow to stop me is my own decision. There is only my decision, and that is all that is important.

It’s knowing that there will be no consequences because the world knows will is not free, that creates consequences that are much worse than punishment. That is why this higher law is so powerful.

But individual wills must, and do, conspire together for power, as Nietzsche put it. It is here that diplomacy occurs and rational control over the passions. A Nietzschean ethic, ironically, only works out in practice and not in theory- his ethics are ethics which ignore consequence and order. In theory, there should be no compromising or submission, since this is degenerate and weak.

We are not talking about compromising or submission. We are talking about a world where there is freedom to do anything one wants to do. Order comes as a result of knowing that one will not desire to step over the line of his freedom and another’s freedom.

In such a scenario, society and civilization is just a waiting period until total dissolution. No wonder, then, that PG is correct in that ethical decisions are not involuntary acts of power and will force only, but rational choices occuring within an economic system or dynamic. Only after a large society is formed can Nietzsche’s ethical system take life and begin working. The conspiring for power is now a secular expression of the same dynamic that allowed for the organization of the society in which the secular ethics take life. Although all acts of will are not answerable to anyone else, they tend to compromise and enter into diplomacy, agreement, mutual consent, and negotiation.

Negotiation and agreement will still exist, but once the agreement is made, both parties know that if they break it no one will blame. The only difference between the two worlds is one uses blame and punishment to try to get a desired outcome (which doesn’t always work as we all know), and the other uses no blame which does get the desired result.

You may say that the intellect here is just another expression of will, and it is of course. But the moment this will begins coresponding with another will, it becomes social.
[/quote]

And social is where the dividing line begins. My desires will not infringe on your desires because I will no longer desire to gain at your expense. This is where the line will be drawn not by laws, but by my very own conscience.

69

So, a homo sapiens sapiens? I.e., the organism (the body)? But this body is subject to the “laws” (necessities) of nature, which are deterministic: thus it is not free. So how can “the burden of responsibility” ever fall on a wholly unfree creature?

Only if you feel guilt. But guilt is precisely what disappears with the abolition of the idea of free will.

…

So this “law” becomes the measure of sanity and insanity! Splendid. Is this not equal to saying “if you deviate from our dogma, you will be considered possessed by the Devil”?

So the cardinal drive is the will to increase the amount of power one has, not the will to preserve one’s present amount of power.

I think where we fundamentally disagree is in regard to the desirability of peace. I believe in the desirability of a dynamic of peace and war (or stability and crisis), even as I believe in the desirability of summer and winter (as opposed to perennial summer).

Or maybe it is flawed reasoning.

TO BE CONTINUED.

70

Why? I don’t believe conscience is inborn (and a two year old is not a newborn babe). It seems to me that your dogma may be expressed as follows: “People must feel pangs of conscience at what I deem wrong, otherwise they are insane.” So the way to enforce your ideal society is no less tyrannical than the ways of the societies it pretends to be a more humane alternative for: it equally depends on the torturer called “conscience”, it just makes alleviation of conscience impossible, so that the “wrongdoer” is always the victim of it. Thus it strives to impose a forced lawfulness.

He was never responsible; he only felt responsible. And it does not matter whether this feeling of responsibility is inborn or learned. What matters to us, we who have the intellectual conscience, is the truth - and the truth is that a creature which has no free will cannot be responsible (though it may feel responsible, even as it may feel it has a choice).

It was not his fault; it is you who is saying it is his fault.

Oh, studies may well have shown that (some) two year olds feel a sense of responsibility when they see another child getting hurt. Is this evidence that conscience is inborn, is what I would like to know. Kindly direct me to representative studies, preferably ones available on the Internet.

71

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … highlight=

While we’re on the subject, check out the small piece I wrote. Saw, I’d like to get your thoughts on it.

72

I really don’t know about other studies; you will have to research this on your own. I understand your need for empirical studies, but even with these there can never be enough examples to satisfy the people who believe otherwise. Just as 2+2=4, there are some people who say we don’t know this for sure because there might be one example (and that’s all that’s needed) that can prove that 2+2=5. In that case, no matter what evidence there is, they will try to find a way around this a priori truth.

73

Very good, this:

“Fist of all, free will is a dualistic philosophy, in that one’s mind is considered to be separate from one’s body. These two substances are seen as incompatible; not mixing, so not exerting any influence upon one another. Thus if body were to not have a mind, it would behave as causality dictates it to behave, in that for every sensation inputted, a predictable output reaction would ensue. But Free Will states that in the body there does exist a mind, a soul, a consciousness, a ghost in the shell, that dictates what the body does. As such, even though the body is composed of the same substance as everything else, it is still free to will will that is seemingly random thanks to the uninfluencable ghost’s ability to originate will. This ghost inside the machine has the capacity to will from self; will that is original to self; will that does not predate self, because self does not, or rather cannot, predate itself.”

If there were a ghost in the shell, it can never influence the shell, as the ghost would move right through it…

This is also noteworthy:

“Thus a person’s amount of choices in any given situation is one, even though to the self which is ignorant of influences being exerted upon it and also ignorance of self’s composition, the choices will seem as having an outcome possibility as more than one. In other words, if a die were tossed and in midair it gained consciousness it would see the outcome as having the possibility of landing one out of six sides, but to an observer having had information such as the force exerted upon the die, gravity’s pull on the die, the surface it lands on, et cetera, the possibility is clear to be one. Similarly, a person ignorant of the immediate forces acting upon him, as well as ignorant of the forces that created what he considers self, will see the possibilities of any given situation as more than one.”

This reminds me of the self-conscious rock that is discussed in Tom Wolfe’s “I Am Charlotte Simmons”, of which idea I made the following adaptation:

“A human being is really like a conscious stone. The stone is rolling downhill, and can do nothing about it, but it may think, and feel, that it is in control. It is this feeling which is pleasurable. The stone may say, “Yes! I’m rolling downhill! That is precisely what I want to do!”, or it may say, “Oh no! I’m rolling downhill! I don’t want to! Help!” The former is self-affirmation; the latter is self-denial. And there is no free choice between them. But the denier also denies his own denial; whereas the affirmer affirms his own affirmation. A double negative is a positive, but a double positive is not a negative. So all existence is positive, even though it may seem negative from a negative perspective.”

74
75
76

Welcome back, JennyHeart!

77

Who is JennyHeart. I think you posted on the wrong thread.

78

No, it was a reply to your post of 2:28 pm.

79

I have no idea where that is or what the name JennyHeart means. I am probably missing something that is obvious. :frowning:

80

Ah! and there we have the smiley. I rest my case!