Duplicate.
This very divisive post is a semblance of what is going on in the world today.
We are mere replicas, and it’s working.
Apologies to both sides. But in the deal politocal world there are no apologies, only increased hyper vigilance and paranoia.
I didn’t censor you. I didn’t censure you. And I didn’t erase your post. I’m at a loss. I duplicated a post by accident that I was editing. It would be nice to check with me first before accusing me. I have no idea what you mean by “all I said that I seconded in big in PART.” Makes no sense to me. What am I missing?
that nigga beet ain’t got shit on his majesty Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus and the Grand Wazoo
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6peaCMIFyI[/youtube]
After You put ‘duplicate’ , ambig posted , and then I posted Right, and followed it partly, by asserting some points he made. I noted that it was indeed posted, and wondered how it came to be deleted, for even if I had, I would have had to fill the post with something.
But never mind Peacegirl, and things happen, nevertheless it made me wonder, and may have been caused by a technical quirk.
I have just read the third chapter and agree that there is absolutely nothing to fear in death
There is something to fear, that one committed the sin of commission, that is You could have done something for another soul that You failed to do, because of that fear that you did not overcome.
The fear was evidence of a lack of love , and the proof in the pudding is, that love does not know fear.
Are you sure that you understand what Iambig is saying?
You repeatedly reply to his point in this way - as if “your want” gives you some measure of control. But that really doesn’t make sense because you will want whatever ‘nature’ makes you want.
In a determined world, you don’t get to choose your wants, desires or preferences.
Peace girl,
Why can’t You see this in a different way, rather then using ‘strict’ determination based on ontology, psychological relativity of preferred method of describing trends, 'leaning toward conclusive but probabilistic notions to support determined situations, contextual divergences, supplying relative ideas of mixed willful/ determined phases of both?
An either/or juncture develops with absolutely defined conditional reductive nominal consequance-ism where the reductive effort toward simpler explanations fail, because a reduction toward psychological explanation failing, the threas gains contradictory interpretations.
Why? Because reductive arguments can not be supported by emotive wished for conclusions: not because it’s lack of validity, but because reductionism does not, can not entail it’s derivitive, for psychologisms can not derive an ontology.
It’s chasing it’s own tail . as it were, at the very least, as shown by the structurally preoccupied linguistic considerations.
This was mentioned above, I can’t remember where but I will search it out later on, today.Generally , the structural interpretation of language appears to express some need for cohesion or compatibility with the philosophy of mind. I will try to come back to this later today, this being an initial , early morning effort.
The fact of derivation is relevant and important here, because the derivation flowed from metaphysics to and through psychology , and not vica versa. inductive reasoning uses probable options to approximate the differing usage , filling in variables likely appropriate as the most possible factual choice.- In the original schematic constructive integrative route that is to be deconstructed so it can be approximated.
The deconstruction is caused by the lack of cohesive certainty, as a structural foundation, which came about by the break up of meaningful demonstrations, where strict determination can be shown to be conditionally be based on absolute and absolutely intrinsic causitive factors. This here, simply can not be shown, and the foundation can not support such a route our minds can re-route.
Its like the little girl who left home dropped pieces of bread on the road, so she will have a sign of her route retraceable on her return, only have them eaten up by birds.
These general concepts rely on the language analysis which I earlier referred to And in a like manner , will try to retrace, in order to be able to support my point.
Further note: the reason I am writing in ''philosophic language’s, is, that if it was not for that , I could never try to recreate the patterns of reasoning which got me here. (The route which later, as I promised, will try to re route and return to-so as to be able to reduce it to ‘sensible’ under-standing.)
So it us of primary reason that I have to understand myself.
Another way to put this is to say that you will, in any given moment, find yourself with a set of desires, wants and preferences. We can set aside where they came from, because that doesn’t matter…you got them now. Now someone could argue, well I can choose to aim for new ones…Sure, you can. But then the choice will be determined by those wants, desires and preferences you have now. And no baby out of the womb is choosing its desires, wants and preferences…so we wake up, in time, finding ourselves with a set. And that set determines the next one. If the determinists are right. Like water running down a hill, changing course due to gravity and the shape of the hill. Choices happening like the weather.
I’m glad you agree about nothing to fear in death. Many people don’t. What he explained in the last paragraph was just a prelude to Chapter Ten, Our Posterity. I am curious as to why you had no comment regarding the subject matter of Chapter Three. I mean if this principle can help prevent carelessness that kills large numbers of people every year, that’s a very big deal, and you made no mention of it at all.
No side has to apologize. This was not meant to be a devisive post. It was meant to show that there is a better way even if the world as it stands, is all that it can be at this time.
There is a difference between nature making me do something, and nature causing me to want to do something due to my preferences. Obviously, our wants, desires or preferences are not of our choosing. The difference between the two statements is huge. When you say nature made me do this, it implies that nature is an entity that is forcing me to make a preset choice, which may be opposite from the choice I prefer to make. We have no control over what we we choose (in the direction of greater satisfaction), but the difference is that we, as the agent, must give permission to those choices. We know that if will is not free, the choices we make are beyond our control, so how could we have any measure of control? But it is important to understand the other side of the equation that nothing can make us do what we make up our mind not to do, for over this we have absolute control. This ability does not grant us free will, just to clarify.
[i]The government holds each person responsible to obey the laws
and then punishes those who do not while absolving itself of all
responsibility; but how is it possible for someone to obey that which
under certain conditions appears to him worse? It is quite obvious
that a person does not have to steal if he doesn’t want to, but under
certain conditions he wants to, and it is also obvious that those who
enforce the laws do not have to punish if they don’t want to, but both
sides want to do what they consider better for themselves under the
circumstances. The Russians didn’t have to start a communistic
revolution against the tyranny that prevailed; they were not compelled
to do this; they wanted to. The Japanese didn’t have to attack us at
Pearl Harbor; they wanted to. We didn’t have to drop an atomic
bomb among their people, we wanted to. It is an undeniable
observation that man does not have to commit a crime or hurt
another in any way, if he doesn’t want to. The most severe tortures,
even the threat of death, cannot compel or cause him to do what he
makes up his mind not to do.
Since this observation is
mathematically undeniable, the expression ‘free will,’ which has come
to signify this aspect, is absolutely true in this context because it
symbolizes what the perception of this relation cannot deny, and here
lies in part the unconscious source of all the dogmatism and
confusion since MAN IS NOT CAUSED OR COMPELLED TO
DO TO ANOTHER WHAT HE MAKES UP HIS MIND NOT
TO DO — but that does not make his will free.
In other words, if someone were to say — “I didn’t really want to
hurt that person but couldn’t help myself under the circumstances,”
which demonstrates that though he believes in freedom of the will he
admits he was not free to act otherwise; that he was forced by his
environment to do what he really didn’t want to do, or should he make
any effort to shift his responsibility for this hurt to heredity, God, his
parents, the fact that his will is not free, or something else as the
cause, he is obviously lying to others and being dishonest with himself
because absolutely nothing is forcing him against his will to do what
he doesn’t want to do, for over this, as was just shown, he has
mathematical control.
[/i]
Nature doesn’t end at the skin. We are nature. Our insides, desires, flesh, intentions…are nature. It flows forward. Inevitably. If determinism is the case.
Exactly, but when you say nature made you do this, it’s not an accurate expression
I don’t think the term “sin” is accurate here. We, as social beings, were created to help each other when there is a true need, which turns out to be the key to the economic system. But often it is the case that we are expected to comply with another’s request not because there is a true need, but because it’s easier for them to have others do their dirty work. Are we expected to be selfless to prove we are loving?
I don’t understand a lot of the philosophic language or patterns of reasoning that you’ve presented, since I’m not familiar with it. Therefore, I will need a translation in order for me to respond intelligently. 
Not sure what you mean. Maybe you can expound on it.
Can you give me an example?
I like that analogy. We cannot identify absolute intrinsic causative factors that can be traced back because it’s almost impossible to know all of the factors that lead up to an individual’s preference. Identifying a cause/effect relationship is not possible because there are many variables that lead a person to choosing one thing over another. I’m sure if you’ve been following this thread you would also understand why the word “cause” is misleading. Meno, thanks for your input. As I mentioned in the previous post, I am trying to understand your reasoning even though it’s a challenge because I’m not well versed in some of the language. I hope we can overcome this barrier. 
It had to be a technical quirk because I never saw your post. If it was ambiguous’s post, you should be able to find it. I can’t delete other people’s posts. You said you seconded what he was saying in part, right? I don’t remember seeing your comment or I would have responded, especially if it was a question for me. I would never censor anyone, but I have blocked people in the past who were throwing around ad hominems.