If there is no free will, I fail to understand where inventing comes from and where being predetermined comes into play in regards to being able to freely will something into reality, with nothing behind it to back it.
How can you will something to exist by the rules of determinism, if there is no information before hand to otherwise force you to do so or anything to influence that future.
What is the influencer and or restraint on making the decision to do so or not? when it is a completely new topic never before thought of. Are you not able to choose it freely? How does wisdom play into determinism and not free will?
We cannot freely will things into reality.
We want things - prefer that the state of reality matches closer to our ideals.
And we can hope for the above, and make efforts towards what we believe may contribute (as determined) towards this end.
Existence unfolds as determined, we partake in the process, as we are components of existence.
As above, we cannot through force of will, alter the trajectory of reality - or so hard determinists believe.
The composition of all the things that influence[d] the ‘influencer’, which preceded the influencer’s will in all meaningful ways.
Nothing is new under the sun, and all that exists is bound by existence’s grasp - as per definition.
We’re generally able to act in accord with our will -
where we can move towards our preferences,
without being physically coerced or restrained by other conscious entities,
i.e. gun to head, or locked in a cell.
The description of our choices being free, is what determinists push against.
The actions we make, which we describe as choices, are not of our own making.
They are reactions to prior states of reality, tracing before life on this planet existed.
Momentum carries us down the river of time, and meaningful self control is an illusion.
I wont speak to other’s conceptions of free will, but to determinism:
We are part of the process / mechanism by which the momentum / energy of reality is carried through the medium / dimension of time.
We recognize that actions that are illuminated by wisdom, are preferable to actions that aren’t.
Thus, those who value wisdom, seek to nurture it, to increase the possibility that it may illuminate anticipated actions.
[quote=“Artimas”]
If there is no free will, I fail to understand where inventing comes from and where being predetermined comes into play in regards to being able to freely will something into reality, with nothing behind it to back it.
Peacegirl: This question goes back to what is meant by having no free will. Actually, having no free will only means (on a macro level) that we are free to move in any direction we want at the outset. It only restrains us in the sense of not being able to choose that which offers us less satisfaction when comparing different alternatives.
Artimus: How can you will something to exist by the rules of determinism, if there is no information before hand to otherwise force you to do so or anything to influence that future.
Peacegirl: The rules you speak of are artificial because determinism does not mean we are forced to do anything which is implied by the standard definition. This has created unnecessary confusion.
Artimus: What is the influencer and or restraint on making the decision to do so or not? when it is a completely new topic never before thought of. Are you not able to choose it freely? How does wisdom play into determinism and not free will?
Peacegirl: Your questions are very thoughtful. If you keep in mind that the definition of determinism only means making a choice at any moment in time that offers greater preference or satisfaction based on one’s present knowledge, you will see that there is no conflict in making a decision (of one’s own accord) based on the factors influencing that decision, even if part of the decision is based on a new topic, or not being sure where to go next. This does not change the direction of movement we are compelled to go based on our nature.
It’s like a glass half empty, half full situation, but not. If it’s empty of choices, there’s nothing to choose. But if it’s full of choices, determinists are going to say the choices were determined… even though not all were chosen. Especially if it’s full of only one choice. But the other choice is to break the glass.
Another good question. Moving toward lesser satisfaction cannot occur. That does not mean we are always satisfied or that we make choices that others think are bad for us. We are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction given the choices at our disposal. Sometimes none of our choices are good, so we choose the lesser of two or more evils, but this does not change the direction life compels us to go. Everyday we are choosing between the greater of two goods, the lesser of two evils, or a good over an evil. The words good and evil are relative. Dog food may be good to a starving person and bad to someone who can have a steak.
Yep, this could be due to prioritising long-term goals over short-term gratification, considering the well-being of others, or making sacrifices for a greater cause. Another example could be when I choose a job that pays less but aligns with my passion or values rather than opting for a higher-paying job that brings less personal fulfilment. Or in relationships, I may make choices that prioritise the happiness of my partner or family, even if it means sacrificing some personal satisfaction.
So really, the concept of choosing lesser satisfaction is subjective and can vary greatly depending on individual values, priorities, and circumstances. We try to navigate complex decisions weighing multiple factors, and if we are lucky, the choice of lesser satisfaction could be aimed at achieving a more significant or meaningful outcome in the long run. It is just that some people have fewer options.
Sometimes. Some philosophers and scientists argue for a form of compatibilism, a sort of soft determinism, suggesting that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive and can coexist in certain ways. For example, even if our actions are determined by prior factors such as biology, environment, or genetics, we can still have a meaningful sense of freedom and responsibility. As long as our choices align with our desires and are not externally coerced, we might consider ourselves to have free will. On the other hand, incompatibilists could argue that if our actions are entirely determined by prior events and conditions, then our ability to make genuine choices is compromised. So, the idea of free will and determinism coexisting is a bit paradoxical, and perhaps our understanding of these concepts needs some refinement.
Sure, first’ Bob’s point about long term goals vs. short term goals. In the name of long term goals one may choose the less satisfying alternative and while one may feel some satisfaction for one’s maturity, for example, 1) one may never achieve the goal and never experience the satisfaction one has sacrificed the short term satisfaction for and 2) the net satisfaction, despite pride in one’s maturity or any similar satisfaction, may still be less than what eating cake and watching football would have brought.
Second, shame and guilt can lead to all sorts of lesser satisfaction choice and even do this for an entire lifetime. On one level it might seem to the person they are avoid some kind of punishment or greater dissatisfaction, by doing this - though it might not - but of course they can be mistaken about this.
Third, there can be other ideals that while offering some kind of satisfaction that the person might think is greater, in fact they lead to less satisfaction. Perfectionism, self-abnegation, toughing it out, being ‘loyal’ to someone who is not and many other adhering to ideals.
It might seem to the person that holding to these ideals leads to a greater satisfaction - related to being a good person or a real man or woman or whatever - or it might not seem that way to the person AND it need not be. For some it might be.
But I see people all around me motivated not by achieving greater satisfaction and also not achieving greater satisfaction out of all sorts of motivations, ideals, confusions and self-hatreds of different kinds.
There is also the health aspect that comes into play in higher management. When I saw that our corporation was undergoing a paradigm shift, I knew I was not the man for their technocracy, so I stepped down into local management despite no longer having the bonus.
I’m not sure I understand the practical side of what you mean here. Could you expand?
My idealism, focusing on holistic medicine and care, also played a role in the first example, whereas my new CEO said my priorities were wrong. However, I get the feeling you mean something else here. I have watched Buddhist monks and wondered how they saw us Westerners in comparison with their frugal life, despite the friendliness with which we were welcomed, but that could apply to any monastic order.
I do, too. The satisfaction is ephemeral, and desire falls on the next object quickly. There is truth in acknowledging that all is okay as it is, although I find that generally works for me, but when I see others whose lot is dukkha of some kind, my heart goes out to them.
You’re missing the point here. We are always making choices, some less satisfying than others, but that does not change the direction life is pushing us. We are constantly moving from moment to moment away from a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position, or we wouldn’t make a move. We are not talking about the reasons why we may desire doing one thing over another. We are just establishing the direction of life. It is impossible to move in the direction of what gives us the least satisfaction when a more satisfying option is available. Does that make sense? I don’t want people in this thread to go off on tangents when I started this thread to share a discovery.
Same thing here. Everyone is moving in the direction of greater satisfaction even though what gives one person greater satisfaction is not the same as another because of their particular circumstances, values, heredity, predispositions , etc.
It absolutely needs refinement. The problem with the standard definition of determinism implies that we are being coerced by prior events and conditions to do what we do, but this is a fallacy. Nothing has the power to make or coerce us do anything against our will, but this does not make our will free. Free will is a realistic mirage. Just because we are not being coerced by anything external does not grant us free will, as the compatibilists use to try to reconcile the two opposite thought systems.
If the will is un-free nothing can be against it.
The will is not ours at all.
Will is useless…it has no agency.
Cosmetic. It evolved to remind us about how unfree we are.
We have no will, if our will is not free.
We are automatons.
Will is external - god?
Call it god’s will, or fate.
Fatalism.
Absolute order determining everything.
Thou will be done.
If a choice cannot be different, then it is no choice at all, is it?
There is no choice if only one option can be chosen and is inevitable.
We are no different than a pebble on the ocean’s floor…no deferent than a drop of dew on the wind.
Carry on in your delusions.
Recovering Abrahamics.
Sheesh…
Therefore, this imagined state of ‘eternal peace’ is not up to us, is it?..we have no will, to will other than what has been determined; no choice other than choose what has been determined …
So, peace on earth is in god’s hands or a matter of fate.
Pleasure is just a way we know we are doing god’s work - or on the correct cosmic path.
Pleasure is how this external will lets us know what we are meant to do, or what it has determined for us to do.
But then, pain is not up to my will either. If I stray from god’s will, or contradict what has been determined, this has also been determined…and I feel this as pain.
Ergo, pain and pleasure are superfluous…since both are a product of what has been determined.
How can I choose what doesn’t give me pleasure if I can only choose one option? - meaning I have no choice at all.
Shall we wait and see what happens?
We can’t do anything about it, other than watch and see what has been determined for us.
Even this post was determined, and I could not have not posted it…I had no choice in the matter. I could not have willed otherwise.
I am the cosmos responding to itself…and you are the same - solipsism.
A cosmic echo chamber.
A farce.
What does that even mean Lorikeet? You are going by a false definition of what determinism means. It does not mean we don’t have the ability to choose for ourselves. We have that agency, but we are not free in the sense of being able to choose what we don’t prefer. We can’t choose two options at the same time. The option we choose is the option we prefer the most among the options available. If you keep using the conventional definition of determinism, it’s no wonder you are up in arms. Who wants to be a robot or a domino?
Nothing external is forcing us to do anything we don’t want to do, not even God himself.
Not after the choice is made. Choosing, or the comparison of differences, is an integral part of man’s nature, but he is compelled to prefer of alternatives that which he considers better for himself, and though he chooses various things all through his life, he is never given any choice at all.
It is only inevitable after the fact, not before. You have the freedom to choose either/or but once the choice is made, it could not have been otherwise. You still have the authority over your choices because nothing (not even God) has the power to make you choose B if you want to choose A.
We are more than that. Thank God we don’t have free will because without it our world would be helter skelter with no chance of achieving peace.
What external will? What are you talking about?
You can choose what doesn’t give you pleasure if you find that you don’t want that pleasure for whatever reason. For example, you still have the ability to compare: do I want this immediate pleasure or do I want to accept the pain of working hard and achieving a longer lasting goal? Determinism does not take this away.
You keep forgetting that we are not determined by any outside force. We have a lot of say as to what gives us greater satisfaction, which then influences the next moment and the next and the next. We are part of nature, co-creators, if you will. We don’t sit on the sidelines. Your post was determined because you chose to post. God didn’t force you, nor did anything outside of you. You wanted to post because it gave you satisfaction to post. It’s as simple as that. Your efforts still matter. What do you mean pain and pleasure are superfluous? We try to avoid pain which is protective. Sometimes we accept pain if it’s for a greater cause. Pleasure is not always the end goal either. There are many variables that affect someone’s choices but one thing is for certain: all of us are subject to the laws of our nature. No one is exempt.
It depends on how we define satisfaction. If it is the fulfilment of one’s wishes, expectations, or needs, or the pleasure derived from this, rather than the achievement of the most materially rewarding outcome, then I agree with you. The examples I gave could be another kind of satisfaction.
There are many factors that are pushing or pulling us in life and although we may have the feeling of being in control, when you sit quietly on a cushion meditating, it becomes clear to you that you have only made your way through a maze of events that you couldn’t change because they are coming at you all the time. It is a kind of soft determinism, which is the ability to take the left, the right, or the middle option, but those options are pre-determined by events that you have no control over.
That is true. Just like the confusion over the definition of determinism, the word satisfaction can be confusing as well. I will post an excerpt as to what the author meant by “greater satisfaction.”
The dictionary states that free will is the power of self-determination regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one=s own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that man has the ability to do other than he does, if he wants to, and therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to do. These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have mathematical perception. Man is held responsible not for doing what he desires to do or considers right, better or good for himself under his particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to be wrong or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted otherwise had he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will? But take note. Supposing the alternative judged right for him by others is not desired by himself because of conditions known only to him, what then? Does this make his will free? It is obvious that a great part of our lives offers no choice, consequently, this is not my consideration. For example, free will does not hold any person responsible for what he does in an unconscious state like hypnosis, nor does it believe that man can be blamed for being born, growing, sleeping, eating, defecating, urinating, etc.; therefore, it is unnecessary to prove that these actions, which come under the normal compulsion of living, are beyond control.
Supposing a father is desperately in need of work to feed his family but cannot find a job. Let us assume he is living in the United States and for various reasons doesn’t come under the consideration of unemployment compensation or relief and can’t get any more credit for food, clothing, shelter, etc.; what is he supposed to do? If he steals a loaf of bread to feed his family the law can easily punish him by saying he didn’t have to steal if he didn’t want to, which is perfectly true. Others might say stealing is evil, that he could have chosen an option which was good. In this case almost any other alternative would have sufficed. But supposing this individual preferred stealing because he considered this act good for himself in comparison to the evil of asking for charity or further credit because it appeared to him, at that moment, that this was the better choice of the three that were available to him – so does this make his will free? It is obvious that he did not have to steal if he didn’t want to, but he wanted to, and it is also obvious that those in law enforcement did not have to punish him if they didn’t want to, but both sides wanted to do what they did under the circumstances.
In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are compelled to either live out our lives the best we can or commit suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical (undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.
Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action, from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is never satisfied or content to remain in one position for always like an inanimate object, which position shall be termed “death.” I shall now call the present moment of time or life here for the purpose of clarification, and the next moment coming up there. You are now standing on this present moment of time and space called here and you are given two alternatives, either live or kill yourself; either move to the next spot called there or remain where you are without moving a hair’s breadth by committing suicide.
"I prefer…
"Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is death or here and prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion is life. Consequently, the motion of life which is any motion from here to there, however slight or imperceptible, is a movement away from that which dissatisfies, otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here or where you are, you would never have moved to there. Since the motion of life constantly moves away from here to there, which is an expression of dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously move constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction. It should be obvious that our desire to live, to move off the spot called here, is determined by a law over which we have no control because even if we should kill ourselves, we are choosing what gives us greater satisfaction otherwise we would not kill ourselves. The truth of the matter is that at any particular moment the motion of man is not free for all life obeys this invariable law. He is constantly compelled by his nature to make choices, decisions, and to prefer of whatever options are available during his lifetime that which he considers better for himself and his set of circumstances. For example, when he found that a discovery like the electric bulb was for his benefit in comparison to candlelight, he was compelled to prefer it for his motion, just being alive, has always been in the direction of greater satisfaction. Consequently, during every moment of man’s progress he always did what he had to do because he had no choice. Although this demonstration proves that man’s will is not free, your mind may not be accustomed to grasping these type relations, so I will elaborate.
Supposing you wanted very much of two alternatives A, which we shall designate something considered evil by society, instead of B, the humdrum of your regular routine; could you possibly pick B at that particular moment of time if A is preferred as a better alternative when nothing could dissuade you from your decision, not even the threat of the law? What if the clergy, given two alternatives, choose A, which shall now represent something considered good, instead of B, that which is judged evil; would it be possible for them to prefer the latter when the former is available as an alternative? If it is utterly impossible to choose B in this comparison are they not compelled, by their very nature, to prefer A; and how can they be free when the favorable difference between A and B is the compulsion of their choice and the motion of life in the direction of greater satisfaction? To be free, according to the definition of free will, man would be able to prefer of two alternatives, either the one he wants or the one he doesn’t want, which is an absolute impossibility because selecting what he doesn’t want when what he does want is available as an alternative is a motion in the direction of dissatisfaction. In other words, if man was free he could actually prefer of several alternatives the one that gives him the least satisfaction, which would reverse the direction of his life and make him prefer the impossible.
We are all products of our environment and heredity. We have no control over the antecedent events and circumstances that forge our destiny, nor can we change our genetics.
Imagine that you were taken prisoner in war time for espionage and condemned to death, but mercifully given a choice between two exits: A is the painless hemlock of Socrates, while B is death by having your head held under water. The letters A and B, representing small or large differences are compared. The comparison is absolutely necessary to know which is preferable. The difference which is considered favorable, regardless of the reason, is the compulsion of greater satisfaction desire is forced to take which makes one of them an impossible choice in this comparison simply because it gives less satisfaction under the circumstances. Consequently, since B is an impossible choice, man is not free to choose A. Is it humanly possible, providing no other conditions are introduced to affect your decision, to prefer exit B if A is offered as an alternative?
“Yes, if this meant that those I loved would not be harmed in any way.”
“Well, if this was your preference under these conditions, could you prefer the other alternative?”
“No I couldn’t, but this is ridiculous because you really haven’t given me any choice.”
You most certainly do have a choice, and if your will is free, you should be able to choose B just as well as A, or A just as well as B. In other words, if B is considered the greater evil in this comparison of alternatives, one is compelled, completely beyond control, to prefer A. It is impossible for B to be selected in this comparison (although it could be chosen to something still worse) as long as A is available as an alternative. Consequently, since B is an impossible choice you are not free to choose A, for your preference is a natural compulsion of the direction of life over which you have absolutely no control. Let me explain this in another way. Once it is understood that life is compelled to move in the direction of satisfaction, and if two such alternatives were presented to you as in the example above, what choice would you possibly have but to accept the lesser of two evils? Since it is absolutely impossible to prefer something considered still worse in your opinion, regardless of what it is, are you not compelled, completely beyond your control in this set of circumstances, to prefer A; and since the definition of free will states that man can choose good over evil without compulsion or necessity, how is it possible for the will of man to be free when choice is under a tremendous amount of compulsion since B was evil, as the worse alternative, and could not be selected in this comparison of possibilities?
The word “choice” itself indicates there are meaningful differences otherwise there would be no choice in the matter at all as with A and A. The reason you are confused is because the word choice is very misleading for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities, but in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always moving towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences what he, not someone else, considers better for himself, and when two or more alternatives are presented for his consideration he is compelled by his very nature to prefer not that one which he considers worse, but what gives every indication of being better or more satisfying for the particular set of circumstances involved.
What?
The choice expresses preference in the context of multiple options.
There is always more than one thing we “prefer”.
I prefer to go to Paris, because of the ambience.
I prefer to go to London, because of the history.
I prefer to go to Hawaii, because of the weather.
Which preference will I choose? some other factor will sway my choice…like money, or time, or both.
My judgments constantly evaluating, measuring…until I must make a choice.
Time forces me to make a choice.
Mutiple options…
Choice between multiple options.
No one option is inevitable.
You are one confuses puppy.
Free-will has to do with the number of options you can choose from. It has no other meaning.
Fuck conventions, naive girl. Think for yourself, for once.
So, it’s all part of a plan…programming.
Fate.
No choice at all.
There is no choice if one option is inevitable, idiot.
Again with the mind games.
After? AFTER? Are you serious?
When the choice is made then you can pretend it was inevitable.
You’re like a prophet who waits for events to unfold and then claims he had predicted them.
Once the choice is made all options are reshuffled…consequences, setting up another set of options.
You participate in the determination of your own fate, moron.
It’s never certain because others are, simultaneously, judging and choosing, and, more importantly, most of the cosmos is without will, and does not choose, and is not entirely ordered.
Chaos is also a factor affecting your options. Most of the cosmos follows paths-of-least-resistance…only life, wilful life, can “CHOOSE” paths of more resistance…or can deny itself satisfaction, or sacrifice itself to help another, because only life has Will…CHOICE.
Man CAN choose what is not Better, simpleton.
He can choose what benefits another and not himself.
He can choose to not satisfy a need.
He can choose not to choose and let another determine his fate.
See…
You are a charlatan playing mind games.
I am a prophet, after the fact.
I can predict what you will say…after the fact.
I’ll tell you what you will psot…after you’ve posted.
Test me.
:-"
You are insane.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
You’ve declared the choice YOU made inevitable, AFTER you made it?
Comforting yourself, dear.
No, dear…your every choice is not inevitable, but it is part of what determines your fate.
Your judgements and the choices based on them, is all you. YOU.
Regret is part of the responsibility of being alive.
Regret is what makes you adjust your judgements and choices.
Regret is what makes you cautious.
Regret is what forces you to adapt…learn.
Those who do not, face the consequences.
We all make bad choices, based on bad judgement calls…and we suffer the consequences.
We then suffer the pangs of regret…if the consequences had collateral effects we could not foresee.
We learn…adjust our judgements, and make different choices.
Some never learn…those who cannot accept responsibiltiy…those who use the denial of free-will absolving themselves of all culpability. they repeat the same mistakes.
Attempting to sweeten that bitter pill, with your word games, is the way you cope.
Ha!!
THAT’s free-will, moron.
That A or B is free-will.
If it’s A or B or C or D or E…then you’re will is more free.
If the option is only A, then your will is a slave.
War is part of the cosmos.
Your mind is so fucked-up it dreams of a state that describes death.
Peace.
Choosing whatever satisfies our needs/desires IS what causes conflicts, naive dolt…because our choices are contradicted by another’s choices…and by cosmic order/chaos.
Agon, dear…that’s existence. Struggle…war.
The one you constantly allude to, recovering Abrahamic.
You’ve not overcome the god of Abraham…you’ve simply renamed it.
THAT’s free-will.
The more options you have, the more freedom you have.
Freedom = Power.
More power = more options.
Moe options = freedom.
That’s free-will.
But your not entirely getting it.
We are constantly affected by external forces, energies, wills…and we go on despite it.
All is interactive.
All is a struggle.
Our will is challenged by another will, or by cosmic forces…
Our will is not omnipotent - meaning it is not absolutely free.
That my line, dear. :-"
We participate in the determination of our own fate…we participate in what is being determined, with every willful act…with every choice.
Bad judgements are a bad foundation…leading to bad choices…or choices that fail to achieve our objectives.
THAT’s free-will.
‘Free’ refers to the number of options we can choose.
It means nothing else.
According to you, pain/pleasure is superfluous, since we don’t have a choice, dear.
Now you are returning to my positions but you can’t let go of denying free-will completely - a confused mind compartmentalizing …using word-games to comfort herself.
Choice is not inevitable…BEFORE the FACT, naive dolt.
Choice is exactly what leads to conflicts.
Will’s competing, fighting, over the same objectives.
Every breathe you take denies it to another.
Free-will is not absolute, naive dolt.
I’ve broken the concept up into its parts: Free = quantity & quality of accessible options.
Freedom = power; power = freedom.
Therefore, the god of Abraham is described as omnipotent…absoltuely free.
We mortals are not…we live in existence…where all is of a degree, not an absolute.
We are free to a degree, because we have a degree of power.
Will = the act of living; the act of choosing.
We will constantly without engaging our conscious mind. When you raise your finger, or turn your gaze…it is all WILL.
Every breathe you take…WILL.
All expressing a degree of power.
Begin with the act…not the word.
The act, not how it is defined in a book, dear.
The act we can all witness.
The wilful act; the wilful choice.
The ACT is the expression of WILL.
Choice is but a formal presentation of options… but, in fact, we are constantly choosing, unconsciously.
This is what morons call fate. Destiny.
We make constant judgments/choices leading us to consequences…good or bad. We make it unconsciously… determining our fate, and then are surprised by the results.
Even morons who deny their culpability, are constantly judging and choosing, subconsciously.
We often judge unconsciously what is contradicted by our conscious ideals.
Mind/Body dissonance…nihilism…as I’ve defined and described it.
I’ve partially adopted Schopenhauer’s definition of Will, only diverging when he places Will outside causality, essentially replacing god’s will, with simple will - adopting Buddhist inspired metaphysics.
He also denied the freedom of will because he was a recovering Abrahamic that had found in Buddhism a superior alternative to Christianity.
His understanding made man a representation of an external agency, that can only hope to know itself before it dies.
I return all concepts to that which is experienced - within existence.
So, I place there Will, as a manifestation of life - intentionality.
Will is what differentiates the living from the non-living.
We perceive will daily…in every intentional gesture, every organic act…
Life is a manifestation of Will.
How intentionally emerged and evolved from within unintentional energies, is another subject.
I begin with what is…the act…not the word, not text.
The ACT itself.
Will = focus of organic energies upon an objective.
The objective can be anything.
Movement towards a destination, directed by Will - like a boat is directed by the rudder and sails, often in opposition to ocean tides and air streams.
Will is as powerful as the energies under its control.
Beginning with tis body’s aggregate energies.
But will can become powerful by appropriating the wills of other organisms, harnessing to its own Will.
Will can also harness non-living energies, multiplying its power, and freedom, such as by understanding natural energies and using them to increases its willful powers.
Guilt and shame can lead/encourage us to chose the less pleasant option. We don’t deserve good things, happiness, accomplishment, someone who treats us well, respect…whatever the details of the specific person’s guilt and shame.
One could argue, yes, that the person listens to these cognitive states to avoid greater unpleasance, but that 1) doesn’t mean that’s what happens and 2) I think that assumes too much. It’s a veering away, not a weighing of choices.
Ideals could lead one to all sorts of relations with seeking the pleasant. But certainly Buddhism could lead one away from all sorts of creature comforts and joys. One might assume this leads to more subtle reductions.
But in any case I am skeptical of what sounded to me like a ‘we’re really all hedonists deep down’ implicit position.
I didn’t mean that hedonism fails, not that that I am saying it doesn’t but rather that the hedonist model for human choice-making fails to match reality. I don’t think it’s a good model. It oversimplifies and also leaves out all sorts of counterexamples.
It’s a bit like the ‘it’s all really selfish’ model for human behavior.
People makes moves to punish themselves and may continue in a downward spiral of that over a long life or until an early death.
[/quote]
To me this moves so far away from the general meaning of ‘satisfaction’ that it encompasses and choosing based on any criteria with any consequences.
We make choices for reasons, some conscious, some not. But sure, it has reasons. But satisfaction is not a good term if it covers expectations, wishes, needs, which may includes wanting not to be satisfied, not to feel good, not to relax, not to feel complete or whole, not to achieve, even to not feel at all, and, again even to be punished, or isolated or to show one doesn’t need anything positive and so on.
As I said above, soft determinism could imply that you had three doors to choose from and chose the wrong one. That is often a feeling one gets when something goes wrong, and we see an alternative we haven’t seen before, or when something goes wrong and someone says, “I could have told you so!” That is why I don’t fully believe in free will or determinism. There are obviously other situations in which we are just overrun and have no choices at all.
To be guilty of choosing evil over good, we have to know the consequences of our actions and their negative effects on other people and choose them anyway. Another form is when we desire what we consider good for others, ignoring their choices. This can sometimes be supposedly well-meaning, such as in nursing when patients do not want to suffer intensive care and are resuscitated against their declared wishes.
This case has been a point of contention historically, and poverty has always been a reason for what I would call “minor theft.” In some earlier civilisations, when farmers didn’t have the efficient machines that we have today, some of the crop’s fruit stayed in the ground and was left for the poor to gather. Indigenous peoples have in the past wondered at the presence of poverty in supposedly civilised cities and said that the terminology “savages” applied more to those cultures than to them. They considered poverty a weakness of society, not so much of the individual.
The very fact that people are ashamed of their reliance on charity shows that we are unable to give assistance in a way that also validates the dignity of the people. What we are talking about has nothing to do with “evil” in the way you are implying. It is just a survival instinct setting in where it shouldn’t need to.
I think that your employing “mathematical (undeniable) reasoning” indicates a lack of moral fibre in our societies. Our global economy has made farmers in many countries unable to do their job, because cheaper imports undercut their prices. The soil doesn’t support the products that they are told to deliver, and so many farmers, even in countries where they believe in karma, have committed suicide. Their fields have laid dormant, and a generation on, if a disturbance in delivery chains occurs, populations have to go without. The farming traditions of millennia are destroyed so that a few people can make a profit. Who is evil in this example?
Very theoretical. We are part of biological life on this planet, which is to some degree in competition for resources, and humankind has found ways to cooperate to provide for their communities. This cooperation is the basis of the survival of larger communities. The other factor is finding meaning in our existence, which, as we can see, is very diverse. If we find ourselves in a meaningful motion through life and able to contribute to and benefit from the cooperation we call economy, there is no reason to consider suicide. This is also applicable to the elderly, who live from their contribution in the past.
This seems to be a rather depressing approach to the questions at hand. It makes abstract arguments rather than approaching the question from the point of view I have demonstrated and has been the traditional way that humanity has addressed the issue. It is also a little fundamentalist in that it adheres to terminology without seeing a broader context.
I refer to my “three doors” example.
Very theoretical and not really about life at all but a hypothetical discussion about something that is addressed in a practical way by anyone using what we used to call common sense.
From this point the discussion seems to cover ground that we have already covered, only in a very hypothetical manner.
I would have to know the reason for guilt and shame before I could address this. Attaching good things to being worthy of them is problematic. Do we no longer believe that all people hold a special value tied solely to their humanity and called dignity? I accept that this is a value that seems to have diminished in recent times, with corporate goals more important than personal happiness in society, and certain groups disallowed basic rights. The West used to be the protector of individual freedom, but it seems that the conditions for that are being tightened once again.
I am also critical of that position, especially when I experience people rallying to help others in times of distress and putting themselves out to assist others.
