New Discovery

This is the place to shave off that long white beard and stop being philosophical; a forum for members to just talk like normal human beings.

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:53 pm

peacegirl wrote:I am telling you that NO ONE, under these new conditions, could derive satisfaction from hurting others WITH A FIRST BLOW, when he knows IN ADVANCE, that no one in the entire world would ever hold him responsible because the world knows his will is not free. But BEFORE HE DOES SOMETHING TO HURT ANOTHER, THE CHOICE TO HURT SOMEONE IS STILL UNDER CONSIDERATION, and when this knowledge of no blame becomes a new determinant, he will be unable (because it gives him less satisfaction; and if you don't understand this, everything else will make no sense) to move in this direction.

Less satisfaction does not mean no satisfaction.


WHEN YOU DO SOMETHING THAT YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR, YOU ARE THE ONE RESPONSIBLE,
NOT SOMETHING ELSE

But I never do anything that I am responsible for, as I have no free will.

You have a block, which like many do, prevents new knowledge.

But I don't have a block. I don't even believe in free will! But the consequence of the absence of free will is that nobody is responsible.


You must think outside of the box of your definition of determinism, and your idea about the state, and how society is functioning in a free will society. That will only get in the way.

Nietzsche's Greek society need not be a free will society. So that doesn't get in the way. As for my definition of determinism: please give me an accurate definition that leaves room for responsibility.


How can you shift what you know you have done,
whether intentional or unintentional, when no one is holding you responsible?

I don't have to.

You can't. It's impossible to shift to somebody or something else WHEN YOU ARE NOT BEING HELD RESPONSBIBLE, because everyone already knows that your will is not free. How can you tell someone it was not your fault when no one is saying it is your fault. Tell me!

I know I can't, but then again I don't have to, so it isn't a problem that I can't. I am not blaming myself (and neither is my conscience).


[b][how can you shift the blame to someone else when you are not being blamed? Again this is impossible. Try to do it and you will see it cannot be done].

Ah, I have it now. You are not sketching the case where I am not being blamed. In your scenario, I am being blamed - by myself (or rather, a part of myself: my conscience...). This is the real flaw in your whole argumentation.

No, that is not what I am saying and there is no flaw. You know in advance that you will not be blamed; the hurt to another hasn't happened yet but you are considering it. It's hypothetical because it can't happen once these principles are put into effect. We are all thinking about the consequences of our behavior, but instead of punishment being the deterrent, the new condition of no blame becomes the deterrent because it is the worst form of punishment to be excused for something you know you are responsible for.

But I know I am not responsible for it, as I don't have free will.


If your hurting someone was the result of a chain reaction, then you have no reason to feel remorse, and you won't. But if what you have done something that is unjustifiable, and when no one blames you, you are prevented from shifting that which is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY [that which you caused] by using an excuse that something other than you made you do this, which prevents you from moving in this direction.

Only the former applies here. There is nothing that is unjustifiable in this scenario, as everything is justified (or rather, neither justified nor unjustified, as the whole concept of "justice" is senseless in this scenario).
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:06 pm

peacegirl wrote:It is not too complicated if people come with an open mind and not as a challenge to prove this knowledge wrong. It can't be proven wrong

My dear girl, I have already proven it wrong. And it was not because I wanted to "win" the argument, but because I disagreed with the argumentation.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby peacegirl » Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:22 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:It is not too complicated if people come with an open mind and not as a challenge to prove this knowledge wrong. It can't be proven wrong

My dear girl, I have already proven it wrong. And it was not because I wanted to "win" the argument, but because I disagreed with the argumentation.


Sauwelios, you did not prove this knowledge wrong. If you can't understand the two-sided equation, which does not in any way, shape, or form contradict 'no free will', then you need to keep trying if it interests you. If it doesn't then we can end the conversation; it doesn't matter to me one way or the other.

If you can't understand that nothing in this world can cause you to do something against your will, but that does not make your will free, then you need to keep listening. Other people who aren't quite sure, but are willing to continue asking questions, are the people who will eventually spread this knowledge. I am not going to go on the defensive because I don't have to. I know that I know that I know only because this knowledge contains within itself proof of its veracity. :)
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:59 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:It is not too complicated if people come with an open mind and not as a challenge to prove this knowledge wrong. It can't be proven wrong

My dear girl, I have already proven it wrong. And it was not because I wanted to "win" the argument, but because I disagreed with the argumentation.

Sauwelios, you did not prove this knowledge wrong. If you can't understand the two-sided equation, which does not in any way, shape, or form contradict 'no free will', then you need to keep trying if it interests you. If it doesn't then we can end the conversation; it doesn't matter to me one way or the other.

I understand the two-sided equation completely; so much so that I understand one side of it is flawed. It would be worth it for you to listen to this: it's a perfect example of true philosophical thinking:

"You are not [contrary to what you claim] sketching the case where I am not being blamed. In your scenario, I am being blamed - by myself (or rather, a part of myself: my conscience...). This is the real flaw in your whole argumentation."

You can welcome this introduction to the world of philosophy (and you may even thank me for it), or you can continue your pseudo-philosophic occupations.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby Membrain » Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:49 pm

peacegirl wrote:
PART ONE

THE FOUNDATION AND SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENT OF MY FIRST DISCOVERY

CHAPTER ONE - THE HIDING PLACE
CHAPTER TWO - THE TWO-SIDED EQUATION
------------------

PART TWO

MY SECOND DISCOVERY

CHAPTER FOUR - WORDS, NOT REALITY
CHAPTER FIVE - PREMARITAL RELATIONS
CHAPTER SIX - THE NEW ECONOMIC WORLD
-----------------------

PART THREE

CHAPTER SEVEN - THE WISDOM OF SOCRATES
CHAPTER EIGHT - UNTIL DEATH DO THEY PART
CHAPTER NINE - PARENTS AND CHILDREN
-------------------------

PART FOUR

MY THIRD AND FINAL DISCOVERY; THE EXTENTION OF A MATHEMATICAL RELATION INTO THE WORLD BEYOND DEATH

CHAPTER TEN - OUR POSTERITY
CHAPTER ELEVEN - THE NEW MEANING OF EDUCATION

Thank you very, very much for going to the trouble of outlining the book. I learned, for example, that there are "three" main discoveries. That helps with focus.

I did have one more favor to ask:

Can I get little statements after each title to paraphrase what the title means? Short two, three, four-word titles can be ambiguous and somewhat cryptic. A short 5-to-10 word explanation would be really helpful. For example:

CHAPTER ONE - THE HIDING PLACE (withing our own minds)
CHAPTER TWO - THE TWO-SIDED EQUATION (the nature of math)

You see my guesses. Are they right? If not, you can see the need for clarification.

My current first choice for a read is this chapter:

MY THIRD AND FINAL DISCOVERY; THE EXTENTION OF A MATHEMATICAL RELATION INTO THE WORLD BEYOND DEATH

I expect that I will be able to come up with some observations concerning things that we think happen after death.

Thanks again.
I just changed my signature to be a link to a list of 42 logical fallacies. Feel free to use it:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
User avatar
Membrain
Thinker
 
Posts: 832
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 8:17 am
Location: California

Postby peacegirl » Tue May 01, 2007 2:59 am

Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:It is not too complicated if people come with an open mind and not as a challenge to prove this knowledge wrong. It can't be proven wrong

My dear girl, I have already proven it wrong. And it was not because I wanted to "win" the argument, but because I disagreed with the argumentation.

Sauwelios, you did not prove this knowledge wrong. If you can't understand the two-sided equation, which does not in any way, shape, or form contradict 'no free will', then you need to keep trying if it interests you. If it doesn't then we can end the conversation; it doesn't matter to me one way or the other.

I understand the two-sided equation completely; so much so that I understand one side of it is flawed. It would be worth it for you to listen to this: it's a perfect example of true philosophical thinking:

"You are not [contrary to what you claim] sketching the case where I am not being blamed. In your scenario, I am being blamed - by myself (or rather, a part of myself: my conscience...). This is the real flaw in your whole argumentation."

No, this is not a flaw in the discovery. How can you blame yourself if you have done nothing to hurt someone? Just answer that question please.

You can welcome this introduction to the world of philosophy (and you may even thank me for it), or you can continue your pseudo-philosophic occupations.


You can think you are correct, and go your merry way; but you are not understanding something and I wish that instead of being so sure of yourself, just like Nageli was (and he was a leading authority), be a little humble and question as a young child would instead of using your pseudo-philosophic occupation as the end all of truth.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Postby peacegirl » Tue May 01, 2007 3:06 am

Membrain wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
PART ONE

THE FOUNDATION AND SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENT OF MY FIRST DISCOVERY

CHAPTER ONE - THE HIDING PLACE
CHAPTER TWO - THE TWO-SIDED EQUATION
------------------

PART TWO

MY SECOND DISCOVERY

CHAPTER FOUR - WORDS, NOT REALITY
CHAPTER FIVE - PREMARITAL RELATIONS
CHAPTER SIX - THE NEW ECONOMIC WORLD
-----------------------

PART THREE

CHAPTER SEVEN - THE WISDOM OF SOCRATES
CHAPTER EIGHT - UNTIL DEATH DO THEY PART
CHAPTER NINE - PARENTS AND CHILDREN
-------------------------

PART FOUR

MY THIRD AND FINAL DISCOVERY; THE EXTENTION OF A MATHEMATICAL RELATION INTO THE WORLD BEYOND DEATH

CHAPTER TEN - OUR POSTERITY
CHAPTER ELEVEN - THE NEW MEANING OF EDUCATION

Thank you very, very much for going to the trouble of outlining the book.

Your welcome. :)

I learned, for example, that there are "three" main discoveries. That helps with focus.

Yes, that is true, but I can't even begin to get into the other two unless people are able to see the undeniable nature of this first discovery.

I did have one more favor to ask:

Can I get little statements after each title to paraphrase what the title means? Short two, three, four-word titles can be ambiguous and somewhat cryptic. A short 5-to-10 word explanation would be really helpful. For example:

CHAPTER ONE - THE HIDING PLACE (withing our own minds)The hiding place is the knowledge that lies locked behind the door of determinism. I cut and paste this entire chapter for people to read.

CHAPTER TWO - THE TWO-SIDED EQUATION (the nature of math)
The two sided-equation is the actual discovery. He first proves that man's will is not free which is the first half; the second half he shows that when 'no blame' becomes a condition of the environment, the justification to strike a first blow is no longer possible (but this has to be done on a worldwide scale because it involves the economic system). This discovery is mathematical even though it isn't dealing with numbers. It doesn't have to be the exact sciences for it to be mathematical, scientific, or undeniable.

You see my guesses. Are they right? If not, you can see the need for clarification.

It was a good guess but it isn't right. You really should read the chapters I painstakingly cut and paste. Then, if you have questions it's so much easer to answer.

My current first choice for a read is this chapter:

MY THIRD AND FINAL DISCOVERY; THE EXTENTION OF A MATHEMATICAL RELATION INTO THE WORLD BEYOND DEATH

I expect that I will be able to come up with some observations concerning things that we think happen after death.

He proves mathematically (he was a mathematician in his own right) that there is nothing to fear in death because we (not the same individual) are born again and again and again. This does not have any relation to reincarnation or an afterlife, so please don't jump to premature conclusions.



Thanks again.
Last edited by peacegirl on Tue May 01, 2007 1:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Postby my real name » Tue May 01, 2007 3:14 am

peacegirl wrote:CHAPTER ONE - THE HIDING PLACE (withing our own minds)The hiding place is the knowledge that lies locked behind the door of determinism. I cut and paste this entire chapter for people to read.

CHAPTER TWO - THE TWO-SIDED EQUATION (the nature of math)
The two sided-equation is the actual discovery. He first proves that man's will is not free which is the first half; the second half he shows that when no blame becomes a condition of the environment (and all first blows are removed) the justification to strike a first blow is no longer possible.


Man's will is not free?? Why bother getting up in the morning! :-?
Think deep. Love strong. Create beautily.
User avatar
my real name
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2689
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:26 pm
Location: When midway in our life's journey/I found myself in a dark forest/for the right way was lost.

Postby peacegirl » Tue May 01, 2007 3:21 am

my real name wrote:
peacegirl wrote:CHAPTER ONE - THE HIDING PLACE (withing our own minds)The hiding place is the knowledge that lies locked behind the door of determinism. I cut and paste this entire chapter for people to read.

CHAPTER TWO - THE TWO-SIDED EQUATION (the nature of math)
The two sided-equation is the actual discovery. He first proves that man's will is not free which is the first half; the second half he shows that when no blame becomes a condition of the environment (and all first blows are removed) the justification to strike a first blow is no longer possible.


Man's will is not free?? Why bother getting up in the morning! :-?


Hi my real name, how are you? I don't think you read the definition of determinism that this author has set forth. We are not robots or automatons reacting to a determinant with no will. You MUST read the first chapter and then you will see that getting up in the morning is a choice (although not a free one) that people can make, or they can go back to sleep, or commit suicide. Once they make a choice, they could have never done otherwise, at that moment, because it gave them greater satisfaction. If you really want to understand this, you need to study it and I'll be here to answer questions afterwards. It is worthwhile reading in spite of everything that has been said to the contrary.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Seymour Lessans' Noble Lie?

Postby my real name » Tue May 01, 2007 3:47 am

peacegirl wrote:Hi my real name, how are you? I don't think you read the definition of determinism that this author has set forth. We are not robots or automatons reacting to a determinant with no will. You MUST read the first chapter and then you will see that getting up in the morning is a choice (although not a free one) that people can make, or they can go back to sleep, or commit suicide. Once they make a choice, they could have never done otherwise, at that moment, because it gave them greater satisfaction. If you really want to understand this, you need to study it and I'll be here to answer questions afterwards. It is worthwhile reading in spite of everything that has been said to the contrary.


Your author seems to be a pessimist on the topic of choice. All his talk seems to be about lesser evils, when free will has more to do with choosing a positive good. Limitations on free will are not existential, that is, they are situational problems, not a problem with the will itself. I see his future world as an Orwellian one, where no one ever acts for what they really want. I think that's the result of his position.

As for the first chapter, I tired of it since it seemed to be hackneyed discussion about how no one has ever discovered what he discovered and how this will revolutionise the world. Good luck.

By the way, I like your author's underlining discussions after the arguments. I think it's good rhetoric and it puts the argument into simpler language to understand.
Think deep. Love strong. Create beautily.
User avatar
my real name
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2689
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:26 pm
Location: When midway in our life's journey/I found myself in a dark forest/for the right way was lost.

Re: Seymour Lessans' Noble Lie?

Postby peacegirl » Tue May 01, 2007 1:41 pm

my real name wrote:
peacegirl wrote:Hi my real name, how are you? I don't think you read the definition of determinism that this author has set forth. We are not robots or automatons reacting to a determinant with no will. You MUST read the first chapter and then you will see that getting up in the morning is a choice (although not a free one) that people can make, or they can go back to sleep, or commit suicide. Once they make a choice, they could have never done otherwise, at that moment, because it gave them greater satisfaction. If you really want to understand this, you need to study it and I'll be here to answer questions afterwards. It is worthwhile reading in spite of everything that has been said to the contrary.


Your author seems to be a pessimist on the topic of choice. All his talk seems to be about lesser evils, when free will has more to do with choosing a positive good. Limitations on free will are not existential, that is, they are situational problems, not a problem with the will itself. I see his future world as an Orwellian one, where no one ever acts for what they really want. I think that's the result of his position.

This is not a pessimistic book at all; in fact it is very comforting to know that man can be controlled by laws over which he has no control. In other words, if our will was free we could never control what man does regardless of his choices that might hurt others, but when this law of our nature becomes a permanent condition of the environment, he cannot find satisfaction in hurting anyone when not to gives him more satisfaction. He does not talk just about the lesser of two evils. He is showing the our choices are one of three: the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods, or a good over an evil. Find me an example where our choices are not one of these three? This is the exact oppostie of an Orwellian world. THE EXACT OPPOSITE. We are free to be who we are and do what we want in life, with no one judging our choices. No one will be telling anyone what to do. Right now we must tell people what to do because we are afraid they will do the 'wrong' thing and hurt others. But when this desire to hurt others (for whatever reason) is no longer justified, we don't have to be afraid that giving people TOTAL AND COMPLETE FREEDOM TO DO ANYTHING THEY WANT will infringe on another's right to do ANYTHING THEY WANT.

As for the first chapter, I tired of it since it seemed to be hackneyed discussion about how no one has ever discovered what he discovered and how this will revolutionise the world. Good luck.

If you call this hackneyed, then you need to defend this by showing me another person who has made a similar discovery. Obviously, that involves that you understand the first chapter which obviously you didn't. There might be another person who has had this insight; I am not denying this because this knowledge is part of the real world.

By the way, I like your author's underlining discussions after the arguments. I think it's good rhetoric and it puts the argument into simpler language to understand.


It is not rhetoric. He tried very hard to make it as clear as he could, but when the world uses logic in so many arguments, they can't tell the difference between fact and opinion. I have an uphill battle but I ain't giving up. Maybe I will add one more chapter to help clarify certain things. It takes reading the entire book at least twice for understanding. I have been with this knowledge for many years and that is the only reason I have a clearer grasp of these principles.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Postby Sauwelios » Tue May 01, 2007 2:35 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:It is not too complicated if people come with an open mind and not as a challenge to prove this knowledge wrong. It can't be proven wrong

My dear girl, I have already proven it wrong. And it was not because I wanted to "win" the argument, but because I disagreed with the argumentation.

Sauwelios, you did not prove this knowledge wrong. If you can't understand the two-sided equation, which does not in any way, shape, or form contradict 'no free will', then you need to keep trying if it interests you. If it doesn't then we can end the conversation; it doesn't matter to me one way or the other.

I understand the two-sided equation completely; so much so that I understand one side of it is flawed. It would be worth it for you to listen to this: it's a perfect example of true philosophical thinking:

"You are not [contrary to what you claim] sketching the case where I am not being blamed. In your scenario, I am being blamed - by myself (or rather, a part of myself: my conscience...). This is the real flaw in your whole argumentation."

No, this is not a flaw in the discovery. How can you blame yourself if you have done nothing to hurt someone? Just answer that question please.

You can welcome this introduction to the world of philosophy (and you may even thank me for it), or you can continue your pseudo-philosophic occupations.


You can think you are correct, and go your merry way; but you are not understanding something and I wish that instead of being so sure of yourself, just like Nageli was (and he was a leading authority), be a little humble and question as a young child would instead of using your pseudo-philosophic occupation as the end all of truth.

Oh, I'm sure it is pretty flattering to compare yourself (or your author) to Galilei and the like.

You want your readers to be like young children, because you want them to believe...

My occupation is not pseudo-philosophic - stop parroting my words. I have razed down your precious castle-in-the-air, and though I take it that you are attached to this castle - perhaps the original author was your father? -, I think this is a fine opportunity for you to grow up (become a woman instead of a girl). Our failures may be valuable lessons - if we are not too proud, or rather proud enough, to admit defeat. A little humility would be in place, I'll agree with you on that: you come barging into a philosophy forum with your fancy theories and preach (not to mention accept) them as Gospel truth. You are no better than a Christian Fundamentalist who sticks to his Bible no matter what.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby peacegirl » Tue May 01, 2007 2:41 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:It is not too complicated if people come with an open mind and not as a challenge to prove this knowledge wrong. It can't be proven wrong

My dear girl, I have already proven it wrong. And it was not because I wanted to "win" the argument, but because I disagreed with the argumentation.

Sauwelios, you did not prove this knowledge wrong. If you can't understand the two-sided equation, which does not in any way, shape, or form contradict 'no free will', then you need to keep trying if it interests you. If it doesn't then we can end the conversation; it doesn't matter to me one way or the other.

I understand the two-sided equation completely; so much so that I understand one side of it is flawed. It would be worth it for you to listen to this: it's a perfect example of true philosophical thinking:

"You are not [contrary to what you claim] sketching the case where I am not being blamed. In your scenario, I am being blamed - by myself (or rather, a part of myself: my conscience...). This is the real flaw in your whole argumentation."

No, this is not a flaw in the discovery. How can you blame yourself if you have done nothing to hurt someone? Just answer that question please.

You can welcome this introduction to the world of philosophy (and you may even thank me for it), or you can continue your pseudo-philosophic occupations.


You can think you are correct, and go your merry way; but you are not understanding something and I wish that instead of being so sure of yourself, just like Nageli was (and he was a leading authority), be a little humble and question as a young child would instead of using your pseudo-philosophic occupation as the end all of truth.

Oh, I'm sure it is pretty flattering to compare yourself (or your author) to Galilei and the like.

You want your readers to be like young children, because you want them to believe...

That is not why at all. It is because people use all kinds of false standards (the more knowledge they believe they have, the more confused they get unfortunately) to judge what they don't even get. I can see where you are confused. If I give you a simple math equation such as 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8, and you think it is 9 because you don't see the relation, then what I am supposed to do? Am I supposed to agree that I am wrong? Please think about this before using childish anger to now attack me, because you aren't winning the debate. I can't waste my time.

My occupation is not pseudo-philosophic - stop parroting my words. I have razed down your precious castle-in-the-air, and though I take it that you are attached to this castle - perhaps the original author was your father? -, I think this is a fine opportunity for you to grow up (become a woman instead of a girl). Our failures may be valuable lessons - if you are not too proud, or rather proud enough, to admit defeat. A little humility would be in place, I'll agree with you on that: you come barging into a philosophy forum with your fancy theories and preach (not to mention accept) them as Gospel truth (not to say the Gospels are true!). You are no better than a Christian Fundamentalist who sticks to his Bible no matter what.


I will leave if there is no further interest. You won!
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Postby Sauwelios » Tue May 01, 2007 3:12 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:You want your readers to be like young children, because you want them to believe...

That is not why at all. It is because people use all kinds of false standards (the more knowledge they believe they have, the more confused they get unfortunately) to judge what they don't even get. I can see where you are confused. If I give you a simple math equation such as 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8, and you think it is 9 because you don't see the relation, then what I am supposed to do? Am I supposed to agree that I am wrong? Please think about this before using childish anger to now attack me, because you aren't winning the debate. I can't waste my time.

Just point out where I am "confused" if you can, instead of coming up with childish comparisons to simple mathematics.

I have a comparison for you, by the way. You think you have a thesis and an antithesis which together form a synthesis, and you think that both the thesis and the antithesis are right. Or, to put it differently, you have two premises and a conclusion, and because you believe both premises are true you believe the conclusion is true. But one of the premises is false. You think you have a case of 1+2=3, but you only have 1+0=1.


I will leave if there is no further interest. You won!

Oh, but there is further interest! From fellow believers like myrealname and what's-his-name - Membrain! I remember Membrain's leap of faith like it was yesterday... You share the same characteristic with him, namely the stiff refusal to relinquish your faith - and probably for the same reason: fear of uncertainty!

"Confidence
c.1430, from L. confidentia, from confidentem, prp. of confidere, from com- intens. prefix + fidere "to trust" (see faith)."
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=confidence
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby peacegirl » Tue May 01, 2007 3:41 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:You want your readers to be like young children, because you want them to believe...

That is not why at all. It is because people use all kinds of false standards (the more knowledge they believe they have, the more confused they get unfortunately) to judge what they don't even get. I can see where you are confused. If I give you a simple math equation such as 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8, and you think it is 9 because you don't see the relation, then what I am supposed to do? Am I supposed to agree that I am wrong? Please think about this before using childish anger to now attack me, because you aren't winning the debate. I can't waste my time.

Just point out where I am "confused" if you can, instead of coming up with childish comparisons to simple mathematics.

Why shouldn't I compare what you are doing with that simple mathematical equation? Why should I make it more difficult than it already is? If I can show an analogy that makes sense to people, then that's what I will do. The only way I can even begin to show you that this knowledge is not just another opinion is to share another chapter which I am reluctant to do. You seem to be disagreeing that nothing can make a person do anything againt his will; you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink) which is the other side of the equation. This is not flawed. But even sharing another chapter (which is very interesting and deals with the medical profession) will never be enough because you don't understand the economic system and you will argue with me once again. The economic system described in the book (along with the basic principle) completely eliminates poverty and reduces taxes to a bare miniumum. Do you see how difficult this is to explain in a forum such as this? It is partially my fault (my responsibility; this does not take away the fact that my will is not free which you seem to misunderstand) for even starting a discussion because I know better, but I wanted to share it and take the risk of misunderstanding, which is exactly what happened. I wish you were more patient instead of attacking me the way you did. This isn't productive and it will prevent me from continuing. This will be your loss and I don't mean that in a arrogant way.

I have a comparison for you, by the way. You think you have a thesis and an antithesis which together form a synthesis, and you think that both the thesis and the antithesis are right. Or, to put it differently, you have two premises and a conclusion, and because you believe both premises are true you believe the conclusion is true. But one of the premises is false. You think you have a case of 1+2=3, but you only have 1+0=1.

That's yet to be decided because you cannot use yourself as the judge unless and only unless you have studied this work backwards and forwards, which you haven't done. You think you are right in your analysis, but you are confused with certain things and I'm sorry if that gets you angry. I am not preaching and I am not faith filled. The only criteria I am using are the facts presented, nothing else.

I will leave if there is no further interest. You won!

Oh, but there is further interest! From fellow believers like myrealname and what's-his-name - Membrain! I remember Membrain's leap of faith like it was yesterday... You share the same characteristic with him, namely the stiff refusal to relinquish your faith - and probably for the same reason: fear of uncertainty!

I am the most skeptical person around, so you are absolutely incorrect with your comparison. You are trying to distract people from the discovery by attacking my character. That is not fair at all, and that's why if you are the only one here who is reading this, then I guess it's over.

"Confidence
c.1430, from L. confidentia, from confidentem, prp. of confidere, from com- intens. prefix + fidere "to trust" (see faith)."
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=confidence
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Postby Sauwelios » Tue May 01, 2007 4:08 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:You want your readers to be like young children, because you want them to believe...

That is not why at all. It is because people use all kinds of false standards (the more knowledge they believe they have, the more confused they get unfortunately) to judge what they don't even get. I can see where you are confused. If I give you a simple math equation such as 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8, and you think it is 9 because you don't see the relation, then what I am supposed to do? Am I supposed to agree that I am wrong? Please think about this before using childish anger to now attack me, because you aren't winning the debate. I can't waste my time.

Just point out where I am "confused" if you can, instead of coming up with childish comparisons to simple mathematics.

Why shouldn't I compare what you are doing with that simple mathematical equation? Why should I make it more difficult than it already is? If I can show an analogy that makes sense to people, then that's what I will do.

But your "analogy" has no connection to my argument. I challenge you to tell me what the 3, the 6, the 4, the 8, and the 9 correspond to in your "analogy". I can tell you what the 1, the 2, the 3, and the 0 correspond to in mine:

1: true premise (thesis)
2: true premise (antithesis)
3: true conclusion (synthesis)
0: false premise


The only way I can even begin to show you that this knowledge is not just another opinion is to share another chapter which I am reluctant to do. You seem to be disagreeing that nothing can make a person do anything againt his will; you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink) which is the other side of the equation.

You cannot make a person "do" anything against his will, as "doing" is an active occupation. But a person is not free to will or not to will. One cannot "bring up" the will to do something, nor can he repress it if the will is there (unless the will to repress, as the phrase bespeaks, is itself a will and thereby part of the equation whose resultant is what we call "the person's will". And the same goes for this will to repress as for any other will: it is a pathos, something passive, something suffered, something that arises, that is aroused. You cannot "choose" to make a will appear or disappear.


I am the most skeptical person around

Of course you are, Jenny.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby peacegirl » Tue May 01, 2007 4:30 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:You want your readers to be like young children, because you want them to believe...

That is not why at all. It is because people use all kinds of false standards (the more knowledge they believe they have, the more confused they get unfortunately) to judge what they don't even get. I can see where you are confused. If I give you a simple math equation such as 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8, and you think it is 9 because you don't see the relation, then what I am supposed to do? Am I supposed to agree that I am wrong? Please think about this before using childish anger to now attack me, because you aren't winning the debate. I can't waste my time.

Just point out where I am "confused" if you can, instead of coming up with childish comparisons to simple mathematics.

Why shouldn't I compare what you are doing with that simple mathematical equation? Why should I make it more difficult than it already is? If I can show an analogy that makes sense to people, then that's what I will do.

But your "analogy" has no connection to my argument. I challenge you to tell me what the 3, the 6, the 4, the 8, and the 9 correspond to in your "analogy". I can tell you what the 1, the 2, the 3, and the 0 correspond to in mine:

1: true premise (thesis)
2: true premise (antithesis)
3: true conclusion (synthesis)
0: false premise

I wasn't comparing the analogy I gave in the math example to your analogy. All I was doing was showing that when someone doesn't understand a concept, then he will defend his knowledge to the nth degree not because the concept is wrong (1+1=2) but because he doesn't understand it and will therefore try to show where it is flawed. In this case, you are telling me that the premise is wrong and it if was, then the conclusion would be wrong. But the premise isn't wrong, therefore, it is incumbent upon you to try to see where you are mistaken. If you are angry at this, there is nothing I can do, and there is nothing that will convince you that you might be the one mistaken.

The only way I can even begin to show you that this knowledge is not just another opinion is to share another chapter which I am reluctant to do. You seem to be disagreeing that nothing can make a person do anything againt his will; you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink) which is the other side of the equation.

You cannot make a person "do" anything against his will, as "doing" is an active occupation. But a person is not free to will or not to will.

If someone tells you to do something that is against your deepest convictions, would you do it? Nothing in this world has the POWER to make you do what you don't want to do. Please forget the word will right now. Let's focus on this one statement. Could anyone make you shoot someone if you dont want to? This is not a trick question so please just answer me with one word, if possible. People get confused and think that if we have a will, then it must be free because that is what free will means. But this is not true.

One cannot "bring up" the will to do something, nor can he repress it if the will is there (unless the will to repress, as the phrase bespeaks, is itself a will and thereby part of the equation whose resultant is what we call "the person's will". And the same goes for this will to repress as for any other will: it is a pathos, something passive, something suffered, something that arises, that is aroused. You cannot "choose" to make a will appear or disappear.

I think I understand what you are saying but you might have to rephrase it. It is true that we cannot make a will appear or can we repress it, but we can decide what to do with it once it is present. I did not bring up the will to speak to this group this morning, but now I am using my will (whose will can it be other than mine) to discuss this knowledge. And because it is 'my will' (although not free), when I state that nothing can make a person do what he makes up his mind not to do, it is 'my will' that says 'no'. We have the will to either choose something or not to choose something once it becomes an option; but to repeat: this does not make our will free.


I am the most skeptical person around

Of course you are, Jenny.


Who the hell is Jenny? Is this some kind of inside joke? [-X :P
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Postby Sauwelios » Tue May 01, 2007 5:04 pm

peacegirl wrote:All I was doing was showing that when someone doesn't understand a concept, then he will defend his knowledge to the nth degree not because the concept is wrong (1+1=2) but because he doesn't understand it and will therefore try to show where it is flawed. In this case, you are telling me that the premise is wrong and it if was, then the conclusion would be wrong. But the premise isn't wrong, therefore, it is incumbent upon you to try to see where you are mistaken. If you are angry at this, there is nothing I can do, and there is nothing that will convince you that you might be the one mistaken.

I am not angry; what makes you think that? But the premise is wrong, and your "analogy" applies more to you than to me: you probably don't understand my deconstruction of it, perhaps because you're not intelligent enough (I mean, you certainly are skeptical enough!...).

You can "convince" me that I am mistaken by pointing out the mistake I made, or making a logical argument for your premise. It is really a case of you defending your "knowledge" (belief) to the nth degree (and not with rational arguments but by repeating that it is "valid and sound"). I will again show you the breach I made in your supposedly waterproof argumentation:

"As you are contemplating hurting me in some way, I know as a matter of positive knowledge that you cannot be blamed anymore because it is an undeniable law that man’s will is not free. This is a very unique two-sided equation for it reveals that while you know you are completely responsible for everything you do to hurt me, I know you are not responsible."
[Chapter Two, The Two-Sided Equation, with added emphasis.]

According to the writer, there are two knowledges here that are mutually exclusive. At least one of them must be wrong (and therefore his "knowledge" not be knowledge at all). You are either responsible or not responsible. As I agree that there is no free will (but determinism), I say you are not responsible.

You should also see that the following two statements are mutually exclusive:

1. "No one is blaming you."
2. "You are blaming yourself." (= what we call "conscience")

As "no one" includes "you", if it is true that you are blaming yourself, it is not true that no one is blaming you.

By the way, nothing can do anything to itself, but it is always a part of something (or someone) that does something to another part of it (for instance, if "I hit myself", my hand is hitting another part of me - it cannot hit itself). The part of you that blames you is called "conscience".


peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:The only way I can even begin to show you that this knowledge is not just another opinion is to share another chapter which I am reluctant to do. You seem to be disagreeing that nothing can make a person do anything againt his will; you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink) which is the other side of the equation.

You cannot make a person "do" anything against his will, as "doing" is an active occupation. But a person is not free to will or not to will.

Yes they are. I have a will but it's not free. I am not just a receptacle of preceding events with no ability to think and make decisions; but once a choice is made it could not have been otherwise. That does not mean we can't make different choices the next time a similar situation presents itself. We are always correcting our mistakes, but this is irrelevant to the fact that we all have a will and it is not free. People get confused and think that if we have a will, then it must be free because that is what free will means. But this is not true.

Except for the part I made bold, I agree. Funnily, the part that follows the sentence I made bold is in nowise an argument for the assertion I made bold.


peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:One cannot "bring up" the will to do something, nor can he repress it if the will is there (unless the will to repress, as the phrase bespeaks, is itself a will and thereby part of the equation whose resultant is what we call "the person's will". And the same goes for this will to repress as for any other will: it is a pathos, something passive, something suffered, something that arises, that is aroused. You cannot "choose" to make a will appear or disappear.

I think I understand what you are saying but you might have to rephrase it. It is true that we cannot make a will appear. It is passive; and it takes arousal. But when it appears, we use it for our benefit in our ability to choose one thing over another. I am using my will at this moment to speak to you when I could be doing a number of things, but when faced with all of the options it gives me greater satisfaction to be doing this.

But that consideration is part of your will. Will is always a will to something - it is not as if you have a will but you are free to choose what you do with it. The will we are currently discussing is your will to speak to me, not to do anything else (even though it may be the resultant of many disagreeing wills within you; but then the will to speak to me is the strongest of all those wills).
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby peacegirl » Tue May 01, 2007 5:58 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:All I was doing was showing that when someone doesn't understand a concept, then he will defend his knowledge to the nth degree not because the concept is wrong (1+1=2) but because he doesn't understand it and will therefore try to show where it is flawed. In this case, you are telling me that the premise is wrong and it if was, then the conclusion would be wrong. But the premise isn't wrong, therefore, it is incumbent upon you to try to see where you are mistaken. If you are angry at this, there is nothing I can do, and there is nothing that will convince you that you might be the one mistaken.

I am not angry; what makes you think that?

What makes me think that you are angry? Your diatribe against my character.

But the premise is wrong, and your "analogy" applies more to you than to me: you probably don't understand my deconstruction of it, perhaps because you're not intelligent enough (I mean, you certainly are skeptical enough!...).

PG: Maybe that's because I feel your deconstruction is convoluted, unclear, and bobble-de-gook. So where do we go from here? You think you are right, and I think I"m right. May the best man win by the test of proof.

You can "convince" me that I am mistaken by pointing out the mistake I made, or making a logical argument for your premise. It is really a case of you defending your "knowledge" (belief) to the nth degree (and not with rational arguments but by repeating that it is "valid and sound"). I will again show you the breach I made in your supposedly waterproof argumentation:

"As you are contemplating hurting me in some way, I know as a matter of positive knowledge that you cannot be blamed anymore because it is an undeniable law that man’s will is not free. This is a very unique two-sided equation for it reveals that while you know you are completely responsible for everything you do to hurt me, I know you are not responsible."
[Chapter Two, The Two-Sided Equation, with added emphasis.]

According to the writer, there are two knowledges here that are mutually exclusive. At least one of them must be wrong (and therefore his "knowledge" not be knowledge at all).

PG: Why does one of them have to be wrong? He isn't saying that man's will is free and not free at the same time. He is claiming that man's will is ABSOLUTELY AND POSITIVELY NOT FREE. Once we extend this knowledge, mankind will veer in a completely different direction because of the fact that when there is no blame (due to the fact that man's will is not free and how can we blame anyone when we know he can't help himself), and all first blows are removed which gives advance justification to do things to satisfy a desire even if it hurts someone else, this new condition PREVENTS him from desiring to commit those very acts that previously gave him greater satisfaction.

You are either responsible or not responsible. As I agree that there is no free will (but determinism), I say you are not responsible.

PG: We are not responsible; our will is not free; but we have the will to choose what is best for ourselves, and in the new world what is best for ourselves will be to prevent hurting another with a first blow.

You should also see that the following two statements are mutually exclusive:

1. "No one is blaming you."
2. "You are blaming yourself." (= what we call "conscience")

As "no one" includes "you", if it is true that you are blaming yourself, it is not true that no one is blaming you.

PG: If I hurt someone carelessly (which will be prevented in the new world almost 100% of the time), I would feel responsible for doing what I did because it was from my hand alone. This does not contradict the fact that, at that moment, I had no free choice. This feeling of remorse, which most of humanity has except for those who have some sort of mental illness (we aren't born that way), along with the knowledge that even though I might hurt someone, no one is going to blame me, is a condition that has never been a part of our environment. This new condition becomes an 'impenetrable' deterrent; something punishment could never achieve.

By the way, nothing can do anything to itself, but it is always a part of something (or someone) that does something to another part of it (for instance, if "I hit myself", my hand is hitting another part of me - it cannot hit itself). The part of you that blames you is called "conscience".

PG: That's an interesting way of putting it; but where does this negate anything I have said thus far?


peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:The only way I can even begin to show you that this knowledge is not just another opinion is to share another chapter which I am reluctant to do. You seem to be disagreeing that nothing can make a person do anything againt his will; you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink) which is the other side of the equation.

You cannot make a person "do" anything against his will, as "doing" is an active occupation. But a person is not free to will or not to will.

Yes they are. I have a will but it's not free. I am not just a receptacle of preceding events with no ability to think and make decisions; but once a choice is made it could not have been otherwise. That does not mean we can't make different choices the next time a similar situation presents itself. We are always correcting our mistakes, but this is irrelevant to the fact that we all have a will and it is not free. People get confused and think that if we have a will, then it must be free because that is what free will means. But this is not true.

Except for the part I made bold, I agree. Funnily, the part that follows the sentence I made bold is in nowise an argument for the assertion I made bold.

PG: #-o Hopefully we'll get somewhere soon in this heated discussion.

peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:One cannot "bring up" the will to do something, nor can he repress it if the will is there (unless the will to repress, as the phrase bespeaks, is itself a will and thereby part of the equation whose resultant is what we call "the person's will". And the same goes for this will to repress as for any other will: it is a pathos, something passive, something suffered, something that arises, that is aroused. You cannot "choose" to make a will appear or disappear.

I think I understand what you are saying but you might have to rephrase it. It is true that we cannot make a will appear. It is passive; and it takes arousal. But when it appears, we use it for our benefit in our ability to choose one thing over another. I am using my will at this moment to speak to you when I could be doing a number of things, but when faced with all of the options it gives me greater satisfaction to be doing this.

But that consideration is part of your will. Will is always a will to something - it is not as if you have a will but you are free to choose what you do with it.

PG: You are right. But what determines that will to something is your ability to ponder, to weigh the pros and cons of each decision to decide which is preferable. You are not free because everything that has led up to that choice determines that choice. But we are talking about BEFORE THE CHOICE IS MADE. Don't you see that threats of punishment are different from the knowledge that there will no longer be threats of punishment? Can you at least admit that this would change the direction our world is headed. Maybe you think that the world will go nuts; it will be a free for all. But just acknowledge that the world will be different when instead of blame and punishment, there will be no judgment, no blame, and no punishment no matter what you do because the world knows your will is not free.

The will we are currently discussing is your will to speak to me, not to do anything else (even though it may be the resultant of many disagreeing wills within you; but then the will to speak to me is the strongest of all those wills).


PG: Agreed!
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Postby Sauwelios » Tue May 01, 2007 6:41 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:What makes me think that you are angry?

Your diatribe against my character.

Yes, because your character is too stubborn - or too thick - to listen to reason.


peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:According to the writer, there are two knowledges here that are mutually exclusive. At least one of them must be wrong (and therefore his "knowledge" not be knowledge at all).

Why does one of them have to be wrong?

Because the law of noncontradiction says it has to.


He isn't saying that man's will is free and not free at the same time. He is claiming that man's will is ABSOLUTELY AND POSITIVELY NOT FREE. Once we extend this knowledge, mankind will veer in a completely different direction because of the fact that when there is no blame (due to the fact that man's will is not free and how can we blame anyone when we know he can't help himself), and all first blows are removed which gives advance justification to do things to satisfy a desire even if it hurts someone else, this new condition PREVENTS him from desiring to commit those very acts that previously gave him greater satisfaction.

I agree with the part I didn't make bold. But the removal of all first blows is, according to your author, achieved as follows. As no one can relieve his conscience by shifting the responsibility for one's actions, one must suffer the pangs of conscience which are aroused by hurting others, and as these are unbearable, no one will hurt others anymore. But this "logic" fails to take into account the fact that, if there is no free will, there is no responsibility. It's as simple as that. There can only be pangs of conscience if one's conscience tells one that "you should have done otherwise"; but this depends on the assumption that he could have done otherwise - which he couldn't, as there is no free will.


We are not responsible; our will is not free; but we have the will to choose what is best for ourselves, and in the new world what is best for ourselves will be to prevent hurting another with a first blow.

Yes, because of the otherwise-ensuing pangs of conscience I mentioned above. But if my conscience blames me, I can tell my conscience that my will was not free, and thereby wash my hands of any responsibility.


If I hurt someone carelessly (which will be prevented in the new world almost 100% of the time), I would feel responsible for doing what I did because it was from my hand alone.

But your hand was not free! So it wasn't your hand's fault.


This feeling of remorse, which most of humanity has except for those who have some sort of mental illness

Oh please. Remorse is only due to attachment. Enlightenment is freedom from attachment. So you are calling the enlightened "mentally ill". That is pretty blasphemous.


peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:By the way, nothing can do anything to itself, but it is always a part of something (or someone) that does something to another part of it (for instance, if "I hit myself", my hand is hitting another part of me - it cannot hit itself). The part of you that blames you is called "conscience".

That's an interesting way of putting it; but where does this negate anything I have said thus far?

It means that if one's "conscience" is blaming one, one is blaming oneself, so then it is not true that no one is blaming one. As long as there is conscience, there is blame.


But we are talking about BEFORE THE CHOICE IS MADE.

Before or after makes no difference. Everything is determinate before, after, and during the event.


Don't you see that threats of punishment are different from the knowledge that there will no longer be threats of punishment? Can you at least admit that this would change the direction our world is headed.

Yes, I can. It is what Nietzsche called "the innocence of Becoming". It means the absence of resentment. This does not mean the absence of war, however (indeed, Becoming is a struggle).
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby peacegirl » Tue May 01, 2007 8:01 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:What makes me think that you are angry?

Your diatribe against my character.

Yes, because your character is too stubborn - or too thick - to listen to reason.

PG: I could say the same thing about you, but I didn't because attacking someone's character is a form of distraction from one's own fear of inadequacy.

peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:According to the writer, there are two knowledges here that are mutually exclusive. At least one of them must be wrong (and therefore his "knowledge" not be knowledge at all).

Why does one of them have to be wrong?

Because the law of noncontradiction says it has to.

PG: But there is no contradiction. You just don't see that yet.


He isn't saying that man's will is free and not free at the same time. He is claiming that man's will is ABSOLUTELY AND POSITIVELY NOT FREE. Once we extend this knowledge, mankind will veer in a completely different direction because of the fact that when there is no blame (due to the fact that man's will is not free and how can we blame anyone when we know he can't help himself), and all first blows are removed which gives advance justification to do things to satisfy a desire even if it hurts someone else, this new condition PREVENTS him from desiring to commit those very acts that previously gave him greater satisfaction.

I agree with the part I didn't make bold. But the removal of all first blows is, according to your author, achieved as follows. As no one can relieve his conscience by shifting the responsibility for one's actions, one must suffer the pangs of conscience which are aroused by hurting others

PG: WRONG WRONG WRONG! The pangs of conscience come before someone strikes a first blow. It's the knowledge that no one will EVER AGAIN BE BLAMED FOR WHATEVER HE DOES that causes conscience to go up, not down. What causes conscience to reach the temperature necessary to stop the killing is only when we know in advance that we will not be blamed or punished (along with removing the hurt that comes from economic insecurity which self-preservation justifies). In our society, we can pay a price in full for anything we want to do in order to satisfy our desires, even at the expense of someone else's right not be hurt. But when there is no price to pay such as going to prison if he doesn't get away with what he is doing , then the price is too high because he would have no justification to strike this first blow. I can see how difficult this reading is especially if you have a certain worldview that doesn't jive with what I'm expressing. All I can say is to keep trying because it is knowledge that cannot be denied. I know you hate when I say this. :(

and as these are unbearable, no one will hurt others anymore. But this "logic" fails to take into account the fact that, if there is no free will, there is no responsibility. It's as simple as that.

PG: You keep going back to this which you believe negates the second half of the discovery because you believe it's a contradiction, but it's not. You are not getting the full understanding and I'm not sure how to break through your inability to see why this second part is essential to preventing war and crime, and is in no way contradictory.

There can only be pangs of conscience if one's conscience tells one that "you should have done otherwise"; but this depends on the assumption that he could have done otherwise - which he couldn't, as there is no free will.

PG: Of course once he does something he could not have done otherwise. We are not arguing this. All I am saying is that there is a way to change not only the alternatives that are before him, but the choice that gives him greater satisfaction, and when this law becomes a permanent condition of the environment, he will choose a completely different option as that which is preferable (or what gives him greater satisfaction).

We are not responsible; our will is not free; but we have the will to choose what is best for ourselves, and in the new world what is best for ourselves will be to prevent hurting another with a first blow.

Yes, because of the otherwise-ensuing pangs of conscience I mentioned above. But if my conscience blames me, I can tell my conscience that my will was not free, and thereby wash my hands of any responsibility.

PG: Please read this again, okay? It might ring true now that we are making a little bit of progress. I better cross my fingers. #-o


Please bear in mind that although man’s will is not free, there is
absolutely nothing, not environment, heredity, or anything else that causes
him to do what he doesn’t want to do. The environment does not cause him
to commit a crime, it just presents conditions under which his desire is
aroused. The environment is different for him because he himself is
different; otherwise, everybody would desire to commit a crime. Once a
crime takes place he doesn’t come right out and say, “I hurt that person
because I wanted to”, because the standards of right and wrong prevent him
from deriving any satisfaction out of such honesty when this will only
evoke blame, criticism, and punishment of some sort for his desires.
Therefore, he is compelled to justify those actions considered wrong with
excuses, extenuating circumstances, and the shifting of guilt to someone or
something else as the cause, to absorb part if not all the responsibility which
allowed him to absolve his conscience in a world of judgment and to hurt
others in many cases with impunity since he could demonstrate why he was
compelled to do what he really didn’t want to do.

You see it happen all the time, even when a child says, “Look what you
made me do” when you know you didn’t make him do anything. Spilling a
glass of milk because he was careless, and not wishing to be blamed, the
boy searches quickly for an excuse to shift the responsibility to something
that does not include him. Why else would the boy blame his own
carelessness on somebody or something else if not to avoid the criticism of
his parents? It is also true that the boy’s awareness that he would be
blamed and punished for carelessness – which is exactly what took place –
makes him think very carefully about all that he does to prevent the blame
and punishment he doesn’t want. A great confusion exists since it is
assumed that by not being blamed, man will become less responsible by
saying, “I couldn’t help myself because my will is not free, in order to
justify his actions. This is another aspect of the implications which turned
philosophers off from a thorough investigation. In the following dialogue,
my friend asks for clarification regarding certain critical points:

“You read my mind. I really don’t know how you plan to solve this
enigmatic corollary, but it seems to me that this knowledge would give man
a perfect excuse for taking advantage of others without any fear of
consequences. He could just say, “I’m sorry but I couldn’t help myself
because my will is not free. If the boy knows for a fact that his will is not
free, why couldn’t he use this as an excuse in an attempt to shift his
responsibility or use any other excuse he feels will sound believable for the
same reason?”

“This last question is a superficial perception of inaccurate reasoning
because it is mathematically impossible to shift responsibility, to excuse or
justify getting away with something, when we know in advance that we will
not be blamed for what we do. Is it possible for you to say “I couldn’t help
myself because my will is not free”, when you know that no one is going to
say you could help yourself? It is only possible to attempt a shift of your
responsibility for hurting someone or for doing what is judged improper
when you are held responsible by a code of standards that criticizes you in
advance for doing something considered wrong by others. In fact, the very
act of justifying or excusing your behavior is an indication that the person
or people to whom you are presenting this justification must judge the
behavior unacceptable in some way; otherwise, there would be no need for
it. They are interested to know why you could do such a thing which
compels you, for satisfaction, to think up a reasonable excuse to explain
why you did what you did. If you do what others judge to be right, is it
necessary to lie or offer excuses or say that your will is not free and you
couldn’t help yourself, when no one is saying you could help yourself? Let
me elaborate for greater understanding.

If someone does what everybody considers right as
opposed to wrong,
that is, if this person acts in a manner that pleases everybody,
is it possible
to blame him for doing what society expects of him? This isn’t a trick
question, so don’t look so puzzled. If your boss tells you that he wants
something done a certain way and you never fail to do it that way, is it
possible for him to blame you for doing what he wants you to do?”

“No, it is not possible. I agree.”

“Consequently, if you can’t be blamed for doing what is right, then it
should be obvious that you can only be blamed for doing something judged
wrong, is that right?”

“I agree with this.”

“These people who are judging you for doing something wrong are
interested to know why you could do such a thing which compels you for
satisfaction to lie or think up a reasonable excuse, to extenuate the
circumstances and mitigate their unfavorable opinion of your action;
otherwise, if they were not judging your conduct as wrong you would not
have to do these things, right?”

“You are right again.”

“Now if you know as a matter of positive knowledge that no one is
going to blame you for what you did, wrong or right, that is, no one is going
to question your conduct in any way because you know that they must
excuse what you do since man’s will is not free, is it possible for you to
blame someone or something else as the cause for what you know you have
done, when you also know that no one is blaming you?

“Why are you smiling?”

“You’re the greatest with your mathematical reasoning, and I agree that
it is not possible.”

“This proves conclusively that the only time man can say, “I couldn’t
help myself because my will is not free’, or offer any other kind of excuse,
is if someone said he could help himself or blamed him in any way so he
could make this effort to shift his responsibility, right?”

“You are absolutely correct.”

“Which means that only in the world of free will, in a world of
judgment, can this statement, “I couldn’t help myself because my will is not
free”, be made, since it cannot be done when man knows he will not be
blamed. Remember, it is only possible to attempt a shift of your
responsibility for hurting someone or for doing what is judged improper
when you are held responsible by a code of standards that criticizes you in
advance for doing something considered wrong by others. Constantly
criticized by the standards that prevailed man was compelled, as a motion in
the direction of satisfaction, to be dishonest with everyone, including
himself, while refusing to accept that which was his responsibility.”

If I hurt someone carelessly (which will be prevented in the new world almost 100% of the time), I would feel responsible for doing what I did because it was from my hand alone.

But your hand was not free! So it wasn't your hand's fault.

PG: It wasn't after the fact, and that is why we would have to turn the other cheek, but we can prevent the hand from striking as that alternative which gives greater satisfaction.


This feeling of remorse, which most of humanity has except for those who have some sort of mental illness

Oh please. Remorse is only due to attachment. Enlightenment is freedom from attachment. So you are calling the enlightened "mentally ill". That is pretty blasphemous.

Enlightenment is freedom from attachment, but remorse is God given and doesn't apply. There is no rationale we can tell ourselves to justify hurting others with a first blow. Once again, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and this law works.

peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:By the way, nothing can do anything to itself, but it is always a part of something (or someone) that does something to another part of it (for instance, if "I hit myself", my hand is hitting another part of me - it cannot hit itself). The part of you that blames you is called "conscience".

That's an interesting way of putting it; but where does this negate anything I have said thus far?

It means that if one's "conscience" is blaming one, one is blaming oneself, so then it is not true that no one is blaming one. As long as there is conscience, there is blame.

PG: There is remorse, and we are preventing that remorse by never taking chances that could get us in the position where we want to say I'm sorry, I didn't mean it.


But we are talking about BEFORE THE CHOICE IS MADE.

Before or after makes no difference. Everything is determinate before, after, and during the event.

PG: That's true; but we are only concerning ourselves with preventing the first blow. After a hurt is committed we know the person couldn't help himself and we are not blaming him, but you must remember that this law prevents this situation from occurring to begin with.

Don't you see that threats of punishment are different from the knowledge that there will no longer be threats of punishment? Can you at least admit that this would change the direction our world is headed.

Yes, I can. It is what Nietzsche called "the innocence of Becoming". It means the absence of resentment. This does not mean the absence of war, however (indeed, Becoming is a struggle).


PG: There won't be resentment because there will be nothing to cause that resentment, and when there is nothing to cause that resentment, then under the changed conditions there will be no reason to strike out at people who have not hurt you first. The same goes for war. War is not that difficult to prevent, once this law is put into effect. I can't cut and paste this chapter because it is over 100 pages long.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Postby Sauwelios » Tue May 01, 2007 8:36 pm

This correspondence is closed.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby peacegirl » Tue May 01, 2007 9:49 pm

Sauwelios wrote:This correspondence is closed.


PG: I'm curious as to what I said that upset you? If you didn't like something I said, you could have given me the decency to tell me what it was and what was bothering you in the post. I never said anything to be nasty. So whatever you interpreted to be unacceptable is not something I did intentionally. What an unfortunate ending to a promising discussion. Take care.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Postby detrop » Wed May 02, 2007 12:51 am

Image

A-huh...huh. Ah-huh-huh-huh-huh...hey Beavis...

...ah-huh-huh...."come on baby light my fire"...a-huh-huh-huh!!!

Image

Yeah, yeah....mm-mm....fire! fire! FIRE!!!!

Image
Last edited by detrop on Wed May 02, 2007 12:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
detrop
"ist" wannabe
 
Posts: 5063
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 8:08 pm

Postby detrop » Wed May 02, 2007 1:01 am

Ummm.....

Image

Nevermind.
detrop
"ist" wannabe
 
Posts: 5063
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 8:08 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Non-Philosophical Chat



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users