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 peacegirl » Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:52 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
our only concern is in preventing the desire to strike this
first blow, for then, if this can be accomplished, our problem is solved. If
the first cheek is not struck, there is no need to retaliate or turn the other
side of our face. Is this hard to understand?”

This seems to me to be the crux of the problem. In other words: "How does the cessation of violence follow from the cessation of retribution? Not every act of violence is an act of resentment."


You missed a part where the author defines the 3 things that can allow a person to justify a hurt to another. "In order to hurt another man must be able to derive greater, not less, satisfaction which means that self-preservation demands and justifies this;

I think the concept of justification belongs in a world of culpability: otherwise what does it matter if something is "not justified"?

It's a matter of who you are justifying your actions to; in a world of blame and punishment, you have to justify your actions to others because they are trying to make you culpable, but in the new world you only have to justify your actions to yourself and when you can't justify your actions, your conscience won't allow you to do what you are contemplating (assuming that what you are doing is a first blow).

Secondly, I don't consider the will to self-preservation to be the cardinal drive, but the will to power. "Satisfaction" is simply the feeling of power. If it gives me a greater feeling of power to hurt you then not to hurt you, I should do the former.

How can you desire to hurt someone for a feeling of power over them, when they will never blame you for this? You have to understand that when this law becomes a permanent condition of the environment, all of the factors that have caused insecurity (and the need for power) will no longer be. And when no one is hurt by a society that makes him feel less than, he won't desire to hurt others to feel more than. All of these things will diminish in time, but if someone is a mad dog, then we would have to take him off the streets just as we do today.

When every bit of justification is removed, he will be unable to derive satisfaction in any act of violence that is a first blow. Under the new conditions, he cannot pay a price, and could not live with himself knowing that he caused pain to another when no one will ever hold him responsible.

This makes no sense to me. That he does not need to shift responsibility I understand, as there is no responsibility. But why should he not be able to live with himself? What should he care about another's pain?

It's not that he does not need to shift responsibility; it's that he can't shift what is his responsibility to someone or something else when no one is holding him responsible. The reason he can't live with himself is because if he hurt someone badly, knowing that it was he was responsible for this pain, and also knowing that he would not be blamed for this hurt to another, this would be hard to live with. We all have a conscience and unless it's been damaged in early childhood (which causes people to become sociopaths), this would eat away at him, so he must prevent what he doesn't want, which is to feel this terrible remorse. This leads into the next chapter, so I will finish and continue the discussion afterwards.


the undeniable fact that nothing can make man do to another what he makes up his mind not to do - for over this he has absolute control

I suspect this is the crucial mistake the writer makes. Man does not have "absolute control" over his mind, as both he and his mind are subject to influences, conditions, - they are both deterministic. If man has any influence over his mind, he is only one - determined - factor among others determining it.


There are many factors that 'cause' someone to do what he does. I am in agreement with you. What the author means when he says man has absolute control is that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. This was said to distinguish the idea that something else is responsible for man's actions. In other words, if I hit you with a stick I am responsible. I am the one that did it, regardless of the factors that led up to the act.

Neither something else is responsible for man's actions, nor man himself. You are neither compelled to hit me with a stick nor do you have a choice to do so.

"How can we tell the dancer from the dance?"
[Yeats, Among School Children.]
Last edited by peacegirl on Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:58 pm, edited 1 time 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 Sauwelios » Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:53 pm

First, it is not a "decision" to hurt you, but an overwhelming passion (the will to power is a pathos).

Yes, there is such resentment in the world in which we live that the desire to retaliate is irresistable.

Ho ho ho, I never said anything about retaliation. My will to hurt you need not be roused by resentment at all (it may be a "first blow").


But if he knew that by this overwhelming passion to kill someone in retaliation would cause his family to be shot dead, he would resist this impulse in order to save his family.

This "resisting" would simply be another impulse - the will to save his family. The outcome would depend on the strength of the various impulses.


you are compelled, completely of your own free will, so to speak, to relinquish this desire to hurt me because it can never satisfy you to do so under these conditions.

I am neither compelled, nor do I have free will: I am a bundle of force vectors whose resultant we call "my will".


There are definite vectors (as you call them) that are guiding us toward the choices we make, but this does not mean that we don't have control.

I think it does. What do you mean by "we"?


In the new world, you won't be able to use this as an excuse as to why you had to do hurt someone because no one will be blaming you.

Exactly, but this doesn't mean I won't do it.
"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 » Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:03 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
our only concern is in preventing the desire to strike this
first blow, for then, if this can be accomplished, our problem is solved. If
the first cheek is not struck, there is no need to retaliate or turn the other
side of our face. Is this hard to understand?”

This seems to me to be the crux of the problem. In other words: "How does the cessation of violence follow from the cessation of retribution? Not every act of violence is an act of resentment."


You missed a part where the author defines the 3 things that can allow a person to justify a hurt to another. "In order to hurt another man must be able to derive greater, not less, satisfaction which means that self-preservation demands and justifies this;

I think the concept of justification belongs in a world of culpability: otherwise what does it matter if something is "not justified"?

It's a matter of who you are justifying your actions to; in a world of blame and punishment, you have to justify your actions to others because they are trying to make you culpable, but in the new world you only have to justify your actions to yourself and when you can't justify your actions, your conscience won't allow you to do what you are contemplating (assuming that what you are doing is a first blow).

Secondly, I don't consider the will to self-preservation to be the cardinal drive, but the will to power. "Satisfaction" is simply the feeling of power. If it gives me a greater feeling of power to hurt you then not to hurt you, I should do the former.

How can you desire to hurt someone for a feeling of power over them, when they will never blame you for this? You have to understand that when this law becomes a permanent condition of the environment, all of the factors that have caused insecurity (and the need for power) will no longer be. And when no one is hurt by a society that makes him feel less than, he won't desire to hurt others to feel more than. All of these things will diminish in time, but if someone is a mad dog, then we would have to take him off the streets just as we do today.

When every bit of justification is removed, he will be unable to derive satisfaction in any act of violence that is a first blow. Under the new conditions, he cannot pay a price, and could not live with himself knowing that he caused pain to another when no one will ever hold him responsible.

This makes no sense to me. That he does not need to shift responsibility I understand, as there is no responsibility. But why should he not be able to live with himself? What should he care about another's pain?

It's not that he does not need to shift responsibility; it's that he can't shift what is his responsibility to someone or something else when no one is holding him responsible. The reason he can't live with himself is because if he hurt someone badly, knowing that it was he was responsible for this pain, and also knowing that he would not be blamed for this hurt to another, this would be hard to live with. We all have a conscience and unless it's been damaged in early childhood (which causes people to become sociopaths), this would eat away at him, so he must prevent what he doesn't want, which is to feel this terrible remorse. This leads into the next chapter, so I will finish and continue the discussion afterwards.


the undeniable fact that nothing can make man do to another what he makes up his mind not to do - for over this he has absolute control

I suspect this is the crucial mistake the writer makes. Man does not have "absolute control" over his mind, as both he and his mind are subject to influences, conditions, - they are both deterministic. If man has any influence over his mind, he is only one - determined - factor among others determining it.


There are many factors that 'cause' someone to do what he does. I am in agreement with you. What the author means when he says man has absolute control is that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. This was said to distinguish the idea that something else is responsible for man's actions. In other words, if I hit you with a stick I am responsible. I am the one that did it, regardless of the factors that led up to the act.

Neither something else is responsible for man's actions, nor man himself. You are neither compelled to hit me with a stick nor do you have a choice to do so.

"How can we tell the dancer from the dance?"
[Yeats, Among School Children.]


The only way we can do this is to remove all first blows which give rise to a desire for retaliation. When there is nothing hurting us then the desire to hit you with a stick can no longer be justified. That is why this principle must work on a worldwide scale which means that economic insecurity is a first blow and must be removed before this world can become a reality.
Last edited by peacegirl on Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:48 pm, edited 1 time 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 peacegirl » Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:08 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
First, it is not a "decision" to hurt you, but an overwhelming passion (the will to power is a pathos).

Yes, there is such resentment in the world in which we live that the desire to retaliate is irresistable.

Ho ho ho, I never said anything about retaliation. My will to hurt you need not be roused by resentment at all (it may be a "first blow").

Please reread chapter Two.


But if he knew that by this overwhelming passion to kill someone in retaliation would cause his family to be shot dead, he would resist this impulse in order to save his family.

This "resisting" would simply be another impulse - the will to save his family. The outcome would depend on the strength of the various impulses.

Call them what you will; he moves in this direction because it gives him greater satisfaction to save his family than to kill someone which is completely beyond his control.

you are compelled, completely of your own free will, so to speak, to relinquish this desire to hurt me because it can never satisfy you to do so under these conditions.

I am neither compelled, nor do I have free will: I am a bundle of force vectors whose resultant we call "my will".


There are definite vectors (as you call them) that are guiding us toward the choices we make, but this does not mean that we don't have control.

I think it does. What do you mean by "we"?

You missed an entire section in Chapter Two which explains this. We don't have control because our will is not free but nothing can make us do to another what we don't want to do, for over this we have absolute control (you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink). If you knew that doing something (whatever it is) would cause your family to die, would you do it? Nothing could make you do it if you knew your family's life was at stake. I am using this extreme example to prove a point.


In the new world, you won't be able to use this as an excuse as to why you had to do hurt someone because no one will be blaming you.

Exactly, but this doesn't mean I won't do it.
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 » Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:11 pm

CHAPTER THREE

THE END OF CARELESSNESS

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we never had to worry about people
carelessly risking the lives of our loved ones, neighbors, and
friends? Well, get ready for a miracle. I shall demonstrate, by
applying this natural law, how it is now possible to change our environment
and raise man’s conscience to such a degree that all carelessness, including
automobile accidents, will be virtually wiped from the face of the earth
because people the world over will do everything in their power to avoid the
carelessness and risks responsible. Right now there are more people killed
in automobile accidents than we can fully comprehend. These collisions
take place only because man operates on 75% of his potential power which
is insufficient to prevent what nobody wants, even though he is doing
everything in his power to prevent it. By understanding what it means that
man’s will is not free we plug in the extra 25%, and then have the power to
prevent the unintentional tragedies that continue to plague our lives.

Carelessness, just as the word implies is an ‘I do not care’ attitude. It
arises from several factors. There are young boys and girls who want to
make an impression on their friends and this requires that they demonstrate
their ability to handle a car like a race car driver, but they never give much
thought to the other person because man’s first concern has always been for
himself. The show-off wants to give his friends a thrill and demonstrate
how to do what really takes guts. He doesn’t care if he is a menace to other
drivers who happen to cross his path. If he is willing to risk his own life –
and happens to take others with him – that’s their tough luck. For this
reason you would often hear, ‘Drive carefully; the life you save might be
your own.’ The drunks and dope addicts and people in a hurry cannot stand
being behind a slow moving vehicle even if this means passing on a curve
or hill. They either don’t fully realize the danger or they don’t care, since
the risk is primarily to them with no thought of those who may be in the
way.

There are those who don’t care because this requires great effort and
they aren’t willing to exert the kind of energy it takes to protect the lives of
others. To apply brakes when the light changes yellow as an alternative to
speeding up and making it so stopping isn’t necessary is considered a
nuisance. As a result, they often end up going through on the red and
crashing into the driver who starts off before the light has changed to green.

Then there is the mother who is so fed up with the struggle to take care of
the house and her children, and now that she is no longer in love with her
husband she just doesn’t care. She leaves matches and other potentially
dangerous items lying around and when the house catches on fire or they
get hurt in some other way she always comes up with excuses. What has
added to her carelessness is that she never understood the meaning of
fatalism which is the belief that whatever happens is determined by fate and
beyond one’s control. Consequently, when this belief in fatalism was
expressed to me by a mother who didn’t seem to take much care in looking
after her children, I asked her the following question:

“If you saw your infant getting ready to crawl in front of a truck, would
you pick him up or let him go?”

“Naturally, I would grab him.”

“Why would you grab him, if you believe in fate?”

“I can see that danger,” she replied.

“In other words,” I responded, “once you have done everything in your
power to prevent an accident and then it occurs, you can say it was fate.”

Carelessness has allowed airplanes to crash into each other or to explode
because the mechanics failed in their duty. It has allowed ships to ram each
other, hotels, night clubs, houses, etc. to burst into flames and people to
perish. It has allowed tires to blow out and brakes to fail; even buildings to
collapse. There is no telling how many lives have been lost or mutilated
(blinded, crippled or what have you) all because of someone’s carelessness.
And liability insurance came into existence out of absolute necessity to help
prevent the aftereffects of an accident; otherwise we would have more
killing.

My friend remarked, “I don’t know about you guys but if it had not been
for my ability to drive defensively, I would have been killed or hospitalized
at least a dozen times. I agree that defensive driving is extremely important
in this world, that is. I don’t know about the new world, but not everybody
has this coordination and skill to drive defensively, just as they don’t have
other talents and skills.”

“You’re right; however, everybody does have the ability to apply the
rules of good driving. Now observe how God compels this to come about.”
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 » Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:16 pm

When a car accident occurs in our present environment the people
involved are very dissatisfied because their car was just damaged, but what
do they do for satisfaction? If there were no witnesses they hurl accusations
at each other until the police arrive. The person who did not have the right-
of-way could possibly, in a courtroom with a clever lawyer, make the
innocent party appear guilty, in order to get his insurance company to pay
for damages. If the one who had the right-of-way was under the influence
of liquor, even though the accident was not his fault in any way, he is
already judged guilty as this offers a perfect reason for making the guilty
party appear innocent. But when an extremely serious accident occurs
where, let us say, two children and their mother were instantly killed, while
the father and the other driver were thrown clear, to assume responsibility
for this is too horrible to bear which compels them to think up a million and
one excuses as to why it was the other person’s fault.

If there were
witnesses, and both drivers know it was not the father’s responsibility, the
guilty party would welcome whatever punishment could be dished out so
that he could pay dearly for what he did; and the liability insurance
he carries just in case, helps him, in a small way to pay part of the price. If
it was the father’s fault, he might not be able to stand this terrible feeling of
guilt that he caused the death of his loved ones, and might be forced to find
some reason as to why this accident was unavoidable otherwise he could
kill himself. However, to make it possible for him to continue living, just in
case he can’t come up with a convincing reason for the accident, the law
will charge him with manslaughter and he will have to serve a prison
sentence, which he welcomes, because this also helps him to pay for what
he did. How many times, true or false, will the ability to use just these
words make someone feel so much better – “I couldn’t help myself. It was
not my fault. It was unavoidable. I’m terribly sorry.” And how many
times in the course of history have the innocent been compelled to pay the
price of the guilty, just because man was able to shift his responsibility?

To understand why all automobile accidents must come to an end, out of
absolute necessity, watch what happens when we apply our basic principle
to show you exactly what takes place in our present environment before and
after a collision, and then let you see the same accident under changed
conditions. Most people are concerned with their own safety, but under the
changed conditions they become more concerned that they are not
responsible for hurting others as that alternative which gives them greater
satisfaction. Remember, however, the new world is not yet here so we are
going to imagine the same accident which will not occur, just so we can see
why it will not. Actually, the only reason we are willing to drive carelessly
and take risks in our present environment is because when we do have an
accident, which means that when we have made a careless mistake resulting
in a hurt to others, it is possible to gain satisfaction by paying the price or
shifting responsibility. When it becomes impossible to do either, we must
do everything in our power to prevent the accident as that alternative which
is better for ourselves.
Last edited by peacegirl on Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:31 pm, edited 1 time 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 peacegirl » Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:21 pm

Not so long ago a truck was heading west inside the city limits, doing 50
miles an hour in a 35 mile zone. It was past midnight, and very few cars
were on the street. The driver was anxious to get home because he hadn’t
seen his family for a week. He had driven this same route many times and
knew it was safe to go this speed at that time of the morning. His only
concern was to keep an eye out for a patrol car so he wouldn’t get a ticket.

Up ahead, four blocks away, he saw that a traffic signal was green when
about a half block away he knew that it would soon be joined with the
yellow light and followed in a few seconds by the red, indicating that he
would have to stop. Because he felt this was a nuisance, since the amber
light had not yet gone on and since the darkness enabled him to see that no
headlights were coming from other directions, he felt safe to increase his
speed to 65 miles an hour.

Heading north was a car carrying five people – a father, mother, and
their three children. They had just attended a wedding and were on their
way home. The father had been drinking rather heavily and completely
forgot to put on his headlights. He was also traveling along at 50 miles an
hour when he slowed down to 35 so he wouldn’t have to stop for the red
light up ahead, but when he saw the yellow light go on for the other
direction, and knowing that the light would be green before he entered the
intersection even if he resumed his 50 miles an hour, he did not hesitate to
do just that. Now just before the truck got to the crossing the light changed,
which meant that the driver would have to go through on the red. At that
very moment he saw the car without any headlights on enter the intersection
a fraction of a second ahead of him, but it was too late to avoid the
collision. The father saw the truck at that instant too. They both jammed
on their brakes and turned their wheels instinctively, but the truck ploughed
head on at a slight angle into the rear right side of the car. The parents were
somehow only injured slightly; the truck driver was not hurt at all, but the
three children were killed instantly. Standing on the corner was someone
who noticed that the car’s lights were not on. Now let us analyze this.

If the truck driver had any inkling that such an accident would have
resulted from his trying to beat the light he certainly would never have
considered it, but he chose to do what he did because it gave him greater
satisfaction at that moment. However, we are not concerned now with what
he should or should not have done but what he must do for greater
satisfaction following the accident. It is obvious that he feels absolutely
terrible over what he knows was his fault, yet he does not want to be
blamed for the death of these children. There is certainly no satisfaction in
feeling the weight of this responsibility; consequently, he is going to do
everything in his power to shift it away from himself. The police arrive and
learn that the father was driving without headlights on and that he was
highly intoxicated. The truck driver kept saying over and over again – “It
was not my fault. That man went right through the red light and didn’t even
have his lights on. The death of those children is horrible, but it was not my
fault!” Before long he was absolutely convinced that the accident would
never have occurred had the headlights been on, and he was right because
what made him speed up to beat the yellow light was his certainty that no
car was coming. However, he could not tell the police the truth, that the
right-of-way still belonged to the father even though intoxicated and
without lights – although it made him feel as if it was not his responsibility.

In court the father was found guilty of manslaughter even though he was
innocent, which infuriated him. But because the deaths of his children were
considered punishment enough, his sentence was suspended and he was
placed on probation. His wife, however, was not satisfied with the decision
since she believed him guilty of killing their children (she had warned him
time and again about his drinking at parties), and filed for divorce. The
truck driver was awarded quite a bit of money in damages because he
discovered that he was not physically the same after such a traumatic
experience. Had the conditions been slightly different making it impossible
for the truck driver to shift his responsibility, the only avenue open for
greater satisfaction would have been for him to pay a heavy price for what
he did. His insurance would have compensated the parents to a degree for
their tragic loss and they would have been satisfied to know that he was sent
to prison. When released he would feel that he paid his debt to society and
the family, and his conscience would be cleared. If he felt the least big
guilty for killing these children he could always confess this sin to a priest
or psychiatrist, or atone for it in various ways.

The father, on the other
hand, who was found guilty although he was completely innocent has built
up a tremendous hate for the entire system of justice and may desire to kill
the truck driver in retaliation if he thinks he can get away with it. His life
has been ruined and he wants to hurt somebody in the worst way for what
was done to him. Had this accident not taken anyone’s life, the driver of
the truck might have volunteered that it was his fault so his insurance
company could reimburse them for property damage. This could help
compensate in some small way for what happened. Now pay close
attention to the same accident under changed conditions so you can see why
the truck driver when faced with the choice of speeding up or slowing down
is compelled to prefer the latter – which avoids the tragedy. Let’s see how
the truck driver is making out.
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 » Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:25 pm

The truck driver feels absolutely horrible over what he knows was his
responsibility, but he also knows that no one in the entire world will ever
blame him for what was done. People standing around are shocked over the
sight. The father and mother are weeping bitterly over the loss of their
children but they will not say to the truck driver – “Look at what you just
did!” The police are not going to smell his breath or give him other tests,
because there are no more police. There are no prosecutors who are going
to try and prove his guilt in a court of law. There is no more liability
insurance to help pay a price for hurting others. An ambulance arrives to
carry off the dead, and tow trucks to clean up the debris. But let us take a
long look at the truck driver to see how he is making out.

He knows beyond a shadow of doubt that the accident was his
responsibility because the father entered the intersection on the green light.
He can’t say to the police or the parents that it was not his fault, because
they are not going to blame him in any way. They must excuse him since it
is now known that his will is not free, which means that he couldn’t help
himself. He is prevented from saying – “I couldn’t help myself; it was not
my fault; it was unavoidable”, because no one is blaming him. But he
knows, before something happens, that he doesn’t have to do what causes
accidents through carelessness, unless he wants to, for over this he also
knows he has absolute control. And when it fully dawns on him that the
parents must excuse what he cannot justify because he knows he was to
blame (the two-sided equation); when he fully realizes that he cannot shift
his responsibility in any direction whatsoever because nobody is holding
him responsible, and that he cannot pay a price for the same reason, he
finds himself in a situation from which it is impossible to derive any
satisfaction whatsoever. How do you think he feels? Wouldn’t it be
wonderful for him if he was punished or could in some way pay for what he
did? He would like to be blamed, criticized, condemned, punished, beat up
by the father and hated, but he knows these things will never take place
because nobody alive holds him responsible, which compels him to hold
himself responsible. He would like to write a check to compensate the
family for any economic loss, but nobody is suing him. He finds himself in
an unbearable situation and will be compelled to go through life with the
death of these children, the sorrow of the parents, and the destruction of
their property, on his conscience.

“But supposing it really was the father’s fault? What if the father didn’t
see the truck at all and was not certain of what happened?

“Well, is anybody blaming the driver of the other car, so how would it
be possible for him to say – “It was not my fault but his?” And no matter
how unbearable it was for him to feel this responsibility, just imagine how
the father must feel to know that he was, or might have been, responsible
for the death of his loved ones, although this difference could hardly pass
through the eye of a needle.”

“I’m confused again. Why did you say ‘might have been responsible’?”

“If the father was even the slightest bit uncertain of what actually
happened, as long as he knows it might have been his fault, he will suffer
just as much as if he was certain because there is no way he can find out
when no one blames him. He might actually believe that his drinking was
responsible, that maybe it was the fact that he didn’t put on his lights or that
he went through the red light because he just didn’t see it. How do you
think he feels knowing that his carelessness might have caused the death of
his own children? How will he ever know that he was not responsible
unless he is fully aware at all times of what he is doing?”

This means that the very thought of hurting others through carelessness
is so terrifying when there will be no blame, punishment, or a price to be
paid for what we know is, or might have been, our responsibility, that when
we are confronted with a similar situation as the truck driver we could never
find greater satisfaction in speeding up, while the father knowing that
drinking might cause him to get in an accident figures out a way to solve his
problem so he can still drink without taking on the responsibility of driving.
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 » Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:28 pm

If he has no one to drive his car but himself, and he feels that drinking
might cause an accident for which he knows well in advance there will be
no blame, he cannot afford the risk of placing himself in a position from
which his conscience will torture him the rest of his life. People know they
are not compelled to drink and drive, not compelled to pass on a curve or
hill, not compelled to recklessly show off and race unless they want to, for
over this they have mathematical control, and when it fully dawns on them
that should they hurt others with their carelessness they will not be blamed
or punished because everyone knows they were compelled to do what they
did – WHEN THEY KNOW THEY WERE NOT COMPELLED – they are
given no alternative but to do everything in their power to prevent a
situation from arising that gives them absolutely no satisfaction.

If the truck
driver was truly at fault, it would be very difficult to live with the fact that
people were severely injured or killed as a result of his carelessness, when
no one is blaming him for this. Bear in mind that if he had nothing to do
with the accident he would have no reason to feel remorse, but if he was not
certain whether his actions contributed in some way, he would have to live
with this uncertainty knowing that he might have been partly or completely
responsible. The only way a person would know for sure that he was not
responsible is to be aware at all times of what he is doing. Once all
mankind are taught what it means that man’s will is not free, they are
permitted to see, well in advance, a situation that is too horrible to
contemplate, consequently, the only avenue open for needed satisfaction is
to prevent it from arising because there is no way they can do anything
afterwards...under the changed conditions.

The only reason that accidents resulting from carelessness were able to
take place was because people could blame something else as the cause,
thereby shifting what was their responsibility; and liability insurance didn’t
help because those with ample coverage felt they were prepared to pay for
their negligence. This reasoning also explains why the ability to confess
one’s sins allows the confessional to be a place where the responsible party
can find the justification necessary to absolve his conscience. But when it
becomes mathematically impossible to blame someone or something else,
there is no way carelessness can be justified. Remember, if the person was
truly not responsible, his conscience would be clear. In the new world, the
victims involved in any kind of accident will assume the cost of the damage
done to them, which means that when they hold themselves responsible for
hurting others they must also hold themselves responsible for hurting the
victims of their carelessness all the more since the money they will have to
spend on a new or repaired car could have been used either by themselves
or the insurance company, for other things. If a person doesn’t have this
[no fault] insurance or sufficient cash reserve to cover his share of the
damage, then we, all the people, will pay the cost because we know this
person couldn’t help himself, that he was compelled to neglect taking out
this insurance, or else he couldn’t afford it. But when he will be guaranteed
his standard of living (this will be explained in the economic chapter), then
he will desire to carry this protection for fear that he will hurt others by
making them pay for damages that he should be sharing.

The right-of-way system in the new world becomes a mathematical
standard by which each motor vehicle operator is forced to judge only
himself. The truck driver knows he did not have the right-of-way;
consequently, he was aware he struck the first blow when the collision took
place. If he had gotten to the red light and no cars were coming, he would
not have been striking a first blow had he decided to cross the intersection.
By the same reasoning, his speed is no longer controlled by a patrol car
being present or absent but by what he considers safe enough so that he will
never have to enter another driver’s right-of-way. He cannot afford to drive
with bad tires or brakes because if the one should blow out and the other
fail forcing him to collide with other cars by entering their territory, he will
know that he struck the first blow. If the tires were new but the mechanic
failed to tighten the bolts on one wheel which fell off at high speed causing
the accident, his conscience would be clear since this was something that
happened to him as a part of a chain reaction. This is true regardless of
what type of transportation is involved.
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 » Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:30 pm

When a plane crashes it is the responsibility of all those who have
anything to do with it – building, repairing, maintaining, piloting it, etc.,
consequently when these individuals know that they will never be blamed
for taking thousands of lives or putting those lives in jeopardy, they will
never allow a plane to go up until they are absolutely certain that no one
will be hurt. Everybody will be compelled to assume the responsibility of
hurting others in these plane crashes because the others will never blame
them for this hurt. The changed conditions will force every mechanic to be
extremely careful so that they are never responsible for accidents due to
their carelessness. Right now the mechanics, engineers, etc. are justified in
being careless because they know that somebody is going to blame
somebody else right down the line of command, but when they know that
nobody will ever blame anybody, they will all feel the weight of a
tremendous responsibility which compels them to ground a plane unless
they can feel absolutely certain they are not sending a group of people to
their death.

There will be no reason for airplanes to crash into each other
when pilot error will no longer be the cause. Furthermore, now that
airplanes can be electronically guided as to altitude and direction – and
other technological advancements are being developed that will detect
potential problems long before take-off – airline travel will be safer than
ever before. All engineers and mechanics who design and repair vehicles
that are used for public transportation will have no choice but to make
safety a number one priority.

In the private sector, driving a car, motorcycle, or any other type vehicle
will no longer be taken lightly, but will be considered a very serious
undertaking. For example, before desiring to drive a car in the new world
we will want to know everything that could possibly make us responsible
for hurting others in an accident which will then, never occur. It will also
prevent us from delaying other drivers from getting to their destination. If
by not using directional signals when required (which excludes having to
use signals when we are alone on the street or in a lane that only goes to the
right or left) or by not moving over far enough when making a turn we see
that we are holding up traffic for which we will not be blamed by the
honking of horns, we will soon find greater satisfaction in not doing those
things that interfere with the flow of traffic. By blowing horns in blame,
and by calling people names, we not only find justification to repeat that for
which we are prepared to pay for in terms of going to court, getting a ticket,
etc., but we get a certain satisfaction in irritating those whom we know will
criticize this annoying habit. When it becomes impossible to pay a price for
hurting or annoying others because there are no consequences, in other
words, when all justification for tying up traffic has been removed, we are
given no choice but to change our ways.

“I’m beginning to see the effect of this even in smaller accidents,
because the person who caused it is made to realize how much
inconvenience and trouble he puts people through who refuse to blame him
in any way for doing what he knows they must excuse, and he, for the very
first time, cannot justify.”
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 » Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:32 pm

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

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

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

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

There will be no need for speed limits because nobody will desire to travel
at a speed that endangers others, although specific guidelines will be set up
to help drivers ascertain when it is prudent to slow down under difficult
road and weather conditions. Driving a car becomes a very hazardous
profession in the new world because the very thought that someone might
get hurt for which there would be no blame or punishment and no questions
would be asked as to whose fault it was, compels everyone to become an
extremely skillful driver before undertaking what could very easily lead to
the kind of accident just described, and there is no more unbearable form of
punishment than to know that you are responsible for someone’s death or
serious injury. However, to launch this new world and create the
environment necessary to prevent crime, war, hate, and all the other evils
plaguing our lives we must remove every form of hurt to us that could
justify retaliation, which is a separate problem that will be solved very
shortly.
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 » Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:34 pm

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

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

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

The belief in free will and the concomitant blame are equivalent to the
thrust of a rocket in getting a satellite into space, for without it we could
never have reached the outposts of this Golden Age. But just as the
astronauts shed their excess baggage when their rocket has expended its
energy in reaching orbit, so likewise will we shed this theory and all the
blame that helped us reach this tremendous turning point in our lives. Well,
is it any wonder this discovery was never found because the solution
actually lies beyond the framework of modern thought since it cannot be
understood in terms of our present knowledge? As I said, there are no
precedents. I realize how difficult it must be for you to conceive a world
without liability insurance and the Department of Motor Vehicles, but you
will learn soon enough that millions of people are going to be permanently
displaced from their manner of earning a living but they will not be hurt in
any way, so don’t jump to any conclusions; just be patient. If you are
slightly less skeptical and more willing to continue the investigation, you
will see how effective are these laws as God puts an end to all war, crime,
adultery and divorce. But first, I shall reveal my second discovery which
will play a vital role in the new world.
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 » Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:29 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
our only concern is in preventing the desire to strike this
first blow, for then, if this can be accomplished, our problem is solved. If
the first cheek is not struck, there is no need to retaliate or turn the other
side of our face. Is this hard to understand?”

This seems to me to be the crux of the problem. In other words: "How does the cessation of violence follow from the cessation of retribution? Not every act of violence is an act of resentment."


You missed a part where the author defines the 3 things that can allow a person to justify a hurt to another. "In order to hurt another man must be able to derive greater, not less, satisfaction which means that self-preservation demands and justifies this;

I think the concept of justification belongs in a world of culpability: otherwise what does it matter if something is "not justified"?

It's a matter of who you are justifying your actions to; in a world of blame and punishment, you have to justify your actions to others because they are trying to make you culpable, but in the new world you only have to justify your actions to yourself and when you can't justify your actions, your conscience won't allow you to do what you are contemplating (assuming that what you are doing is a first blow).

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


peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:Secondly, I don't consider the will to self-preservation to be the cardinal drive, but the will to power. "Satisfaction" is simply the feeling of power. If it gives me a greater feeling of power to hurt you then not to hurt you, I should do the former.

How can you desire to hurt someone for a feeling of power over them, when they will never blame you for this?

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


[peacegirl wrote:You have to understand that when this law becomes a permanent condition of the environment, all of the factors that have caused insecurity (and the need for power) will no longer be.

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


peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:When every bit of justification is removed, he will be unable to derive satisfaction in any act of violence that is a first blow. Under the new conditions, he cannot pay a price, and could not live with himself knowing that he caused pain to another when no one will ever hold him responsible.

This makes no sense to me. That he does not need to shift responsibility I understand, as there is no responsibility. But why should he not be able to live with himself? What should he care about another's pain?

It's not that he does not need to shift responsibility; it's that he can't shift what is his responsibility to someone or something else when no one is holding him responsible.

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


peacegirl wrote:We all have a conscience

Really? Is this inborn? Sounds like faith to me.
"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 » Sun Apr 29, 2007 12:03 am

Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
our only concern is in preventing the desire to strike this
first blow, for then, if this can be accomplished, our problem is solved. If
the first cheek is not struck, there is no need to retaliate or turn the other
side of our face. Is this hard to understand?”

This seems to me to be the crux of the problem. In other words: "How does the cessation of violence follow from the cessation of retribution? Not every act of violence is an act of resentment."


You missed a part where the author defines the 3 things that can allow a person to justify a hurt to another. "In order to hurt another man must be able to derive greater, not less, satisfaction which means that self-preservation demands and justifies this;

I think the concept of justification belongs in a world of culpability: otherwise what does it matter if something is "not justified"?

It's a matter of who you are justifying your actions to; in a world of blame and punishment, you have to justify your actions to others because they are trying to make you culpable, but in the new world you only have to justify your actions to yourself and when you can't justify your actions, your conscience won't allow you to do what you are contemplating (assuming that what you are doing is a first blow).

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

In other words, when you are not going to ever again be blamed for what you do, you won't have to justify your actions, and you also know that if you should hurt someone, the only person who the burden of responsibility will land on is YOU! You keep going back to this feeling of power. Under the new conditions, your desire to gain power at someone else's expense could never give you greater satisfaction. As you read the book you will understand this more and more.


peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:Secondly, I don't consider the will to self-preservation to be the cardinal drive, but the will to power. "Satisfaction" is simply the feeling of power. If it gives me a greater feeling of power to hurt you then not to hurt you, I should do the former.

How can you desire to hurt someone for a feeling of power over them, when they will never blame you for this?

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

If you loved to hurt people even when this new law is put into effect, you would be considered mentally ill and efforts to prevent you from hurting others would be necessary (he may even have to be institutionalized but still without blame); but this is going to be so rare, if at all, that it isn't something to be concerned about. As children are brought up in the new world, all of the factors that made them mentally ill in this world, will no longer be present.

If your desire was to play on the Playstation 3, and in order to get it you would have to steal, you would know that this is a hurt to the people who spent their money to create the game that gives you joy. Knowing there would be no blame, in fact, you could take all of the Play Stations out of the store with the owner watching you do it, and he would still not blame you, prevents you from moving in this direction for satisfaction. There will be no locks on doors as this is advance blame, so if someone truly wanted to steal they wouldn't have to sneak to do it. It would be very simple.

[peacegirl wrote:You have to understand that when this law becomes a permanent condition of the environment, all of the factors that have caused insecurity (and the need for power) will no longer be.

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

I'm not sure what you mean if power doesn't mean domination or control over others. If you mean power in the sense of feeling in control such as owning your own home or business, then there is no hurt involved. Power in that sense is not a bad thing. I am only discussing what could be a possible hurt.


peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:When every bit of justification is removed, he will be unable to derive satisfaction in any act of violence that is a first blow. Under the new conditions, he cannot pay a price, and could not live with himself knowing that he caused pain to another when no one will ever hold him responsible.

This makes no sense to me. That he does not need to shift responsibility I understand, as there is no responsibility. But why should he not be able to live with himself? What should he care about another's pain?

It's not that he does not need to shift responsibility; it's that he can't shift what is his responsibility to someone or something else when no one is holding him responsible.

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

We are not responsible once something has occurred, but the two-sided equation (please read this again) prevents an individual from using the excuse that his will is not free as a justification to be irresponsible. In other words, once this principle is a permanent part of the environment, the world must excuse (because will is not free) what we can no longer justify.


peacegirl wrote:We all have a conscience

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


They have done studies that even 2 year olds feel a sense of responsibility when they see another child getting hurt. This is not faith.
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 » Sun Apr 29, 2007 1:18 am

peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
our only concern is in preventing the desire to strike this
first blow, for then, if this can be accomplished, our problem is solved. If
the first cheek is not struck, there is no need to retaliate or turn the other
side of our face. Is this hard to understand?”

This seems to me to be the crux of the problem. In other words: "How does the cessation of violence follow from the cessation of retribution? Not every act of violence is an act of resentment."


You missed a part where the author defines the 3 things that can allow a person to justify a hurt to another. "In order to hurt another man must be able to derive greater, not less, satisfaction which means that self-preservation demands and justifies this;

I think the concept of justification belongs in a world of culpability: otherwise what does it matter if something is "not justified"?

It's a matter of who you are justifying your actions to; in a world of blame and punishment, you have to justify your actions to others because they are trying to make you culpable, but in the new world you only have to justify your actions to yourself and when you can't justify your actions, your conscience won't allow you to do what you are contemplating (assuming that what you are doing is a first blow).

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

In other words, when you are not going to ever again be blamed for what you do, you won't have to justify your actions, and you also know that if you should hurt someone, the only person who the burden of responsibility will land on is YOU!

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


peacegirl wrote:You keep going back to this feeling of power. Under the new conditions, your desire to gain power at someone else's expense

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


peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:Secondly, I don't consider the will to self-preservation to be the cardinal drive, but the will to power. "Satisfaction" is simply the feeling of power. If it gives me a greater feeling of power to hurt you then not to hurt you, I should do the former.

How can you desire to hurt someone for a feeling of power over them, when they will never blame you for this?

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

If you loved to hurt people even when this new law is put into effect, you would be considered mentally ill

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


peacegirl wrote:I'm not sure what you mean if power doesn't mean domination or control over others.

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


quote wrote:If you mean power in the sense of feeling in control such as owning your own home or business, then there is no hurt involved. Power in that sense is not a bad thing.

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


peacegirl wrote:We are not responsible once something has occurred, but the two-sided equation (please read this again) prevents an individual from using the excuse that his will is not free as a justification to be irresponsible.

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


peacegirl wrote:In other words, once this principle is a permanent part of the environment, the world must excuse (because will is not free) what we can no longer justify.

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


peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:We all have a conscience

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

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

"They have done studies". I am not convinced.
"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 detrop » Sun Apr 29, 2007 1:51 am

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

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

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

You may say that the intellect here is just another expression of will, and it is of course. But the moment this will begins coresponding with another will, it becomes social.
detrop
"ist" wannabe
 
Posts: 5063
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 8:08 pm

Postby peacegirl » Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:43 am

Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
our only concern is in preventing the desire to strike this
first blow, for then, if this can be accomplished, our problem is solved. If
the first cheek is not struck, there is no need to retaliate or turn the other
side of our face. Is this hard to understand?”

This seems to me to be the crux of the problem. In other words: "How does the cessation of violence follow from the cessation of retribution? Not every act of violence is an act of resentment."


You missed a part where the author defines the 3 things that can allow a person to justify a hurt to another. "In order to hurt another man must be able to derive greater, not less, satisfaction which means that self-preservation demands and justifies this;

I think the concept of justification belongs in a world of culpability: otherwise what does it matter if something is "not justified"?

It's a matter of who you are justifying your actions to; in a world of blame and punishment, you have to justify your actions to others because they are trying to make you culpable, but in the new world you only have to justify your actions to yourself and when you can't justify your actions, your conscience won't allow you to do what you are contemplating (assuming that what you are doing is a first blow).

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

In other words, when you are not going to ever again be blamed for what you do, you won't have to justify your actions. You also know that if you should hurt someone, the only person who the burden of responsibility will land on is YOU!

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

What I mean by we is all mankind. But the 'I' I am referring to is a human being who is conscious of himself as a separate being.

peacegirl wrote:You keep going back to this feeling of power. Under the new conditions, your desire to gain power at someone else's expense

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

You didn't understand the part that said no consequences are the worst form of punishment because not to be blamed for something you know you are responsible for is worse than any kind of punishment society can offer.

Obviously you don't understand the two-sided equation. I suggest you reread the entire three chapters until you grasp it. It is difficult reading especially when you already are positioned to argue based upon your philosophy of life. Just bear in mind that no matter what you come up with to try to disprove what is written, you can't because this work is valid and sound.

peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:Secondly, I don't consider the will to self-preservation to be the cardinal drive, but the will to power. "Satisfaction" is simply the feeling of power. If it gives me a greater feeling of power to hurt you then not to hurt you, I should do the former.

How can you desire to hurt someone for a feeling of power over them, when they will never blame you for this?

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

If you loved to hurt people even when this new law is put into effect, you would be considered mentally ill

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

Mentally healthy or unhealthy is referring to whether a person would hurt another when this law is put into effect. The number of people who are ill will diminish in time, but until then, we have to keep those who are severely mentally ill off the streets. I mentioned this earlier. According to these principles, there is only one behavior pattern that this knowledge is preventing, and that is the desire to strike a first blow, which means doing something to someone that he does not want this done to himself.


peacegirl wrote:I'm not sure what you mean if power doesn't mean domination or control over others.

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

Okay, so what? How does this word negate anything I have written?

quote wrote:If you mean power in the sense of feeling in control such as owning your own home or business, then there is no hurt involved. Power in that sense is not a bad thing.

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

We had to dominate others because we did not have the ability to create a peaceful environment unless their behavior was controlled through laws, and threats of punishment.


peacegirl wrote:We are not responsible once something has occurred, but the two-sided equation (please read this again) prevents an individual from using the excuse that his will is not free as a justification to be irresponsible.

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

There is no need to justify irresponsibility, but you won't have a choice. That is what you are missing in your understanding. Just like the person who killed those children, he kept saying, It was not my fault. I didn't do it. It was horrible, but it was not my fault. He had to try to justify in his mind that he didn't do it, in order to relieve his conscience, but when no one blames him, he has no choice but to accept what is his responsibility because there is nobody he can blame but himself. This seems very hard for people to get. Keep trying and hopefully it will come to you.


peacegirl wrote:In other words, once this principle is a permanent part of the environment, the world must excuse (because will is not free) what we can no longer justify.

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

If will is not free, no one is blaming you for anything. Therefore you don't have to make excuses or justify anything to anyone but you would have to try to justify to yourself why you caused an accident in order to relieve your conscience. Imagine how the father would have felt if he was responsible for his children's death and no one was blaming him, which is why he must prevent this situation from arising. This is his only alternative unless he wants to live with the possibility of this burden of guilt with no way of relieving it. How could he relieve his guilt by saying it was not his fault (when he knew it was) when no one is saying it is his fault?


peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:We all have a conscience

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

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

"They have done studies". I am not convinced.


You don't have to be convinced. Go look up studies and you will find this is true. We are not born sinners, and we are all born with a conscience.
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 » Sun Apr 29, 2007 4:11 am

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And social is where the dividing line begins. My desires will not infringe on your desires because I will no longer desire to gain at your expense. This is where the line will be drawn not by laws, but by my very own conscience.
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 » Sun Apr 29, 2007 4:57 am

peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:when you are not going to ever again be blamed for what you do, you won't have to justify your actions. You also know that if you should hurt someone, the only person who the burden of responsibility will land on is YOU!

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

What I mean by we is all mankind. But the 'I' I am referring to is a human being who is conscious of himself as a separate being.

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


peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:You keep going back to this feeling of power. Under the new conditions, your desire to gain power at someone else's expense

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

You didn't understand the part that said no consequences are the worst form of punishment because not to be blamed for something you know you are responsible for is worse than any kind of punishment society can offer.

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


peacegirl wrote:Obviously you don't understand the two-sided equation. I suggest you reread the entire three chapters until you grasp it. It is difficult reading especially when you already are positioned to argue based upon your philosophy of life. Just bear in mind that no matter what you come up with to try to disprove what is written, you can't because this work is valid and sound.

...


peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:If you loved to hurt people even when this new law is put into effect, you would be considered mentally ill

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

Mentally healthy or unhealthy is referring to whether a person would hurt another when this law is put into effect.

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


peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:I'm not sure what you mean if power doesn't mean domination or control over others.

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

Okay, so what? How does this word negate anything I have written?

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


peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:If you mean power in the sense of feeling in control such as owning your own home or business, then there is no hurt involved. Power in that sense is not a bad thing.

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

We had to dominate others because we did not have the ability to create a peaceful environment unless their behavior was controlled through laws, and threats of punishment.

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


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

There is no need to justify irresponsibility, but you won't have a choice. That is what you are missing in your understanding. Just like the person who killed those children, he kept saying, It was not my fault. I didn't do it. It was horrible, but it was not my fault. He had to try to justify in his mind that he didn't do it, in order to relieve his conscience, but when no one blames him, he has no choice but to accept what is his responsibility because there is nobody he can blame but himself. This seems very hard for people to get.

Or maybe it is flawed reasoning.

TO BE CONTINUED.
"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 » Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:21 am

peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:If will is not free, then there is nothing to excuse, nothing to justify.

If will is not free, no one is blaming you for anything. Therefore you don't have to make excuses or justify anything to anyone but you would have to try to justify to yourself why you caused an accident in order to relieve your conscience.

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


peacegirl wrote:Imagine how the father would have felt if he was responsible for his children's death and no one was blaming him, which is why he must prevent this situation from arising.

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


peacegirl wrote:This is his only alternative unless he wants to live with the possibility of this burden of guilt with no way of relieving it. How could he relieve his guilt by saying it was not his fault (when he knew it was) when no one is saying it is his fault?

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


peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:We all have a conscience

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

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

"They have done studies". I am not convinced.

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

Oh, studies may well have shown that (some) two year olds feel a sense of responsibility when they see another child getting hurt. Is this evidence that conscience is inborn, is what I would like to know. Kindly direct me to representative studies, preferably ones available on the Internet.
"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 Tristan » Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:37 am

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi ... highlight=


While we're on the subject, check out the small piece I wrote. Saw, I'd like to get your thoughts on it.
do be do be do - Sinatra
Tristan
Thinker
 
Posts: 576
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:06 am

Postby peacegirl » Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:18 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:If will is not free, then there is nothing to excuse, nothing to justify.

If will is not free, no one is blaming you for anything. Therefore you don't have to make excuses or justify anything to anyone but you would have to try to justify to yourself why you caused an accident in order to relieve your conscience.

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


peacegirl wrote:Imagine how the father would have felt if he was responsible for his children's death and no one was blaming him, which is why he must prevent this situation from arising.

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


peacegirl wrote:This is his only alternative unless he wants to live with the possibility of this burden of guilt with no way of relieving it. How could he relieve his guilt by saying it was not his fault (when he knew it was) when no one is saying it is his fault?

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


peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:We all have a conscience

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

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

"They have done studies". I am not convinced.

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

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


I really don't know about other studies; you will have to research this on your own. I understand your need for empirical studies, but even with these there can never be enough examples to satisfy the people who believe otherwise. Just as 2+2=4, there are some people who say we don't know this for sure because there might be one example (and that's all that's needed) that can prove that 2+2=5. In that case, no matter what evidence there is, they will try to find a way around this a priori truth.
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 » Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:25 pm

Tristan wrote:http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=156948&highlight=


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

Very good, this:

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

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

This is also noteworthy:

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

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

"A human being is really like a conscious stone. The stone is rolling downhill, and can do nothing about it, but it may think, and feel, that it is in control. It is this feeling which is pleasurable. The stone may say, "Yes! I'm rolling downhill! That is precisely what I want to do!", or it may say, "Oh no! I'm rolling downhill! I don't want to! Help!" The former is self-affirmation; the latter is self-denial. And there is no free choice between them. But the denier also denies his own denial; whereas the affirmer affirms his own affirmation. A double negative is a positive, but a double positive is not a negative. So all existence is positive, even though it may seem negative from a negative perspective."
"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 » Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:28 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:If will is not free, then there is nothing to excuse, nothing to justify.

If will is not free, no one is blaming you for anything. Therefore you don't have to make excuses or justify anything to anyone but you would have to try to justify to yourself why you caused an accident in order to relieve your conscience.

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

But you are missing one thing; this law PREVENTS the situation from arising so they don't have to live with this remorse. Responsibility for one's actions (when those actions are responsible for a hurt to another) is necessary and is God given meaning that this safeguard is here for a reason, otherwise, we would have people doing things that disregard others. Who wants to live in a world where people don't think of anyone else except themselves and their needs at the expense of other people? Who wants a world where we don't care what toes we step on as long as we get our own needs met?

peacegirl wrote:Imagine how the father would have felt if he was responsible for his children's death and no one was blaming him, which is why he must prevent this situation from arising.

He was never responsible; he only felt responsible.

He was not responsible; he did not run the red light.

And it does not matter whether this feeling of responsibility is inborn or learned. What matters to us, we who have the intellectual conscience, is the truth - and the truth is that a creature which has no free will cannot be responsible (though it may feel responsible, even as it may feel it has a choice).

You MUST reread the two-sided equation or you will be fighting me on this ad infinitum.

peacegirl wrote:This is his only alternative unless he wants to live with the possibility of this burden of guilt with no way of relieving it. How could he relieve his guilt by saying it was not his fault (when he knew it was) when no one is saying it is his fault?

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

The world knows it was not his fault, but he knows that nothing in this world can make him 'choose' to move in this direction if he doesn't want to; for over this he has absolute control (which prevents the accident). This is the OTHER SIDE OF THE EQUATION which you have failed to grasp. I am not yelling, it is just for emphasis so you can go back and reread what was written.

peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:We all have a conscience

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

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

"They have done studies". I am not convinced.

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

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


I really don't know about other studies; you will have to research this on your own. I understand your need for empirical studies, but even with these there can never be enough examples to satisfy the people who believe otherwise. Just as 2+2=4, there are some people who say we don't know this for sure because there might be one example (and that's all that's needed) that can prove that 2+2=5. In that case, no matter what evidence there is, they will try to find a way around this a priori truth.
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 » Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:38 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:If will is not free, then there is nothing to excuse, nothing to justify.

If will is not free, no one is blaming you for anything. Therefore you don't have to make excuses or justify anything to anyone but you would have to try to justify to yourself why you caused an accident in order to relieve your conscience.

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

Yes, this law is powerful and it does make people people much more cautious so they won't ever have to be in a position where they have hurt someone and have no way of relieving their guilt because they are already forgiven. Blame is often welcomed since it allows people to relieve their conscience and do the same thing again. How many people repeat the offense that originally brought them to court? With a conscience that is not working at full throttle, they are able to take chances that could kill someone in an accident, and then excuse it. If it was your child, wouldn't you want to know that people are being more responsible because of a higher law that makes them think before they act, rather than come up with excuses after the act takes place?


peacegirl wrote:Imagine how the father would have felt if he was responsible for his children's death and no one was blaming him, which is why he must prevent this situation from arising.

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


peacegirl wrote:This is his only alternative unless he wants to live with the possibility of this burden of guilt with no way of relieving it. How could he relieve his guilt by saying it was not his fault (when he knew it was) when no one is saying it is his fault?

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


peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:We all have a conscience

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

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

"They have done studies". I am not convinced.

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

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


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

PreviousNext

Return to Non-Philosophical Chat



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]