New Discovery

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

Postby Sauwelios » Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:41 pm

Welcome back, JennyHeart!
"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 2:44 pm

Sauwelios wrote:Welcome back, JennyHeart!


Who is JennyHeart. I think you posted on the wrong thread.
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 3:10 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:Welcome back, JennyHeart!


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

No, it was a reply to your post of 2:28 pm.
"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 3:27 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:Welcome back, JennyHeart!


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

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


I have no idea where that is or what the name JennyHeart means. I am probably missing something that is obvious. :(
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 3:42 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:Welcome back, JennyHeart!


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

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


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

Ah! and there we have the smiley. I rest my case!
"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 3:46 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:Welcome back, JennyHeart!


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

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


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

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


A little comic relief never hurts. ;)
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 3:53 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:Welcome back, JennyHeart!


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

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


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

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


A little comic relief never hurts. ;)


I do want to get you to think about this honestly. If we could stop all wars and killing NOW, without further killing, wouldn't you want this? It is true that fighting for democracy may eventually bring forth a free country with a new government. But if there is a better way, wouldn't you want to know about it? Punishment has never worked fully, and in a free will society there are always people who will become mentally ill because of judgment. What if by removing all judgment, and all blame (including threats of punishment) we could achieve the very thing all the punishment in the world could never do? What then? I want to bring this to a personal level because we get immune to all of the horrors we see on t.v.. Oh, another 45 soldiers were killed, and we go about our day. But what if it was your child over there? Wouldn't you rather have him home?

What if conscience could rise to its full capacity to STOP THE VIOLENCE? What if we could prevent all of this destruction just by raising our conscience to a higher level and work at 100% capacity instead of 75%? I would hope this is something you would want to know about instead of thinking that this is just another philosophical debate that will die a slow death. Truth does not die; it just gets put on standby until it is recognized. Any debate can make someone look as if they are incorrect (while the other gets the trophy)! But who really wins? The true losers are all of us (unless this discovery is stamped with the brevet of truth by leading scientists) and no amount of debate will be able to find a flaw where there isn't one. Yes, we can manufacture a flaw, but this would not be the fault of the discoverer; it would be the lack of objectivity of the reader. Using their intellectual framework it would be easy to say this is just another false lead where everyone misses it and then goes back to the drawing board. After all, it's fun to argue and be right. If this discovery was true, a lot of the debate going on would have no more meaning. So if you are truly interested in a way to achieve peace on earth, try to listen instead of be right, and put aside all that you have learned so you can read without bias. In the end there is nothing you can say that can prove 2+2=5.
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 4:20 pm

peacegirl wrote:If we could stop all wars and killing NOW, without further killing, wouldn't you want this?

No, for as a Nietzschean, I

"see as the most general effect of the war-tendency, an immediate decomposition and division of the chaotic mass into military castes, out of which rises, pyramid shaped, on an exceedingly broad base of slaves, the edifice of the "martial society.""
[Nietzsche, The Greek State.]

It is the top of this pyramid with which I am concerned.
"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 4:54 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:If we could stop all wars and killing NOW, without further killing, wouldn't you want this?

No, for as a Nietzschean, I

"see as the most general effect of the war-tendency, an immediate decomposition and division of the chaotic mass into military castes, out of which rises, pyramid shaped, on an exceedingly broad base of slaves, the edifice of the "martial society.""
[Nietzsche, The Greek State.]

It is the top of this pyramid with which I am concerned.


You must put aside your ideas in order to understand this one or you will continue to compare your knowledge with this knowledge and it won't work. In this world, there is no pyramid shape or edifice or military caste. The tendency to war means we will more likely have war, which we see everyday. There are deaths and there is so much destruction along with the technology to produce weapons of mass destruction the size of which could destroy much of the population that I do not want to get into an intellectual debate about the tendency to war. Our world is on the brink of a catastrophe, and I am not willing to discuss an abstract intellectual debate when I am much more interested in a practical solution that can save many lives.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

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



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

Postby detrop » Sun Apr 29, 2007 4:55 pm

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


[laughing]

Busted Jenny! Empty your bookbag and reach for the sky!

No but seriously. There is only your will, PG. You must rise up like a pheonix from its ashes. Rise up, PG, and demand that Sauwelios obey you!
detrop
"ist" wannabe
 
Posts: 5063
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 8:08 pm

Postby peacegirl » Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:11 pm

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


[laughing]

Busted Jenny! Empty your bookbag and reach for the sky!

No but seriously. There is only your will, PG. You must rise up like a pheonix from its ashes. Rise up, PG, and demand that Sauwelios obey you!


I am laughing. :D But seriously, without understanding these principles in full, which does take understanding the economic system, you cannot try to put ideas from previous philosophers and apply it to this knowledge. It won't work and it's a waste of time. I like you all but I need people who are not ready to put up their dukes over something they feel is a threat in some way. Believe me, this is not a threat to anyone; it only prevents our desire to strike a first blow (doing something to others that they don't want done to themselves).
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 5:23 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:If we could stop all wars and killing NOW, without further killing, wouldn't you want this?

No, for as a Nietzschean, I

"see as the most general effect of the war-tendency, an immediate decomposition and division of the chaotic mass into military castes, out of which rises, pyramid shaped, on an exceedingly broad base of slaves, the edifice of the "martial society.""
[Nietzsche, The Greek State.]

It is the top of this pyramid with which I am concerned.


You must put aside your ideas in order to understand this one or you will continue to compare your knowledge with this knowledge and it won't work.

I cannot put aside my ideas, as that would mean to put aside myself. And it is not just knowledge, but a worldview.


In this world, there is no pyramid shape or edifice or military caste.

Isn't there? Is everyone of equal rank in today's military?


The tendency to war means we will more likely have war, which we see everyday.

Sure: on television...


There are deaths and there is so much destruction along with the technology to produce weapons of mass destruction the size of which could destroy much of the population that I do not want to get into an intellectual debate about the tendency to war. Our world is on the brink of a catastrophe, and I am not willing to discuss an abstract intellectual debate when I am much more interested in a practical solution that can save many lives.

Why save lives - do they have value?
"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 9:34 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:If we could stop all wars and killing NOW, without further killing, wouldn't you want this?

No, for as a Nietzschean, I

"see as the most general effect of the war-tendency, an immediate decomposition and division of the chaotic mass into military castes, out of which rises, pyramid shaped, on an exceedingly broad base of slaves, the edifice of the "martial society.""
[Nietzsche, The Greek State.]

It is the top of this pyramid with which I am concerned.


You must put aside your ideas in order to understand this one or you will continue to compare your knowledge with this knowledge and it won't work.

I cannot put aside my ideas, as that would mean to put aside myself. And it is not just knowledge, but a worldview.

If you can't put aside your philosophy temporarily then you will not be able to understand the work I am presenting. There is also a problem in that you haven't been shown how the economic system changes for the better, and government (all authority and control) is being displaced. So when you talk about the military caste, the pyramid, and slaves, you are talking about something that won't exist.

In this world, there is no pyramid shape or edifice or military caste.

Isn't there? Is everyone of equal rank in today's military?

You are basing your ideas on a free will society. This has no bearing whatsoever on the society that is an outgrowth of this knowledge. When there is no more military because there is no more international conflict, and when there is no more war for that very reason, how can there be a discussion over rank? Do you see how you are asking questions that won't even come into play? I wish you could read the entire book and you would have a better grasp on what this is about. This type of forum is very limited because even with the first three chapters, it's still not easy reading.

The tendency to war means we will more likely have war, which we see everyday.

Sure: on television...

I didn't come here to talk about t.v. shows which are only a reflection of society. I came here for one reason only, to share a discovery. If you want to prove me wrong, then at least try to understand what the discovery is about before interjecting ideas that don't even relate. I guess it's rare to offer something that is not asking for argumentation or debate. I'm not really looking for feedback of any kind which is why I probably shouldn't be here. I am looking to share something, and that's why I should put this knowledge in a journal or start a book club after people have read the book at least twice. Then there could be relevant questions. I think the problem is that I know this knowledge backward and forward and this is the first time people are hearing of this, so it is no surprise that the feedback has taken a detour.

There are deaths and there is so much destruction along with the technology to produce weapons of mass destruction the size of which could destroy much of the population that I do not want to get into an intellectual debate about the tendency to war. Our world is on the brink of a catastrophe, and I am not willing to discuss an abstract intellectual debate when I am much more interested in a practical solution that can save many lives.

Why save lives - do they have value?


They might not have personal value, but they have intrinsic value. Even if you say this couldn't work because I don't think people have value; you would never be able to strike a first blow under these conditions, and this goes for every person. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. No matter how you slice it, when this immutable law is applied on a worldwide scale, it will allow man to prevent what military might and punishment could not. But the discovery MUST BE UNDERSTOOD. Can you explain the two-sided equation off the top of your head? I'm sure you can't by the questions you are asking.
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 10:18 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:If we could stop all wars and killing NOW, without further killing, wouldn't you want this?

No, for as a Nietzschean, I

"see as the most general effect of the war-tendency, an immediate decomposition and division of the chaotic mass into military castes, out of which rises, pyramid shaped, on an exceedingly broad base of slaves, the edifice of the "martial society.""
[Nietzsche, The Greek State.]

It is the top of this pyramid with which I am concerned.

You must put aside your ideas in order to understand this one or you will continue to compare your knowledge with this knowledge and it won't work.

I cannot put aside my ideas, as that would mean to put aside myself. And it is not just knowledge, but a worldview.

If you can't put aside your philosophy temporarily then you will not be able to understand the work I am presenting.

My "philosophy" is my perspective, my outlook - how can I put this aside? You are demanding the impossible.


peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:In this world, there is no pyramid shape or edifice or military caste.

Isn't there? Is everyone of equal rank in today's military?

You are basing your ideas on a free will society. This has no bearing whatsoever on the society that is an outgrowth of this knowledge.

Sorry, I thought you meant the modern Western world by "this world" - not your utopia.


peacegirl wrote:When there is no more military because there is no more international conflict, and when there is no more war for that very reason, how can there be a discussion over rank? Do you see how you are asking questions that won't even come into play?

But I want them to come into play, I don't want there to be no more international conflict, as peace leads to mediocrity and nihilism. I am concerned with the joy of the Overman, not with the happiness of mankind!


peacegirl wrote:I wish you could read the entire book and you would have a better grasp of what I'm talking about. This type of forum is so limited. :(

I don't need to read the entire book, as I have already found flaws in its foundation (which means that if all people believe in determinism, this will not preclude there from being "first blows").


peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:The tendency to war means we will more likely have war, which we see everyday.

Sure: on television...

I didn't come here to talk about t.v. shows.

I am not talking about shows. I am contending that we only see war on television, in the newspapers, etc.


peacegirl wrote:I came here for one reason only, to share a discovery. If you want to prove me wrong, then at least try to understand what the discovery is before interjecting ideas that don't even relate.

Your "discovery" is the idea that, if one believes in determinism, one cannot shift responsibility to other people or things, and therefore must bear it oneself. As I have shown, this is a flawed argument, as determinism - the absence of free will - precludes any responsibility whatsoever.


peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:Why save lives - do they have value?

They might not have personal value, but they have intrinsic value.

To the contrary: they may have personal value, but they sure as Hell do not have intrinsic value.


peacegirl wrote:Can you explain the two-sided equation off the top of your head?

Even better: I can quote it for you:

"This is a very unique two-sided equation which reveals that while you know you are completely responsible for everything you do, everybody else knows that you are not to blame because you are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction during every moment of your existence."

There is only one side to this equation, as the other side is flawed: I do not know that I am completely responsible for everything I do, as this is simply not true.


"Now if you know absolutely and positively that not only I, but everyone on earth, will never blame or punish you for hurting me in some way because you know we are compelled to completely excuse what we know is definitely beyond your control, is it mathematically possible (think very carefully about this because it is the most crucial point thus far – the scientific discovery referred to) for you to derive any satisfaction whatever from the contemplation of this hurt when you know beyond a shadow of doubt that no one, including myself who is the one to be hurt, will ever hold you responsible, criticize or question your action, ever desire to hurt you in return for doing what must now be considered a compulsion beyond your control?"

This train of reasoning is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of sadism. The sadist does not derive his pleasure from his victim's blaming him, but from his observation of his victim's suffering. There will still be suffering even when it is known that nobody is to blame; consequently, there will also still be pleasure at the suffering of others.
"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 11:06 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:If we could stop all wars and killing NOW, without further killing, wouldn't you want this?

No, for as a Nietzschean, I

"see as the most general effect of the war-tendency, an immediate decomposition and division of the chaotic mass into military castes, out of which rises, pyramid shaped, on an exceedingly broad base of slaves, the edifice of the "martial society.""
[Nietzsche, The Greek State.]

It is the top of this pyramid with which I am concerned.

You must put aside your ideas in order to understand this one or you will continue to compare your knowledge with this knowledge and it won't work.

I cannot put aside my ideas, as that would mean to put aside myself. And it is not just knowledge, but a worldview.

If you can't put aside your philosophy temporarily then you will not be able to understand the work I am presenting.

My "philosophy" is my perspective, my outlook - how can I put this aside? You are demanding the impossible.

No I'm not. This is a choice you have made. The author asked this of anyone who begins reading the book because he knew how people put their own philosophies into what they were reading and it blocked any understanding. I understand this is difficult, but it is not impossible to do especially since you are not being asked to give up your ideas forever, just to put them aside temporarily. Please read this again. If you don't take it seriously, the there is no possibility for further discussion because it would be like I am talking to someone who won't soften his stance for eve a second.

It is true that many men before me, including socialists, communists,
even capitalists also thought they had discovered the cause of, and solution
to, the various problems of human relation, and their enthusiasm was no
doubt just as positive and sincere as my own. However, there is this
difference between us. I have absolute proof that cannot be denied by any
reader; they did not. Mine can be adequately communicated; theirs was
never disentangled from the illusion of reality borne out of abstract thought
and imagination. Mine is purely scientific; theirs an expression of dogmatic
belief. In view of the serious nature of this discovery, the effects of which
will beneficently ramify into every conceivable direction causing religious
minds to consider this the return of the expected Messiah; and since it also
contravenes a belief held true by nearly all of mankind, I am once again
asking the indulgence of every reader to please refrain from jumping to any
premature conclusions, to put aside if only for the time being the unverified
knowledge gathered from books and teachers and heed only the truth
reflected in my words.


peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:In this world, there is no pyramid shape or edifice or military caste.

Isn't there? Is everyone of equal rank in today's military?

You are basing your ideas on a free will society. This has no bearing whatsoever on the society that is an outgrowth of this knowledge.

Sorry, I thought you meant the modern Western world by "this world" - not your utopia.

No, didn't you read that this world benefits everyone, not just the Western world.

peacegirl wrote:When there is no more military because there is no more international conflict, and when there is no more war for that very reason, how can there be a discussion over rank? Do you see how you are asking questions that won't even come into play?

But I want them to come into play, I don't want there to be no more international conflict, as peace leads to mediocrity and nihilism. I am concerned with the joy of the Overman, not with the happiness of mankind!

I think this is the crux of the problem. You don't want everyone to be happy because then you won't be ll powerful. Well, I'm sorry to say that if you have steak for dinner, one day everyone will also be able to have steak, and if you need to see conflict in the world just so you can feel as if you are one of the lucky ones, then you will be threatened by this knowledge because God (however you interpret God) wants everyone to be happy and peaceful. Whether your ego needs others to suffer in order to feel that the world is not mediocre is aberrant in my view and is not going to change the direction our world is headed. This new world of peace and brotherhood is coming, and it has been taken out of our hands.


peacegirl wrote:I wish you could read the entire book and you would have a better grasp of what I'm talking about. This type of forum is so limited. :(

I don't need to read the entire book, as I have already found flaws in its foundation (which means that if all people believe in determinism, this will not preclude there from being "first blows").

That is where you are mistaken. This law becomes an impenetrable deterrent and whether you understand it or not does not negate it. In fact, as I already mentioned, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and there is no way you could strike a first blow under the changed conditions.


peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:The tendency to war means we will more likely have war, which we see everyday.

Sure: on television...

I didn't come here to talk about t.v. shows.

I am not talking about shows. I am contending that we only see war on television, in the newspapers, etc.

That's true, but that doesn't create the tendency to war. What creates the tendency to war has many causes, and until we identify those causes and eliminate them, we will continue to have hatred, terrorism, and destruction.

peacegirl wrote:I came here for one reason only, to share a discovery. If you want to prove me wrong, then at least try to understand what the discovery is before interjecting ideas that don't even relate.

Your "discovery" is the idea that, if one believes in determinism, one cannot shift responsibility to other people or things, and therefore must bear it oneself. As I have shown, this is a flawed argument, as determinism - the absence of free will - precludes any responsibility whatsoever.

WRONG!!!!! You missed half of the equation. No wonder you are so adament that this is flawed.

peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:Why save lives - do they have value?

They might not have personal value, but they have intrinsic value.

To the contrary: they may have personal value, but they sure as Hell do not have intrinsic value.

Fine, I can accept that. But your value is no greater than mine, or vice versa, because value is not something that can be measured externally.


peacegirl wrote:Can you explain the two-sided equation off the top of your head?

Even better: I can quote it for you:

"This is a very unique two-sided equation which reveals that while you know you are completely responsible for everything you do, everybody else knows that you are not to blame because you are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction during every moment of your existence."

There is only one side to this equation, as the other side is flawed: I do not know that I am completely responsible for everything I do, as this is simply not true.

This is where you are incorrect. Once you do something, it is done and you are not responsible. But before you do something, you have the ability to do it or not to do it. Nothing can make you hurt me unless you want to. And when no blame becomes a condition of the environment where you know advance that no blame or punishment will be forthcoming, you CANNOT get satisfaction in continuing as before. (I don't think you understand the definition of determinism according to this author). The knowledge that you would be punished for wrongdoing eases one's conscience and allows one to pay a price. But when there is no price to pay because he is already forgiven, it PREVENTS you from taking the slightest chance that could hurt another because your conscience would never permit it. Whether you think this is flawed does nt make it flawed. It only makes it flawed to YOU because of lack of understanding.

"Now if you know absolutely and positively that not only I, but everyone on earth, will never blame or punish you for hurting me in some way because you know we are compelled to completely excuse what we know is definitely beyond your control, is it mathematically possible (think very carefully about this because it is the most crucial point thus far – the scientific discovery referred to) for you to derive any satisfaction whatever from the contemplation of this hurt when you know beyond a shadow of doubt that no one, including myself who is the one to be hurt, will ever hold you responsible, criticize or question your action, ever desire to hurt you in return for doing what must now be considered a compulsion beyond your control?"

This train of reasoning is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of sadism. The sadist does not derive his pleasure from his victim's blaming him, but from his observation of his victim's suffering. There will still be suffering even when it is known that nobody is to blame; consequently, there will also still be pleasure at the suffering of others.


That is true in the world in which we live because people are sociopaths and have become sadists. But this is not how we are born. Eventually people who have no conscience, who like to see others suffer, will die out and a new generation will be born. Mental illness will one day be a thing of the past.
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 11:50 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:My "philosophy" is my perspective, my outlook - how can I put this aside? You are demanding the impossible.

No I'm not. This is a choice you have made.

No, that is nonsense. My perspective is a function of what I am. You cannot ask a beaver to put his beaverhood aside for a moment and contemplate a question objectively. It is really quite outrageous of you to think that this is possible.



It is true that many men before me, including socialists, communists, even capitalists also thought they had discovered the cause of, and solution to, the various problems of human relation, and their enthusiasm was no doubt just as positive and sincere as my own. However, there is this difference between us. I have absolute proof that cannot be denied by any reader; they did not.

Sheer arrogance: this "proof" turns out to be a flawed argument.

By the way, I am not one of those who want to "solve the various problems of human relation". I don't want an utopia.


peacegirl wrote:I think this is the crux of the problem. You don't want everyone to be happy because then you won't be ll powerful. Well, I'm sorry to say that if you have steak for dinner, one day everyone will also be able to have steak, and if you need to see conflict in the world just so you can feel as if you are one of the lucky ones, then you will be threatened by this knowledge because God (however you interpret God) wants everyone to be happy and peaceful.

I don't believe in God.


peacegirl wrote:Whether your ego needs others to suffer in order to feel that the world is not mediocre is aberrant in my view and is not going to change the direction our world is headed. This new world of peace and brotherhood is coming, and it has been taken out of our hands.

That is yet to be seen.


peacegirl wrote:What creates the tendency to war has many causes, and until we identify those causes and eliminate them, we will continue to have hatred, terrorism, and destruction.

I don't want to eliminate those things. I want suffering to increase a thousandfold, as only suffering brings man to the pinnacles of his genius.


peacegirl wrote:WRONG!!!!! You missed half of the equation. No wonder you are so adament that this is flawed.

Pray tell me then, what is the other half of the equation?


peacegirl wrote:This is where you are incorrect. Once you do something, it is done and you are not responsible. But before you do something, you have the ability to do it or not to do it.

That is real nonsense. Every event is determinate - that is what determinism means! There is always only one possible course of events.


peacegirl wrote:Nothing can make you hurt me unless you want to.

But this will is a passion, something passive - something suffered. It is something that arises, that is aroused. I cannot choose whether to will something or no.


peacegirl wrote:And when no blame becomes a condition of the environment where you know advance that no blame or punishment will be forthcoming, you CANNOT get satisfaction in continuing as before. (I don't think you understand the definition of determinism according to this author). The knowledge that you would be punished for wrongdoing eases one's conscience and allows one to pay a price. But when there is no price to pay because he is already forgiven, it PREVENTS you from taking the slightest chance that could hurt another because your conscience would never permit it. Whether you think this is flawed does nt make it flawed. It only makes it flawed to YOU because of lack of understanding.

Not so much lack of understanding as mental illness: for I do not have such a conscience. I am a sociopath! But whoever said sociopaths can't be truthful?
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby peacegirl » Mon Apr 30, 2007 12:24 am

Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:My "philosophy" is my perspective, my outlook - how can I put this aside? You are demanding the impossible.

No I'm not. This is a choice you have made.

No, that is nonsense. My perspective is a function of what I am. You cannot ask a beaver to put his beaverhood aside for a moment and contemplate a question objectively. It is really quite outrageous of you to think that this is possible.

Sauwelios, that analogy doesn't apply. You are not a beaver for starters, and for you to be so joined at the hip with your philosophy that you can't put it aside for a short time so that your mind can be empty enough to really grasp another concept, is not very progressive. I don't think asking this of you is outrageous at all; it fact, it is absolutely necessary.



It is true that many men before me, including socialists, communists, even capitalists also thought they had discovered the cause of, and solution to, the various problems of human relation, and their enthusiasm was no doubt just as positive and sincere as my own. However, there is this difference between us. I have absolute proof that cannot be denied by any reader; they did not.

Sheer arrogance: this "proof" turns out to be a flawed argument.

This is not arrogance. I imagine Mendel felt the same way when Nageli , the leading authority of his time, dismissed the core of Mendel's work as incorret. Now he is the father of genetics, and Nagili a footnote. So if this author is right, then he went through the very same thing Mendel did. Hopefully, he will get posthumous recognition one day.

By the way, I am not one of those who want to "solve the various problems of human relation". I don't want an utopia.

I know that, but as I said, it doesn't matter what you want. God (however you interpret God to be; the infinite intelligence guiding our planet) is taking it out of our hands. This is what you don't understand.


peacegirl wrote:I think this is the crux of the problem. You don't want everyone to be happy because then you won't be ll powerful. Well, I'm sorry to say that if you have steak for dinner, one day everyone will also be able to have steak, and if you need to see conflict in the world just so you can feel as if you are one of the lucky ones, then you will be threatened by this knowledge because God (however you interpret God) wants everyone to be happy and peaceful.

I don't believe in God.

It's okay; it's not a prerequisite that you believe in God for this new world to come about.


peacegirl wrote:Whether your ego needs others to suffer in order to feel that the world is not mediocre is aberrant in my view and is not going to change the direction our world is headed. This new world of peace and brotherhood is coming, and it has been taken out of our hands.

That is yet to be seen.

Obviously!

peacegirl wrote:What creates the tendency to war has many causes, and until we identify those causes and eliminate them, we will continue to have hatred, terrorism, and destruction.

I don't want to eliminate those things. I want suffering to increase a thousandfold, as only suffering brings man to the pinnacles of his genius.

Not true at all; yes, suffering can bring man to his knees and become a different person; but so can success. You don't have to suffer to become genius material.


peacegirl wrote:WRONG!!!!! You missed half of the equation. No wonder you are so adament that this is flawed.

Pray tell me then, what is the other half of the equation?

The other half of the equation is essential in that it tells us that even though the world must excuse us because we know man's will is not free, we cannot justify what we are about to do because if we hurt someone (this is advance knowledge) with a first blow, we would have to bear the burden of responsibility. How can we not when we know we struck the first blow, not anyone else. You need to think about this carefully before telling me that when we do something to hurt others, we didn't really do it. Of course we did. And the world is forgiving us. When I strike you with the stick, I did it, not my sister or brother. Don't start asking me who is the we I am talking about, and who is this I, and what is the body. None of this makes any difference when it comes to this mathematical concept.


peacegirl wrote:This is where you are incorrect. Once you do something, it is done and you are not responsible. But before you do something, you have the ability to do it or not to do it.

That is real nonsense. Every event is determinate - that is what determinism means! There is always only one possible course of events.

That is true, but when I hit you with a stick, I can't say the previous determinant made me do it. So when it mentions that you are responsible, it only means that nothing other than you (not heredity or environment) caused you to do it. And when you cannot offer excuses when you are already forgiven, and when you cannot derive satisfaction because the justification has been removed, you cannot move in this direction. This also means that when the new condition of the environment changes, the determinants also change, causing a different set of alternatives.

peacegirl wrote:Nothing can make you hurt me unless you want to.

But this will is a passion, something passive - something suffered. It is something that arises, that is aroused. I cannot choose whether to will something or no.

Please read the end of chapter two. You are still coming from the vantage point of this world. It is difficult to imagine a world in which your passion to kill or maim will be controlled by a stronger impulse not to do this. You never answered my question. If you knew that by raping someone, your entire family would be killed instantly, would you be able to control your passion? It may be a strong desire but it can be controlled if the alternative is worse in your eyes. So this is not a true statement.

peacegirl wrote:And when no blame becomes a condition of the environment where you know advance that no blame or punishment will be forthcoming, you CANNOT get satisfaction in continuing as before. (I don't think you understand the definition of determinism according to this author). The knowledge that you would be punished for wrongdoing eases one's conscience and allows one to pay a price. But when there is no price to pay because he is already forgiven, it PREVENTS you from taking the slightest chance that could hurt another because your conscience would never permit it. Whether you think this is flawed does nt make it flawed. It only makes it flawed to YOU because of lack of understanding.

Not so much lack of understanding as mental illness: for I do not have such a conscience. I am a sociopath! But whoever said sociopaths can't be truthful?


Why do you call yourself a sociopath? Maybe you have a mental illness and maybe you have been damaged by society, but this still doesn't mean you would be able to act out aggression under these conditions. And if you did, you would have to be taken off the streets, just like they do today, except without blame.
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 Membrain » Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:30 am

I suppose what I would want first is an overview. A list of the chapter titles and then a short description of each chapter and the reasoning behind the progression of chapters.

This would allow me to chose what chapters I want to read. If there is a chapter, for example, about "God", I would know immediately not to read it since I stay away from that stuff. :)

If, say, Chapter Seven has "The Three Main Points", I might skip to that.

If the argument is that every word must be read successively to understand the point, then the point is too complicated and will fail. :) Not that complication makes things always fail, it's just that we're talking about something that is supposed to be accessible to the everyone on the planet, right? It shouldn't be much more complicated than "Love One Another".
I just changed my signature to be a link to a list of 42 logical fallacies. Feel free to use it:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
User avatar
Membrain
Thinker
 
Posts: 832
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 8:17 am
Location: California

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:06 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:My "philosophy" is my perspective, my outlook - how can I put this aside? You are demanding the impossible.

No I'm not. This is a choice you have made.

No, that is nonsense. My perspective is a function of what I am. You cannot ask a beaver to put his beaverhood aside for a moment and contemplate a question objectively. It is really quite outrageous of you to think that this is possible.

Sauwelios, that analogy doesn't apply. You are not a beaver for starters, and for you to be so joined at the hip with your philosophy that you can't put it aside for a short time so that your mind can be empty enough to really grasp another concept, is not very progressive. I don't think asking this of you is outrageous at all; it fact, it is absolutely necessary.

I am a Nietzschean, and according to Nietzsche "there are no philosophies, only philosophers". So my philosophy is indistinguishable from what I am. You are asking me to put my Sauwelioshood aside for a moment - ah, like so many others!



peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:By the way, I am not one of those who want to "solve the various problems of human relation". I don't want an utopia.

I know that, but as I said, it doesn't matter what you want. God (however you interpret God to be; the infinite intelligence guiding our planet) is taking it out of our hands. This is what you don't understand.

As I said, I don't believe in a "God" (an "infinite intelligence guiding our planet").


peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:What creates the tendency to war has many causes, and until we identify those causes and eliminate them, we will continue to have hatred, terrorism, and destruction.

I don't want to eliminate those things. I want suffering to increase a thousandfold, as only suffering brings man to the pinnacles of his genius.

Not true at all; yes, suffering can bring man to his knees and become a different person; but so can success. You don't have to suffer to become genius material.

How would you know?


peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:WRONG!!!!! You missed half of the equation. No wonder you are so adament that this is flawed.

Pray tell me then, what is the other half of the equation?

The other half of the equation is essential in that it tells us that even though the world must excuse us because we know man's will is not free, we cannot justify what we are about to do because if we hurt someone (this is advance knowledge) with a first blow, we would have to bear the burden of responsibility.

Exactly: and that part of the equation is flawed!


How can we not when we know we struck the first blow, not anyone else. You need to think about this carefully before telling me that when we do something to hurt others, we didn't really do it. Of course we did.

Again, what do you mean by "we"? This is how I first meant the question. Are you a substance dualist? If not, you must agree that "we" consist completely of the same stuff as the rest of the universe, and that we are therefore fully determined by it (even before the first blow). Or do you believe there is a ghost in the machine that is somehow separate from it and can yet influence (indeed, even control) it? Making it not even a "real" ghost (which would move right through the machine if it tried to exert force on it)?


And the world is forgiving us. When I strike you with the stick, I did it, not my sister or brother. Don't start asking me who is the we I am talking about, and who is this I, and what is the body. None of this makes any difference when it comes to this mathematical concept.

"The mathematical concept of the person"... Pray tell me, then: where does the person begin? Where does it end? Is the person its body? Or is it somehow separate? You need not answer this if you already answered my questions about the ghost in the machine above.


peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:This is where you are incorrect. Once you do something, it is done and you are not responsible. But before you do something, you have the ability to do it or not to do it.

That is real nonsense. Every event is determinate - that is what determinism means! There is always only one possible course of events.

That is true, but when I hit you with a stick, I can't say the previous determinant made me do it.

There is no "you"; your body is just part of the stream of events that resulted in my (body's) being hit.


peacegirl wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:Nothing can make you hurt me unless you want to.

But this will is a passion, something passive - something suffered. It is something that arises, that is aroused. I cannot choose whether to will something or no.

Please read the end of chapter two. You are still coming from the vantage point of this world. It is difficult to imagine a world in which your passion to kill or maim will be controlled by a stronger impulse not to do this. You never answered my question. If you knew that by raping someone, your entire family would be killed instantly, would you be able to control your passion?

Why should I care about my family? And what about the person who doesn't have any family? Don't bring family into it - let's rephrase it as follows:

"If you knew that by raping someone, you would be killed instantly, would you be able to control your passion?"

That would probably be a factor in the equation. I don't think it would matter, though, to anyone really overwhelmed by passion (as in "crimes" of passion). Though it would then probably rather be killing than raping.


It may be a strong desire but it can be controlled if the alternative is worse in your eyes.

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

Postby peacegirl » Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:43 pm

peacegirl wrote:WRONG!!!!! You missed half of the equation. No wonder you are so adament that this is flawed.

Pray tell me then, what is the other half of the equation?

“Now that we have a basic understanding as to why man’s will is not
free because it is his nature that he must always move in the direction of
greater satisfaction, as well as 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 – let us observe what miracle happens when these two
laws are brought together to reveal a third law.
Pay close attention because
I am about to slay the fiery dragon with my trusty sword which will reveal
my discovery, reconcile the two opposite principles ‘an eye for an eye’ and
‘turn the other cheek’, and open the door to this new world.”

At the present moment of time you are standing on this spot called here,
and are constantly in the process of moving to there. You know as a matter
of positive knowledge that nothing has the power, that no one can cause or
compel you to do anything against your will
; and this other, who is standing
on this spot called there to where you plan to move from here also knows
positively that you cannot be blamed anymore for your motion from here to
there because the will of man is not free.
This is a very unique two-sided
equation which reveals that while you know you are completely responsible
(MEANING THAT WHEN YOU DO SOMETHING THAT YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR, YOU ARE THE ONE RESPONSIBLE,
NOT SOMETHING ELSE)
for everything you do, everybody else knows that you
are not to blame
because you are compelled to move in the direction
of greater satisfaction
during every moment of your existence
(this proves that man's will is not free and by not
being blamed you are compelled to accept what is
your responsibility. This in no way contradicts the fact
that man's will is not free)
.

Now if you know absolutely and positively that not
only I, but everyone on earth, will never blame or punish
you for hurting me in some way because you know we are
compelled to completely excuse what we know is definitely
beyond your control, is it mathematically possible (think
very carefully about this because it is the most crucial point thus
far – the scientific discovery referred to) for you to derive any
satisfaction whatever from the contemplation of this hurt
when you know beyond a shadow of doubt that no one,
including myself who is the one to be hurt, will ever
hold you responsible, criticize or question your action,
ever desire to hurt you in return for doing what must now be
considered a compulsion beyond your control?
(We know there are sociopaths that are so damaged
that their conscience will not control their desire to
strike out at others even with the change in our environment
to no blame, but this is a rare occurrence and will become
more rare with of passage of time. This does not negate
the validity of this discovery).

Remember, you haven’t hurt me yet, (the new condition of no blame changes the entire landscape of human relations thus changing the determinants that compell one to choose one thing over another; if you don't understand this then you must reread the author's definition of determinism, which cannot be denied if understood) and you know (this is the other side
of the equation) as a matter of undeniable knowledge
that absolutely nothing can compel you to hurt me unless you
want to, for over this you have mathematical control;
consequently, your motion, your decision as to what
is better for yourself is still a choice between two
alternatives – to hurt me or not to hurt me.

And when it fully dawns on you that should you go ahead with this decision to hurt me, you will not be blamed in any way because no one wants to hurt you in return for doing what everyone now
understands is a compulsion beyond your control –
ALTHOUGH YOU KNOW IT IS NOT BEYOND YOUR CONTROL
AT THIS POINT SINCE NOTHING CAN MAKE YOU HURT
ME UNLESS YOU WANT TO
–you are compelled,
completely of your own free will (your desire), to reliquish
this desire to hurt me because it can never satisfy you to do so
under these conditions.


Furthermore, if you know as a matter of positive
knowledge that no one in the entire world is going to blame you or question
your conduct, is it possible for you to make others culpable, to extenuate the
circumstances, to lie or try to shift your responsibility in any way?
As was
just demonstrated, it is not possible, just as the same answer must apply to
the question is it possible to make two plus two equal five.
[b]How can you shift what you know you have done,
whether intentional or unintentional, when no one is holding you responsible?


This proves
conclusively that the only time you can say, “I couldn’t help myself because
my will is not free”, or offer any kind of excuse, is when
you know you are
being blamed for this allows you to make this effort to shift your
responsibility
. Let me explain this in still another way.

When you know you are not going to be blamed for what you do, it also
means that you must assume complete responsibility for everything you do
since you cannot shift it away from yourself under the changed conditions [how can you shift the blame to someone else when you are not being blamed? Again this is impossible. Try to do it and you will see it cannot be done].

We have become so confused by words in logical relation that while we
preach this freedom of the will we say in the same breath that we could not
help ourselves, and demonstrate our confusion still more by believing that
the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, would lessen our responsibility when
instead it does the exact opposite. Did you ever see anything more
ironically humorous? The only time you can use the excuse that your will
is not free is when the world believes it is free. The world of free will has
allowed people to lie and cheat in order to get what they want and then shift
responsibility away from themselves when questioned. Many philosophers
have gotten confused over this one point because they believe that a world
without blame would make matters worse, decreasing responsibility and
giving man a perfect opportunity to take advantage of others without having
to worry about consequences. But this can only occur when man knows he
will be blamed, which allows him to come up with reasonable excuses.
How is it possible to come up with excuses when one is already excused?


peacegirl wrote:This is where you are incorrect. Once you do something, it is done and you are not responsible. But before you do something, you have the ability to do it or not to do it.

That is real nonsense. Every event is determinate - that is what determinism means! There is always only one possible course of events.

Who is disagreeing with this? There is only one possible
course of events and there could never have been two
parallel worlds. There is only one world, but what changes
when this law becomes a condition of the environment [when all blame and punishment are removed], is that mankind will veer in a completely direction but still acting according to his nature.
This law PROVES that man's will is not free; what changes
are the determinants. You are confused over the second part
of the two-sided equation but hopefully you will put on your
thinking cap and stop using your knowledge as the frame of reference. [You will resist
this knowledge if you feel threatened in some way but I am working
with you because I believe you are sincerely trying to understand].
Then you will easily grasp what is written. You certainly have the capacity.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

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



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

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Apr 30, 2007 3:43 pm

peacegirl wrote:“Now that we have a basic understanding as to why man’s will is not
free because it is his nature that he must always move in the direction of
greater satisfaction, as well as 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 have already replied to this. I think it is absolute nonsense. What do you mean by "make up his mind"? To sincerely intend? But intention is only a very small part of the equation (a conscious part - but most of what we do and decide happens unconsciously).

Does man have absolute control over his mind? I think not. And anyway, how do you distinguish "man" from his "mind"? Do you mean that his body has absolute control over his mind? Or his mind? But his mind cannot control itself, it can only be that a part of his mind controls another (different) part of his mind.


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

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


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

I don't have to.


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

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

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
"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 Carleas » Mon Apr 30, 2007 4:25 pm

I side with Membrain. While I'm curious because of how you trumped it up, I have plenty of other books to choose from. Since many of those are recognized as well-assembled and influential, a book posted on an internet forum by an author who is unnamed (I don't think you've named him, anyway) needs to work pretty hard to get me to commit. I read the intro, and skimmed a lot of the rest, and it honestly didn't seem to be going anywhere I haven't been before.
What are you trying to show?
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 6115
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Postby peacegirl » Mon Apr 30, 2007 4:27 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
peacegirl wrote:“Now that we have a basic understanding as to why man’s will is not
free because it is his nature that he must always move in the direction of
greater satisfaction, as well as 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 have already replied to this. I think it is absolute nonsense. What do you mean by "make up his mind"? To sincerely intend? But intention is only a very small part of the equation (a conscious part - but most of what we do and decide happens unconsciously).

You are right, the author states emphatically that there are many unconscious factors that compell us to choose one thing over another. You cannot trace your choices back to one thing, that is true.

Does man have absolute control over his mind? I think not. And anyway, how do you distinguish "man" from his "mind"?

You can't. We can see that each person is a bubble of consciousness that separates him from others. Again, you are getting into an intellectual debate when the facts don't meet your expectations. I am telling you that NO ONE, under these new conditions, could derive satisfaction from hurting others WITH A FIRST BLOW, when he knows IN ADVANCE, that no one in the entire world would ever hold him responsible because the world knows his will is not free. But BEFORE HE DOES SOMETHING TO HURT ANOTHER, THE CHOICE TO HURT SOMEONE IS STILL UNDER CONSIDERATION, and when this knowledge of no blame becomes a new determinant, he will be unable (because it gives him less satisfaction; and if you don't understand this, everything else will make no sense) to move in this direction.

Do you mean that his body has absolute control over his mind? Or his mind? But his mind cannot control itself, it can only be that a part of his mind controls another (different) part of his mind.


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

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

You have a block, which like many do, prevents new knowledge. This is why free will has remained in power for time immemorial and it is so difficult to break through this sound barrier. All I ask is that you keep an open mind and keep trying to understand. You must think outside of the box of your definition of determinism, and your idea about the state, and how society is functioning in a free will society. That will only get in the way.


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

I don't have to.

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


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

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

No, that is not what I am saying and there is no flaw. You know in advance that you will not be blamed; the hurt to another hasn't happened yet but you are considering it. It's hypothetical because it can't happen once these principles are put into effect. We are all thinking about the consequences of our behavior, but instead of punishment being the deterrent, the new condition of no blame becomes the deterrent because it is the worst form of punishment to be excused for something you know you are responsible for. That is what prevents the act. You keep referring to a situation that will not occur because this law prevents it. Under these conditions, it can't be done. If you hang in there hopefully you will see this. It depends how defensive you are in trying to prove me wrong. But you can't prove 2+2=5, no matter how right you think you are. The same is true here; but you don't know that yet. You are only assuming responsibility for yourself. That is all. When no one blames you, YOU CANNOT SHIFT WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY (WHAT YOU HAVE DONE TO HURT ANOTHER). If your hurting someone was the result of a chain reaction, then you have no reason to feel remorse, and you won't. But if what you have done something that is unjustifiable, and when no one blames you, you are prevented from shifting that which is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY [that which you caused] by using an excuse that something other than you made you do this, which prevents you from moving in this direction.

NOTHING CAN MAKE YOU DO ANYTHING FOR OVER THIS YOU HAVE MATHEMATICAL CONTROL WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE MISSING.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too.


You are right. You can't have free will and determinism at the same time, this is true. I am not contradicting the FACT that man's will is not free. I don't know if you will continue to listen, but if you do, as I said before, you will get it. Until then, you must put your preconceptions aside.
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 » Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:25 pm

Membrain wrote:I suppose what I would want first is an overview. A list of the chapter titles and then a short description of each chapter and the reasoning behind the progression of chapters.

This would allow me to chose what chapters I want to read. If there is a chapter, for example, about "God", I would know immediately not to read it since I stay away from that stuff. :)

THIS IS NOT A RELIGIOUS WORK. IN FACT, RELIGION IS COMING TO AN END WHEN WE ARE FINALLY DELIVERED FROM ALL EVIL WHICH IS WHY RELIGION CAME INTO BEING IN THE FIRST PLACE. BUT NO ONE WILL TELL ANYONE WHAT TO DO, SO IF SOMEONE WANTS TO USE HIS MONEY IN THIS DIRECTION, THIS WILL BE HIS BUSINESS.

PART ONE

THE FOUNDATION AND SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENT OF MY FIRST DISCOVERY

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

PART TWO

MY SECOND DISCOVERY

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

PART THREE

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

PART FOUR

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

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





If, say, Chapter Seven has "The Three Main Points", I might skip to that.

If the argument is that every word must be read successively to understand the point, then the point is too complicated and will fail. :) Not that complication makes things always fail, it's just that we're talking about something that is supposed to be accessible to the everyone on the planet, right? It shouldn't be much more complicated than "Love One Another".
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 » Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:29 pm

Membrain wrote:I suppose what I would want first is an overview. A list of the chapter titles and then a short description of each chapter and the reasoning behind the progression of chapters.

This would allow me to chose what chapters I want to read. If there is a chapter, for example, about "God", I would know immediately not to read it since I stay away from that stuff. :)

If, say, Chapter Seven has "The Three Main Points", I might skip to that.

You must understand the discovery before reading the extension. You can alternate the chapters after the first three chapters are read. God is mentioned throughout the book, but God in this context only means the laws of our nature.

If the argument is that every word must be read successively to understand the point, then the point is too complicated and will fail. :) Not that complication makes things always fail, it's just that we're talking about something that is supposed to be accessible to the everyone on the planet, right? It shouldn't be much more complicated than "Love One Another".


It is not too complicated if people come with an open mind and not as a challenge to prove this knowledge wrong. It can't be proven wrong and you will know this once you grasp the principles entirely. It is more complicated than "Love One Another". We have been saying that for years and it doesn't always work, BUT THIS KNOWLEDGE DOES WORK.
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: No registered users