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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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”?
If the will is not free, there is no responsibility and hence no need to justify irresponsibility.
If will is not free, then there is nothing to excuse, nothing to justify.
“They have done studies”. I am not convinced.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Only if you feel guilt. But guilt is precisely what disappears with the abolition of the idea of free will.
…
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”?
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.
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).
Or maybe it is flawed reasoning.
TO BE CONTINUED.
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.
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).
It was not his fault; it is you who is saying it is his fault.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.