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.
Less satisfaction does not mean no satisfaction.
But I don’t have a block. I don’t even believe in free will! But the consequence of the absence of free will is that nobody is responsible.
Nietzsche’s Greek society need not be a free will society. So that doesn’t get in the way. As for my definition of determinism: please give me an accurate definition that leaves room for responsibility.
I know I can’t, but then again I don’t have to, so it isn’t a problem that I can’t. I am not blaming myself (and neither is my conscience).
But I know I am not responsible for it, as I don’t have free will.
Only the former applies here. There is nothing that is unjustifiable in this scenario, as everything is justified (or rather, neither justified nor unjustified, as the whole concept of “justice” is senseless in this scenario).
My dear girl, I have already proven it wrong. And it was not because I wanted to “win” the argument, but because I disagreed with the argumentation.
Sauwelios, you did not prove this knowledge wrong. If you can’t understand the two-sided equation, which does not in any way, shape, or form contradict ‘no free will’, then you need to keep trying if it interests you. If it doesn’t then we can end the conversation; it doesn’t matter to me one way or the other.
If you can’t understand that nothing in this world can cause you to do something against your will, but that does not make your will free, then you need to keep listening. Other people who aren’t quite sure, but are willing to continue asking questions, are the people who will eventually spread this knowledge. I am not going to go on the defensive because I don’t have to. I know that I know that I know only because this knowledge contains within itself proof of its veracity. 
I understand the two-sided equation completely; so much so that I understand one side of it is flawed. It would be worth it for you to listen to this: it’s a perfect example of true philosophical thinking:
“You are not [contrary to what you claim] sketching the case where I am not being blamed. In your scenario, I am being blamed - by myself (or rather, a part of myself: my conscience…). This is the real flaw in your whole argumentation.”
You can welcome this introduction to the world of philosophy (and you may even thank me for it), or you can continue your pseudo-philosophic occupations.
Thank you very, very much for going to the trouble of outlining the book. I learned, for example, that there are “three” main discoveries. That helps with focus.
I did have one more favor to ask:
Can I get little statements after each title to paraphrase what the title means? Short two, three, four-word titles can be ambiguous and somewhat cryptic. A short 5-to-10 word explanation would be really helpful. For example:
CHAPTER ONE - THE HIDING PLACE (withing our own minds)
CHAPTER TWO - THE TWO-SIDED EQUATION (the nature of math)
You see my guesses. Are they right? If not, you can see the need for clarification.
My current first choice for a read is this chapter:
MY THIRD AND FINAL DISCOVERY; THE EXTENTION OF A MATHEMATICAL RELATION INTO THE WORLD BEYOND DEATH
I expect that I will be able to come up with some observations concerning things that we think happen after death.
Thanks again.
You can think you are correct, and go your merry way; but you are not understanding something and I wish that instead of being so sure of yourself, just like Nageli was (and he was a leading authority), be a little humble and question as a young child would instead of using your pseudo-philosophic occupation as the end all of truth.
Man’s will is not free?? Why bother getting up in the morning! 
Hi my real name, how are you? I don’t think you read the definition of determinism that this author has set forth. We are not robots or automatons reacting to a determinant with no will. You MUST read the first chapter and then you will see that getting up in the morning is a choice (although not a free one) that people can make, or they can go back to sleep, or commit suicide. Once they make a choice, they could have never done otherwise, at that moment, because it gave them greater satisfaction. If you really want to understand this, you need to study it and I’ll be here to answer questions afterwards. It is worthwhile reading in spite of everything that has been said to the contrary.
Your author seems to be a pessimist on the topic of choice. All his talk seems to be about lesser evils, when free will has more to do with choosing a positive good. Limitations on free will are not existential, that is, they are situational problems, not a problem with the will itself. I see his future world as an Orwellian one, where no one ever acts for what they really want. I think that’s the result of his position.
As for the first chapter, I tired of it since it seemed to be hackneyed discussion about how no one has ever discovered what he discovered and how this will revolutionise the world. Good luck.
By the way, I like your author’s underlining discussions after the arguments. I think it’s good rhetoric and it puts the argument into simpler language to understand.
It is not rhetoric. He tried very hard to make it as clear as he could, but when the world uses logic in so many arguments, they can’t tell the difference between fact and opinion. I have an uphill battle but I ain’t giving up. Maybe I will add one more chapter to help clarify certain things. It takes reading the entire book at least twice for understanding. I have been with this knowledge for many years and that is the only reason I have a clearer grasp of these principles.
Oh, I’m sure it is pretty flattering to compare yourself (or your author) to Galilei and the like.
You want your readers to be like young children, because you want them to believe…
My occupation is not pseudo-philosophic - stop parroting my words. I have razed down your precious castle-in-the-air, and though I take it that you are attached to this castle - perhaps the original author was your father? -, I think this is a fine opportunity for you to grow up (become a woman instead of a girl). Our failures may be valuable lessons - if we are not too proud, or rather proud enough, to admit defeat. A little humility would be in place, I’ll agree with you on that: you come barging into a philosophy forum with your fancy theories and preach (not to mention accept) them as Gospel truth. You are no better than a Christian Fundamentalist who sticks to his Bible no matter what.
I will leave if there is no further interest. You won!
Just point out where I am “confused” if you can, instead of coming up with childish comparisons to simple mathematics.
I have a comparison for you, by the way. You think you have a thesis and an antithesis which together form a synthesis, and you think that both the thesis and the antithesis are right. Or, to put it differently, you have two premises and a conclusion, and because you believe both premises are true you believe the conclusion is true. But one of the premises is false. You think you have a case of 1+2=3, but you only have 1+0=1.
Oh, but there is further interest! From fellow believers like myrealname and what’s-his-name - Membrain! I remember Membrain’s leap of faith like it was yesterday… You share the same characteristic with him, namely the stiff refusal to relinquish your faith - and probably for the same reason: fear of uncertainty!
“Confidence
c.1430, from L. confidentia, from confidentem, prp. of confidere, from com- intens. prefix + fidere “to trust” (see [b]faith[/b]).”
etymonline.com/index.php?term=confidence
But your “analogy” has no connection to my argument. I challenge you to tell me what the 3, the 6, the 4, the 8, and the 9 correspond to in your “analogy”. I can tell you what the 1, the 2, the 3, and the 0 correspond to in mine:
1: true premise (thesis)
2: true premise (antithesis)
3: true conclusion (synthesis)
0: false premise
You cannot make a person “do” anything against his will, as “doing” is an active occupation. But a person is not free to will or not to will. One cannot “bring up” the will to do something, nor can he repress it if the will is there (unless the will to repress, as the phrase bespeaks, is itself a will and thereby part of the equation whose resultant is what we call “the person’s will”. And the same goes for this will to repress as for any other will: it is a pathos, something passive, something suffered, something that arises, that is aroused. You cannot “choose” to make a will appear or disappear.
Of course you are, Jenny.
Who the hell is Jenny? Is this some kind of inside joke? 
I am not angry; what makes you think that? But the premise is wrong, and your “analogy” applies more to you than to me: you probably don’t understand my deconstruction of it, perhaps because you’re not intelligent enough (I mean, you certainly are skeptical enough!..).
You can “convince” me that I am mistaken by pointing out the mistake I made, or making a logical argument for your premise. It is really a case of you defending your “knowledge” (belief) to the nth degree (and not with rational arguments but by repeating that it is “valid and sound”). I will again show you the breach I made in your supposedly waterproof argumentation:
“As you are contemplating hurting me in some way, I know as a matter of positive knowledge that you cannot be blamed anymore because it is an undeniable law that man’s will is not free. This is a very unique two-sided equation for it reveals that while you know you are completely responsible for everything you do to hurt me, I know you are not responsible.”
[Chapter Two, The Two-Sided Equation, with added emphasis.]
According to the writer, there are two knowledges here that are mutually exclusive. At least one of them must be wrong (and therefore his “knowledge” not be knowledge at all). You are either responsible or not responsible. As I agree that there is no free will (but determinism), I say you are not responsible.
You should also see that the following two statements are mutually exclusive:
- “No one is blaming you.”
- “You are blaming yourself.” (= what we call “conscience”)
As “no one” includes “you”, if it is true that you are blaming yourself, it is not true that no one is blaming you.
By the way, nothing can do anything to itself, but it is always a part of something (or someone) that does something to another part of it (for instance, if “I hit myself”, my hand is hitting another part of me - it cannot hit itself). The part of you that blames you is called “conscience”.
Except for the part I made bold, I agree. Funnily, the part that follows the sentence I made bold is in nowise an argument for the assertion I made bold.
But that consideration is part of your will. Will is always a will to something - it is not as if you have a will but you are free to choose what you do with it. The will we are currently discussing is your will to speak to me, not to do anything else (even though it may be the resultant of many disagreeing wills within you; but then the will to speak to me is the strongest of all those wills).
PG: Agreed!