You’re saying that (in saying we have autonomy that ultimately determined), that we can choose anything that we want, but it’s all just determined in an ultimate sense. What if I choose not to have everything determined in an ultimate sense?
If you mean by the word autonomy an uncoerced external choice (not having a gun to your head), that does not grant us free will. We can use the phrase “I did something of my own free will” if it’s qualified. Again, the word cause is misleading. That’s the other side of the two-sided equation which we haven’t even touched upon. Before making a choice we have the option of choosing A or B (or anything we want that is within our reach) since nothing is preventing us from choosing either/or except for our preference toward one or the other (which is the meaningful difference desire is forced to take). Looking back, this makes any other option at that moment an impossibility because it would have given less satisfaction under the circumstances. If B is an impossible choice because it is less satisfying, we are not free to choose A.
[i]The expression, ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly
correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to;
nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise
had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted because
of the general ignorance that prevailed for although it is correct in the sense
that a person did something because he wanted to, this in no way indicates
that his will is free. In fact I shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’
frequently myself which only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning
to see how words have deceived everyone?
“You must be kidding? Here you are in the process of
demonstrating why the will of man is not free, and in the same breath
you tell me you’re doing this of your own free will.”
This is clarified somewhat when you understand that man is free
to choose what he prefers, what he desires, what he wants, what he
considers better for himself and his family. But the moment he
prefers or desires anything is an indication that he is compelled to this
action because of some dissatisfaction, which is the natural
compulsion of his nature. Because of this misinterpretation of the
expression ‘man’s will is free,’ great confusion continues to exist in
any discussion surrounding this issue, for although it is true man has
to make choices he must always prefer that which he considers good
not evil for himself when the former is offered as an alternative. The
words cause and compel are the perception of an improper or
fallacious relation because in order to be developed and have meaning
it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’ be born as
their opposite, as tall gives meaning to short. But these words do not
describe reality unless interpreted properly.
[/i]
Oh! You’re saying I don’t have autonomy there and only there, but I have autonomy everywhere else.
You aren’t being explicit. To be autonomous does not conflict with determinism. I know my will is not free and still say I am autonomous when I am making an independent choice.
autonomy: the ability to make your own decisions without being controlled by anyone else
You’re argument is that no matter what any or every being does, nobody has a choice but for it all to be for the greater good (as you proved) You’re the one wearing rose colored glasses not me.
Yes, you are on the right track. Nobody has a choice and under changed environmental conditions the desire to hurt another will not be the greater preference. Remember, we can only go in one direction and when that direction is the desire to hurt no one, our problem is solved.
That’s exactly what your arguing!
It’s not true.
Are you not jumping to conclusions AGAIN when you haven’t even read the book?