Additionally peacegirl,
This is actually how some people really are !!
Some people will read this book, and if it actually matters (which it doesn’t) but it actually becomes a cultural phenomenon - there will emerge a group of anti satifactionists just for the sake of proving it false, they will, always choose the worst possible choice they have available to them.
I forgot to explain why they’ll do this!
Because all of their satisfaction depends on freewill existing.
I assume you’re not good at self referential arguments, which is why you’re in this hole in the first place.
I’m not beholden to the hole you dig for yourself because I define ethics by consent, you have an ethics that has no consent. Consent is a structure of compatibalism.
Again , if I may briefly interject:
A seminal shift in understanding this conceptual difficulty lies with the important and noteworthy event that accompanies this topic, particularly in the years following the American and the French Revolutions.
The semantic shift is only the patent manifestation infestation with which we are struggling the dynamic element consisting of the will, yes, but the shift or the change exhibited thereby can not be a sufficient description of what is happenong, in our minds , that does correspond, even if not as a contability
issue with the primary objective consideration.
Particularly notable is the famous will to power. Here the will and the power are related, bringing this up with a Nietzsche-en scholar who has not posted for a while, the reverse : the power to will.
Here the will to power can be interpreted as a multi dimensional representation, a sort of totality where the will is dependent on it’s interiorization, it is quantified, and the power to will becomes the other side of sustaining meaning through equalization with qualifying it.
A diminishing power, can not sustain a very strong will to make the most useful and desirable choices, just as an uncertain will, not sensing what is best or useful, not only in reference inter , but intra alia, could not possibly interpret the facts as they are.
Free will is not a singular effect, but can be sensed as an affect, for sure, and the self referentiality counterpositions the objective dynamic.
Free will does not exist (this has been proven) but the feeling that we have free will continues to exist. Superficially a person says "I am free to choose this or that. I think that’s what you mean by affect. What is most important for the purposes of this thread is not why people will to power or have the power to will because this is not about dissecting motive. Regardless of what the motive is for any behavior, that behavior is not free in the sense that the person had the free will to make a different choice. The reason this is so important is because the foundation of our justice system is based on the belief that a person who did wrongly didn’t have to do what he did because he had a choice. This justifies the blame and punishment that often follows. The other observation that nothing can make a person do what he makes up his mind not to do, is also factual. These two principles lead to the two-sided equation, which is the discovery itself. I think people are just interested in retaining their own beliefs, not in understanding new knowledge. I know this is a debate forum and I’m here to share something, not debate, so this type venue is not the right one which I’ve known for quite some time. Unfortunately when you are not in the university system, you’re invisible. The author couldn’t get his foot in the door because he was not a member of a leading university. Fifty years later the same thing is happening.
How in the world did you conclude that this is a religious argument. Who is violating your consent here?
Again, where does anything I have said expect people to consent to something they don’t want to consent to? You have come up with the idea that people will have to consent for the greater good which would be a consent violation. You’re so off track I don’t know if it’s possible for this train to get back on. 
And that’s fine. People can do whatever they want. No one is stopping them. This law frees us, it doesn’t bind us to some rule that must be followed, or else. You have no conception of what this book is actually about. And you don’t seem interested because you are convinced you’re right and I’m wrong.
You coined a new word: anti-satisfactionists. 
You are missing the most important point. Once you become a citizen of this new world which will involve a transition period, you will not be bound by the laws of your country, you will not be bound by anyone’s rule. You will be free!!! There won’t be a law trying to prevent you from hurting others; it will be your very own conscience that will prevent you when no one is telling you what to do or what not to do. The reason that you won’t be able to hurt others with a first blow (do you even know what that is?) is that you won’t have the necessary justification which is required by conscience, or it won’t permit the act. I’ve never seen anything quite like this. You are debating a book you haven’t read, yet you seem to know everything about it. Do you realize what you’re doing? 
I don’t need to give consent to do what’s not a hurt to another person. This is not a contract that I must consent to.
[i]There is no mathematical standard as to
what is right and wrong in human conduct except this hurting of
others, and once this is removed, once it becomes impossible to desire
hurting another human being, then there will be no need for all those
schools, religious or otherwise, that have been teaching us how to cope
with a hostile environment that will no longer be. In fact, since
anyone who tells others how to live or what is wrong with their
conduct blames them in advance for doing otherwise — which is a
judgment of what is right for someone else — all sermonizing and the
giving of unasked for advice are displaced. You see, this discovery
draws a mathematical line of demarcation between hurt that is real
and hurt that exists only in the imagination. The hurt of ridicule and
criticism is real, but in the world of free will there existed many forms
of hurt that justified ridicule and criticism. When the hurt that
motivated this behavior is removed, then there can be no justification
which means that any ridicule and criticism that exists thereafter
strikes a first blow, but this is controlled by the realization that it will
never be blamed or punished.
[/i]
What is most important for the purposes of this thread is not why people will to power or have the power to will because this is not about dissecting motive
What is most important for the purposes of this thread is not why people will to power or have the power to will because this is not about dissecting motive
I am not suggesting a connection between will and power to be a basis of motive, in order to dissect meaning, and neither a factual understanding of what a will represents, vis. It’s non existence, but merely stating the underlying themes historically speaking.
This theme has been analyzed for at least 2000 years, but existentially been treated most thoroughly , and modernly, by those who understood the problem dynamically-by method, and not the kind that’s described by Descartes.
Which confirms the onus brought on toward the existentialists.
The will may not ‘exist’, but it is dependent on power to decide, not merely one way or another, but on differing ways of effect and affect.
I am using ’ affect’, the way You are suggesting, in choosing more acceptable alternatives which may be pretty much determined as again You point out.
However, does this necessarily lead to the conjecture, that , such progression in I take it, evolutionary terms will ultimately lead toward more and better understood situations, whereby choices, although determined, may set course for an optimistic view of how intelligence may land us into more certainty, regarding how overall determined choices play out in the larger scheme of things? For that is what I induce from the thesis.
I have no desire to debate, or argue, and truly seek only clarification to an admirable assessment.
Peacegirl,
This is not a proof of determinism that you are offering …
By your own terms in this “proof”, all that has to be demonstrated, is that one person, for one single choice, in the entire cosmos, knew for a fact, for themselves, that they weren’t making the best possible decision that they knew was the best decision.
But that’s not really what this is about.
This is about a commandment from you to stop hurting people.
“Everyone obey me and the world will be a great place for us all!” “No! Seriously! Just obey me!” “Now” “obey me now!” “Now!” “Just do what I say”. “Now” “just do it!”
Billions of people have tried that in human history, you’re not the first.
There’s a problem with saying it is proven. If you are determined, then you cannot know if your reasoning is correct, since you are claiming you must believe it is correct. For all you know you simply believe because you are compelled by a ‘this argument is right’ quale reaction. And so you think determinism must applies to all, but perhaps it only applies to you. Yes, I realize that sounds impossible, but for you know it sounds that way because you are compelled to believe that. Perhaps only some people are determined.
Determinism is a law that applies to all mankind, which is why it’s a law, but believe whatever you want! lol
If you need clarification of my post, let me know. If you decide to actually interact with it, let me know. I am not sure why people think that restating their opinions is an actual response.
If you are assuming I believe in free will, this is a mere assumption. I see problems with belief in either determinism or free will. But further saying ‘believe whatever you want’ is an odd thing for a determinist to say’ and it is a bit ironic for you, as a specific kind of determinist you are, to add the lol.
I don’t know if have been following this thread but I have shown why will is not free many times. Not only that I have given the first three chapters of the book which explains determinism in more detail. Have you read it? Just wondering.
Do you understand why man’s will is not free, according to this author (which is not a hypothesis, BTW), or are you just giving your opinion?
Regardless of whether the world is determined or indetermined, I am only discussing man’s nature. I don’t need to discuss quantum physics or the universe’s attributes to prove that man can only go in one direction, which means he could not have done otherwise once a choice is made. Let me repeat: It is not necessary to know whether indeterminism actually exists because that would not change man’s nature, which is to move in the direction of greater satisfaction (or the least dissatisfaction) when given a choice between the greater of two or more goods, the lesser of two or more evils, or a good over an evil, rendering only one possible choice at any given moment in time.
Because it’s not an opinion,number one. And number two, it’s tiring to explain why man’s will is not free (which is a fact not an opinion) just because you felt like interjecting your opinion. If I am ever going to move forward you will need to accept the premise that man’s will is not free, even temporarily.
You said science isn’t sure if there is some free will. That means you don’t think these observations are scientific. It seems like you are then interjecting your opinion because my explanation in your eyes is not scientific, just another opinion. I am not sure what you consider science versus theory.
I am tired of having to defend what I know, beyond a shadow of doubt, is true and I don’t feel like debating. If you don’t see the proof that’s okay. I don’t understand what you meant that it’s ironic of me to say “believe whatever you want.” I am not, as a determinist, forced to say anything in particular. Your idea of determinism is obviously not mine.
Artimas,
I wonder if there could be a far better word for what you are describing as freedom above albeit I realize that that is one definition.
Those in the concentration camps were far beyond restricted and restrained yet they had the freedom of will, they exercised their right to be self-determined and to go on surviving in their own way. The world may be going crazy all around you but I think that despite that, despite the influences and the circumstances which hem us in, it is a “conscious” choice which we make to either see that we have the power within us to create free will, to create other options and act on them.
But do we have to experience that since of internal imprisonment?
I wonder what it is within us which causes us to feel that our fates have already been determined and that we are not strong enough or self-determined enough to “see” something different or to create something different?
Perhaps free will is like beauty - in the eyes of the beholder. If we change our lenses and attempt to see with other eyes, perhaps we would then experience a world which is more within our own power of will and we would be capable of imagining and creating MORE available choices.
We have to stop throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
You know that we will never get to the bottom of this. Nothing is absolute despite our needs to believe that it is.
I know this was to Artimas but I will respond. Maybe your post was meant for another thread since there are a few discussing this topic. People have different circumstances, some have more choices than others. That is a fact. When you say that these people had the freedom of will, and that they exercised their right to be self-determined and to go on surviving in their own way, you are using this term incorrectly. They had the will to go on surviving in their own way, but the sheer determination that it took to stay alive had nothing to do with a FREE will. They were moving in the direction of greater satisfaction even though their choices were extremely restricted . They were choosing the best survival strategies they could in order to stay alive in the hope that they soon would be rescued.
No we don’t because determinism does not mean we are internally imprisoned.
Sometimes it’s hard to rise above one’s circumstances. Many people find it difficult getting ahead from no fault of their own. They were not given a fair shot and are worn out trying to fight a system that keeps them down at every turn.
You’re incorrect. There is no free will, although the word determinism, by the way it has been interpreted, has been misunderstood due to how the words “cause and compel” are being used.
[i]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]
dupe