Iambiguous, I have never ever ever disputed this. I am in full agreement. But you do not understand the second half of this equation. I am not blaming you or saying you could do anything other than what you’re doing.
How do my actions have anything whatsoever to do with free will? Where does free will even enter into this at all? My continuing to post had more to do with the fact that I felt compelled to answer your post than leave it unanswered. Your post created a new antecedent condition which I didn’t anticipate (and one that I felt was important enough to answer), thus changing my resolve to end the discussion. Every single move I have made has been in the direction of greater satisfaction; the only direction my desire could have taken me, so where is my free will?
You would have thought about it differently only if your brain gave you the thoughts to think about it differently. The fact that you might have chosen to think about something differently is also part of the natural unfolding of what must be, if that is what actually occurred. If it did not so occur, then this is what had to be. There’s no escaping determinism.
Where did I choose freely? Just because I am able to contemplate options based on an ever-changing set of conditions does not grant me free will.
That is true, but you are forgetting that our choices are based on contingent factors that are always coming into play, so what I may have chosen before the fact may not be the same thing I choose later on based on a new set of antecedent conditions. That is why, although everything unfolds as it must, we are not subject to making the same choices over and over again if those choices don’t serve us anymore.
No, but it does offer us a greater array of options that can afford us a different way of looking at a situation. Dominoes cannot do that.
But determinism IS an objective truth, one of the few objective truths that exist. We are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. This is not a theory.
I refuse to cut and paste this whole book just because you refuse to read it. However, I will cut and paste this one excerpt. I don’t think there is anything that will motivate you to read further. You will continue to tell me that these astute observations are nothing more than assumptions.
[i]Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place
p. 45 Supposing a father is desperately in need of work to feed his family
but cannot find a job. Let us assume he is living in the United States
and for various reasons doesn’t come under the consideration of
unemployment compensation or relief and can’t get any more credit
for food, clothing, shelter, etc.; what is he supposed to do? If he steals
a loaf of bread to feed his family the law can easily punish him by
saying he didn’t have to steal if he didn’t want to, which is perfectly
true. Others might say stealing is evil, that he could have chosen an
option which was good. In this case almost any other alternative
would have sufficed.
But supposing this individual preferred stealing
because he considered this act good for himself in comparison to the
evil of asking for charity or further credit because it appeared to him,
at that moment, that this was the better choice of the three that were
available to him — so does this make his will free? It is obvious that
he did not have to steal if he didn’t want to, but he wanted to, and it
is also obvious that those in law enforcement did not have to punish
him if they didn’t want to, but both sides wanted to do what they did
under the circumstances.
In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during
every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter
whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are
compelled to either live out our lives the best we can, or commit
suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that
what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to
do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical
(undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for
man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is
absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless
dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability
to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.
Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action,
from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is
never satisfied or content to remain in one position for always like an
inanimate object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’ I shall now
call the present moment of time or life here for the purpose of
clarification, and the next moment coming up there. You are now
standing on this present moment of time and space called here and
you are given two alternatives, either live or kill yourself; either move
to the next spot called there or remain where you are without moving
a hair’s breadth by committing suicide.
“I prefer…” Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you
started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes
it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is
death or here and prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion
is life. Consequently, the motion of life which is any motion from
here to there is a movement away from that which dissatisfies,
otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here or where you are, you
would never have moved to there.
Since the motion of life constantly
moves away from here to there, which is an expression of
dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously move
constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction. It should be
obvious that our desire to live, to move off the spot called here, is
determined by a law over which we have no control because even if we
should kill ourselves we are choosing what gives us greater satisfaction,
otherwise we would not kill ourselves.
The truth of the matter is that
at any particular moment the motion of man is not free for all life
obeys this invariable law. He is constantly compelled by his nature to
make choices, decisions, and to prefer of whatever options are available
during his lifetime that which he considers better for himself and his
set of circumstances. For example, when he found that a discovery
like the electric bulb was for his benefit in comparison to candlelight,
he was compelled to prefer it for his motion, just being alive, has
always been in the direction of greater satisfaction. Consequently,
during every moment of man’s progress he always did what he had to
do because he had no choice. Although this demonstration proves
that man’s will is not free, your mind may not be accustomed to
grasping these type relations, so I will elaborate.
[/i]
Having the option of contemplation does not grant one free choice. It just offers him options, all of which are under the reign of determinism.
[i]p. 49 The word ‘choice’ itself indicates there are meaningful differences
otherwise there would be no choice in the matter at all as with A and
A. The reason you are confused is because the word choice is very
misleading for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities, but
in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always moving
towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences
what he, not someone else, considers better for himself, and when two
or more alternatives are presented for his consideration he is
compelled by his very nature to prefer not that one which he considers
worse, but what gives every indication of being better or more
satisfying for the particular set of circumstances involved.
Choosing,
or the comparison of differences, is an integral part of man’s nature,
but to reiterate this important point…he is compelled to prefer of
alternatives that which he considers better for himself and though he
chooses various things all through the course of his life, he is never
given any choice at all. Although the definition of free will states that
man can choose good or evil without compulsion or necessity, how is
it possible for the will of man to be free when choice is under a
tremendous amount of compulsion to choose the most preferable
alternative each and every moment of time?[/i]
And thus the manner in which determinism and free will are made to seem compatible is just a trick of the mind to me. It takes the world that we live in and reconfigures it into the words used by the compatibilists to give Jack a “choice” in a world where he must rape Jane.
He must rape Jane if his choice to rape Jane is the most preferable. If it is not, he does not have to rape Jane as if he is part of some kind of pre-programmed design that is now being forced on him.
Yes, “free”. But never [u][b]free[/u][/b]. I and the design are at one with existence itself. There is nothing external to that. As though there ever could be.
Who said there was something external to that? Not me.
We both agree there is nothing external to that. But if all that encompasses what we think, feel and do is a necessary component of existence itself, what are the practical implications of that when Jack “chooses” to rape Jane. Or when Mary “chooses” to abort her baby? Or when the state "chooses’ to execute Bob?
Although we cannot change the past because we know that we could not have chosen otherwise, that does not mean man’s choices will be the same when these principles are introduced on a worldwide scale. The practical implications of this change cannot even be fully comprehended.
So you say. But [over and again] you have not yet, in my estimation, been able to demonstrate a manner in which we can probe the validity of this prediction much beyond accepting the rationality of Lessans’ argument.
Well, arguments are based on rationality, and Lessans’ observations and reasoning are as rational as you can get.
Isn’t that always the stumbling block here? Shouldn’t you be spending more time contemplating the inevitable questions you will receive from scientists regarding how they might go about testing his observations “for all practical purposes”? Of making his predictions more fully comprehensible.
His predictions about a new world are based on the knowledge given in the book, which are fully comprehensible. The fact that this knowledge has not been empirically confirmed should not stop people from doing whatever they have to do to feel confident that this knowledge is accurate because its potential value is unmistakable.
As long as you continue to “resolve” all of “the major conflicts” that plague humankind by positing this new world as basically an axiomatic construct revolving largely around embracing Lessans’ own argument/analysis, there is no viable manner in which others can grasp how we will get from here to there. That’s all contained in embracing the assumptions he derived from his observations.
This is just repeating the same thing over and over again. I am very sorry but these observations were not assumptions. He made valid inferences based on what he observed but there are no assumptions anywhere in his proposition, his observations, or his reasoning.
I repeat it because I believe it is important that you understand how, in my view, this will always be the pivotal obstacle when you try to convince others to give Lessans’ book a shot.
You have to be able to make that crucial leap from what he observed in watching us make our choices to how science grapples with the human mind and the human brain intertwined in the act of choosing one thing rather than another.
Understanding the biology of the brain here would seem to be an indisputable compoment of all this.
We don’t need to dissect the brain to know that man’s will is not free. We cannot observe greater satisfaction in a lab, but it is a universal law. Why one person chooses one thing in the direction of greater satisfaction while another person chooses something else cannot be answered through an MRI. You are downplaying his discovery, which is really unfortunate.
It would be like trying to understand human sexuality without a comprehensive understanding of the sex organs. Who would say, “who needs them?” in predicting sexual politics a thousand years from now?
There are some things we can learn about sexuality in a lab, but other things we can’t. As I said many times, not all learning is done through dissection or taking something apart. Sometimes we need to observe the entity functioning as a whole its natural setting to find answers, not in a lab.
You are being premature. The new economic system solves this problem of conflicting opinions regarding going to the moon while people are starving. That’s why it’s hard to discuss this when you have not studied the extension of these principles into the areas you are most concerned about.
The “new economic system” that, so far, is merely an intellectual construct in the minds of those who subscribe to Lessans’ arguments.
And if Lessans’ more extended lessons regarding political economy are tantamount to [or extentions of] the excerpts you have provided above, there is still nothing really tangible that social scientists can grapple with in order to verify/falsify them more empirically/experientially.
And there are still the difficulties that revolve around conflicting goods. As noted above, social scientists can in fact perform experiments in order to verify/falsify propositions relating to human behavior in crowds. But that does not enable them in turn to ascertain whether the moral/political cause embraced by the crowd is objectively moral or immoral.
We’re not discussing morality, remember? We are only talking about what one chooses in the direction of greater satisfaction, and when people are no longer hurt by economic downturns (not of their own doing), they will not desire to hurt others as a means of retaliation (using people as a scapegoat for their unfortunate lot in life) or for self-preservation (hurting others if not to makes matters worse for them).
The irony is that these types of moral conflicts won’t even exist. How can they when the age of politics is coming to an end? You are unable to consider the possibility that what you are envisioning is impossible is an incomplete and myopic view based on the world as it is now. I don’t need you to tell me that your view is more practical one more time.
Back to the gap between asserting these things and demonstrating how we actually do go from the world that we live in now to the world that we will live in a thousand years from now if we merely accept as true Lessans’ predictions.
And my view is predicated on a world bursting at the seams with relationships that I can encompass empirically/experientially in the manner in which I construe dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. And it is a world that down through the ages has always revolved around one or another rendition of blame and punishment.
Or, sure, one or another objectivist insisting that if only everyone would embrace his or her own “objective reality” then one or another “utopia” would be our shared destiny.
The only objective reality I am asking people to consider is that man’s will is not free and what extends from this knowledge. It just so happens that when we do extend the corollary that goes along with it: Thou Shall Not Blame, we can see how the entire world of moral conflicts dissipates due to this amazing paradigm shift in human relations.
…either Lessans had some capacity to choose freely to write his book or his writing it is the equivalent of men going to the moon. As is this exchange we are having in turn. Nothing is ever not what it must be.
He had no capacity to choose freely, even though he had the ability to weigh alternatives.
Okay, he weighs alternatives but then he must write the book. Why? Because the book was written. But at the moment he chooses to write the book his ability to weigh the options might have resulted in the book not being written? No. The book was always meant to be written because, in a determined world, it was in fact written. So [from my frame of mind] his “ability to weigh options” is illusory. Yes, he did weigh them. But, no, the book was always going to be written. Thus he chose “freely” to write it.
Where does “freely” enter into this at all? He did not “freely” choose. The word choice is illusory because, in reality, he had no choice since he was compelled to choose the most preferable option.
Yes, this is the point that I often raise, isn’t it? But you are the one above who often encloses the word freely here in these: "__________ ". Thus Lessans is compelled to write the book. Eventually, enough people are compelled to read and embrace it. And then [a 1000 years from now] the future is compelled to be without blame or punishment. At least for those citizens who take the “universal consciousness” oath .
And I will ask again: Where does “free” in the way I qualified it have to do with freedom of the will? I already explained how the phrase “I did it of my own free will” is qualified and can be used if it means “of my own volition”. We are losing communication.
That’s my point though. It always comes down to the conditions that we set for understanding words like freely/“freely” and choose/“choose”. If we put them in what amount to scare quotes it means they are to be understood differently. Often ironically.
Thus we are “free” to “choose” in a determined world. In other words, in the manner in which we understand the meaning of those words in a non-determined world, we are not free to choose at all.
We can use the phrases “I chose freely” or "I chose of my own “free will” in a determined world if it means we are given the choice to opt for this or that, but this in no way means we have freedom of the will.
It is true that if you don’t desire to read the book, then you found it more preferable not to read the book [in the direction of greater satisfaction]. I don’t see what there is to reconcile.
If I cannot of my own free will choose to read the book, prefer to read the book, desire to read the book etc., then every connection between me and the book unfolds out of the necessity engrained in the design.
There is never anything to reconcile here because everything is always of a whole.
The whole of reality itself.
Iambiguous, I have been agreeing with you this whole time if you use the phrase “I prefer to read the book of my own free will” which only means “I prefer to read the book because it gives me greater satisfaction.” You can use the phrase “of my own free will” in the way you suggested. He said this in Chapter One, and I’ve shown it to you. You are the one confusing words to make them mean what they don’t mean.
The term ‘free will’
contains an assumption or fallacy for it implies that if man is not
caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be
preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not
mathematical conclusions. 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?
And by “going forward” I have found that most objectivists mean “agree with me”. But my problem is that I can’t make sense [realistically] of how their theoretical analysis has any substantive [existential] relevance to the world that we interact [and conflict] in.
You wouldn’t. You haven’t read the book. You’re just denying that there could be something valid because either you don’t want to believe there is no ghost in the machine and this might burst your bubble, or you just can’t believe that someone could make a major discovery that would cause a paradigm shift and still be within the framework of determinism. Whatever the reason you will be acting in accordance with your nature.
I have no bubble to burst. I am more than willing to concede that my understanding of these relationships may well be wrong. In fact, you are the one in the bubble. You are the one insisting that your own understanding of these relationships is the objective truth.
That doesn’t put me in a bubble because there’s no bubble to burst since this natural law is not one of my imagination.
And, in my view, you have a lot riding emotionally and psychologically on/in believing that the fate of the new world rides on everyone finally embracing Lessans’ observations/principles and ridding the world of blame and punishment.
I admit that I am emotionally involved, but this in itself does not negate the objective truth I am trying to share. You can’t use the fact that I was his daughter as a reason to deny that there is anything substantive to this knowledge.
But then you don’t [and in my view can’t] provide us with a methodology for testing his prognostications about the future. Other than either believing or not believing his analysis. And all any of us really know for certain [or almost for certain] is that none of us will be around in order to confirm his predictions.
The fact that we won’t be here can’t be helped, but if you took the time to read the book you might be a little skeptical and then be one of those people who pass the book onto others. If everyone did that, we might actually be here to see this great change.
You keep referring back to abortion, as if this one conflict ruins any possibility of peace. It does not.
I often choose abortion in which to discuss dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. Why? Because 1] it is a moral congflagration we are all familiar with 2] it literally revolves around life and death and 3] if we can resolve the conflicting goods revolving around this, all the other moral conflicts would seem that much easier.
I don’t agree. There are other more pressing moral conflagrations that are not dependent on this one issue for their solution such as war, crime, and poverty for starters.
But I have asked you [and others] any number of times to pick a moral conflict that you/they deem most relevant to these relationships. Again, I am more than willing to integrate the manner in which I construe dasein, conflicting goods and political economy in the discussions.
[b][u]Discussions in which words and worlds are explored in tandem.[/b][/u]
The conflicts that are most pressing such as war and crime are prevented by this natural law. Definitions (and words) mean nothing where reality is concerned unless they are symbolic of reality. It just so happens that his words are just that.
Pertaining to an actual existential moral conflict, I have no idea what this means. I know only that whatever it is that you think it means “in your head” seems to be as far as you feel you need to go in order to demonstrate to me how it is connected substantively to an issue like abortion in the context of conflicting goods and moral responsibility in a world where everything we do is ever only what we could never not do.
I told you that in regard to abortion, when the environmental conditions change so, too, will the need to abort as the lesser of two evils. He shows explicitly how the entire economic/political landscape is changed for the better, preventing the moral conflicts that you believe are here to stay.
Even rape is a conflicting good from the perspective of the narcissist who views morality solely in terms of that which brings him personal satisfaction. Or mass beheadings from the perspective of the religious fanatic who views morality solely in terms of satisfying “God’s will”.
Rape is a hurt to the person being raped. Any kind of hurt that is a first blow will be unjustified in the new world, ending this type of abuse.
Yes, I agree. Rape is certainly a devastating infliction of pain on the one being raped. But that doesn’t mean much to the narcissist who construes morality solely in terms of his own personal satisfaction. And I keep pointing out time and again that, with respect to all moral conflicts, folks on both sides of the issues have their own rendition of the hurt brought on by either pursuing or not pursuing particular behaviors.
But then, in my view, you only make this go away in the new world theoretically, analytically, axiomatically; once everyone willing to sign up for universal consciousness creates their own utopian paradise.
There is nothing theoretical about his vision based on his spot on observations. I don’t see many people not wanting to become part of this new world once it gets underway. You seem to be thinking that people will not want what they want. Who would want to live in a world where accidents, crime, medical mistakes, torture, war, and poverty exist when they can enter a world that none of these things exist? In other words, how can a person not want what is the better choice? BTW, there is nothing theoretical about this law of our nature and how it works under changed environmental conditions.
How could it not be theoretical when no one is able to actually show us this world for perhaps another thousand years?
Now, imagine how different your argument would be if, say, all the people in a small town somewhere had read Lessans’ book and then embodied his principles in the lives that they lived. You would be able to take folks to this town and show them what the new world will be like for all of us one day…once everyone embraced his narrative.
That would have been further confirmation, but if you understand
these principles it’s not necessary just as any mathematical
equation can later be proven true by its application but that in
itself does not negate the veracity of the equation:
This
discovery will be presented in a step by step fashion that brooks no
opposition and your awareness of this matter will preclude the
possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long
tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he
qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself
undeniable proof of its veracity.
Instead, the new world here is purely hypothetical. A world predicted to be. A world predicated soley on everyone [eventually] embracing Lessans’ argument.
At least in my opinion.
You’re completely off base. I’m sure this doubt of yours is what is causing you to resist delving into this discovery further.