ah i see what you’re doing. you’re asking how a determinist could blame a certain economic system for producing conflicts between people who don’t have the freewill to not produce those conflicts. indeed, there is a bit of an impasse here so long as a critique attempts to proceed on moral grounds. the only way around this problem is to replace the premise with a kind of hedonistic imperative and evoke a utilitarian point of view on the matter; we say despite whether or not capitalism is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ according to [insert favorite ethical theory], it produces a grossly disproportionate hedonic calculus in practice. and since ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain’ are states which are absolutely certain and free from the interrogating finger of philosophy - ‘how can you be sure you’re experiencing pleasure or pain’ is a question only and idiot philosopher would ask - the degree to which these states exist is the thing that should be brought into question when examining an economic system. so because capitalism produces a hedonistic calculus which results in a greater amount of pain and suffering in a majority, in exchange for a proprotionately smaller amount of pleasure and success for a minority, one would have to set the premise that the pleasure of the few over the majority is justified. but how can one do that? such a justification would be a value statement, a moral statement, and have absolutely no grounds other than as a simple emotivistic expression; the capitalist says ‘capitalism is good because X’, and this only means ‘i like it’. there is no quality ‘goodness’ out there in the world which would vindicate capitalism of its disproportionate calculus. and yet at the same time, one can neither say the majority should experience less pain and suffering, as that kind of claim would fall under the same terms.
it simply comes down to this simple question; why would a majority allow capitalism to persist when it creates this disproportion. again, we aren’t attacking or defending capitalism on the merits of it’s being either ‘good’ or ‘bad’ in principle. we are looking at its material affects. we are asking why there are more empty houses than there are homeless people. we are asking why so many people die every day when there is sufficient aid and resources to keep them alive. we are asking why people are starving when there is so much surplus of food in the world that half of it spoils before it is ever used. we are asking why we willingly allow the cyclic crashes of the market to occur every so many years because of the accumulation of dead capital made stagnant. we are asking why so much money is being spent on military expenditures for countries to defend themselves against neighboring countries… all of which will eventually end up becoming economically interdependent, any fucking way.
but you must understand that there will never be agreement between the two warring classes that are involved in this silly nonsense. the capitalist is not concerned with any of these problems, while the worker most certainly is. and it is up to the working classes to resolve these ridiculous matters and change the calculus.
you might say that my approach here is like an amoral utilitarianism founded on a hedonistic imperative. i have simplified the problem and brought it out of the philosophical sophistry and haze that has so clouded the world for centuries. the atheistic randian capitalist says ‘there is nothing stopping me, nor can there be’… to which i reply ‘there is nothing stopping me either, nor will there be. now what do we do, mr. galt?’
and with that, 2000 years of philosophy does an enormous u-turn and arrives right back at thrasymachus. might is right. philosophical ‘reasons’ come after the fact, apropos to whatever sophistry one employs to defend their place of power.
whether ‘free’ or not, the gravity of the values of the working classes is enough to set the movement in motion without needing to justify it on any moral or ethical grounds. this amounts to the working class saying to the capitalist; 'that you are not free to do otherwise is irrelevant, as you are still a big fucking hemorrhoid in the asshole of the world. we don’t need to ‘blame’ you for anything. what is to ‘blame’ is neither here nor there and was never a question. the working classes don’t do metaphysics. that’s a philosopher’s nonsense.
The discovery to which this thread is dedicated solves the economic problem as it does many other aspects of human relation. I will post the Preface here in the hope that it will create some interest. Misplaced skepticism is a real problem for anyone who offers something that lies beyond the status quo. For the atheists among us, please understand that the word God was used only as a symbol for the laws that govern our universe. People are very prickly about this and will even refuse to read just because of this one word. Very unfortunate.
[i]Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times
PREFACE
My dear friends, relations, and people throughout the earth, the
purpose of this book is to clarify knowledge that must be brought to
light as quickly as possible because it can prevent what nobody wants
— a nuclear holocaust. With the world in turmoil and on the
threshold of an atomic explosion which could be started accidentally
and could very well destroy all civilization, I am announcing a
scientific discovery that will make war an absolute impossibility and
revolutionize the life of man entirely for his benefit.
Due to a
fantastic breakthrough, to the discovery of a natural, psychological law
that was hermetically sealed behind a logical theory that 98% of
mankind holds true, every bit of hurt that exists in human relations
can be virtually wiped from the face of the earth by something so
superior to punishment, as a deterrent, that people the world over will
be prevented from committing those very acts of evil for which blame
and punishment were previously necessary. Laugh if you will but your
smile of incredulity will be wiped from your face once you begin to
read the text chapter by chapter of which the first two are most
fundamental.
It is important to know that this book does not contain a theory
but an undeniable equation that can be scientifically proven. It has
no biases, prejudices or ulterior motives — its only concern is in
revealing facts about the nature of man never before understood. Furthermore, so as to prevent jumping to conclusions, this book has
nothing whatever to do with communism, socialism, capitalism,
government, or religion; only with the removal of inaccurate facts that
have been passed along from generation to generation in the guise of
genuine knowledge.
There are those who may be blinded by this
mathematical revelation as they come out of Plato’s cave having lived
so many years in the shadows that distorted their beliefs into a
semblance of reality — and may deny what they do not understand or
don’t want to be true. Just bear in mind that any disagreement can
be clarified in such a manner that they will be compelled to say, “Now
I understand and agree.”
I am about to demonstrate, in a manner our
world’s leading scientists will be unable to deny, not only that the
mankind system is just as harmonious as the solar system despite all
the evil and ignorance that ever existed, but that the inception of the
Golden Age cannot commence until the knowledge pertaining to this
law is accurately understood. What is about to be revealed is
unprecedented. Soon enough everyone will know, without
reservation, that mankind is on the threshold of a NEW WORLD
prophesied in the Bible that must come to pass out of absolute
necessity when this natural law is stamped by the exact sciences with
the brevet of truth.
In view of the fact that the first two chapters must be read
thoroughly before any other reading is done, it is my hope that the
table of contents will not tempt you to read in a desultory manner.
Should you jump ahead and read other chapters this work could
appear like a fairy tale otherwise the statement that truth is stranger
than fiction will be amply verified by the scientific world, or by
yourself, if you are able to follow the reasoning of mathematical
relations. If you find the first two chapters difficult, don’t be
discouraged because what follows will help you understand it much
better the second time around.
This book was written in a dialogue
format to anticipate the questions the reader may have and to make
these fairly difficult concepts as reader-friendly as possible. There is
a certain amount of repetition for the purpose of reinforcing
important points and extending the principles in a more cohesive
fashion, but despite all efforts to make this work easier to understand
it is still deep and will require that you go at a snail’s pace reading
many things over and over again. When you have fully grasped the
full significance and magnitude of this work, and further realize there
has never been and will never be another like it because of what is
undeniably achieved, you will cherish it throughout your entire life.
Well, would you like to see what happens when science, the
perception and extension of undeniable observations, takes over the
problems of human conflict as the result of a fantastic discovery?
Would you like to see that the mankind system has been obeying an
invariable law just as mathematically harmonious as that which
inheres in the solar system; a law that allowed a prophesy to be made
thousands of years ago and verified in the 20 century? Would you
like to learn, though this book has nothing whatever to do with
religion or philosophy, that your faith in God will finally be rewarded
with a virtual miracle, one that will shortly deliver us from all evil?
If
you are sincerely interested in seeing this fantastic transition to a new
way of life which must come about the moment this discovery is
thoroughly understood, all I ask is that you do not judge what you are
about to read in terms of your present knowledge but do everything in
your power to understand what is written by following the
mathematical relations implicitly expressed throughout. Please
remember that any truth revealed in a mathematical manner does not
require your approval for its validity, although it does necessitate your
understanding for recognition and development. And now my friends,
if you care to come along, let us embark…the hour is getting late.
I have an intuitive understanding that is sandwiched between my own stirring emerging suspicion, that will reinforce a kind of epistemic compatibility, which in turn will reveal two kinds of architecture , as the paradigm model, - which in turn will pose fear to the majority and optimism to maybe a few per cent.
That may be caused by the level of presumption becoming totally indecipherable to the majority , very near to the absolute sense.
If this approach trangresses on the basis of any kind of compatibility, then Peace Girl , i move for You to start, notwithstanding the above suggestion.
In terms of what You may have in mind, meaning, a reinforcement of the power of the intuitive understanding of the ‘should’ of the transcending quality. You indicated more slant toward the quantitative reach for a hypothetical goal: with which I’m in 100 % agreement, (and now it is a sorry historical fact that the bilateral U.S.-USSR agreement has been broken) the complete elimination of the threat of nuclear war, and at this point our fear coincides with more than occasional glances at the doomsday clock.
The link, is what matters, descriptively, perspectivelly, or politically . The triad that has been warned by neo-national socialists are almost identical with the one posed earlier in the years proceeding World War.II, not.overtly , but is systemically reducible. The term escapes me , and will introduce it , once I find it.
The above is intuitive and real, vis. more so, than merely stating that the symbol of that message is hardening
rather, reifying into more graspable notions.
Maybe that is why the unprecedented moves by a U.S. President to travel for meetings with a relatively insignificant political leader.
Somehow the feeling that this the direction overshadows the current one , that the military-industrial complex is taking.
The link during the cold war had created the hot line between presidents, and we have really little knowledge of the difference between the seeming cozy friendliness between Putin and Trump, which appears to again contraindicate the breakage of real political and military agreements of cooperation.
Again having no top secret credentials , one can merely guess where ‘real’ facts lie, and such absence of reality for most people, devolve real approximations into the realm of the symbolic or even lower. At this lowest source, if.focused, energy is magnified.
Living in a sociological pan-optic world, has been pointed out to be a.form of.paternalism, and in line with most post modern views, re-igniting the availability of needs by people as credible as Bergson et al.
Thank you for your response, but I’m not sure where this fits in to my previous post, other than to say that the doomsday clock is ticking, and that our intuition is trying to warn us of this impending doom. That’s why the knowledge I am presenting is so timely.
Of what though? Of everything that we think, feel, say and do?
If so, what does that seem to suggest then about this very exchange that we are having? What is not compelled here — even though no one has a gun to our head demanding that we type these particular words.
And how is the law of greater satisfaction not in turn just another inherent component of the laws of matter?
I’m lost again. How is their reaction to this “more careful clarification” not in turn on par with them having been deceived before? They were either always going to be helped by it or they weren’t.
And around and around we go…
My words are repetitive because in a wholly determined universe they were never able not to be repetitive. Moving or not moving “forward” is in turn either embedded or not embedded in the laws of matter. What is “GIVEN!” is either everything that I think, feel, say or do, or there is in fact some measure of autonomy eked out by “I” when mindless matter reconfigured into the mindful matter embodied in the human brain.
In fact, when I stress that…
You respond…
But then you seem to qualify that…
…and I fail to grasp it. The movement from lesser to greater satisfaction is no less encompassed in everything. But human psychology has evolved such that “I” is able to convince itself that it is freely choosing to move as it does. Just as, in my dreams, I am convinced that I am calling the shots when in fact it is really only my brain creating everything in this dream world. And me in it.
Basically we’re on the same page. I was only adding a qualification which is significant. It doesn’t change the fact that what we do, say, feel, and think are not of our own free will. It just means that nothing can force or compel us to do anything against our will. That’s what the standard definition of determinism implies, which then clouds who is responsible for an action. If the agent isn’t responsible for pulling the trigger, who is? It doesn’t mean he’s to blame; it just means he is the one that pulled the trigger. That’s all I wanted to establish.
You’re absolutely right, we are compelled to be here because we want to be here in the direction of greater satisfaction. If we didn’t want to be here, we would choose NOT to be here in the direction of greater satisfaction. Whatever choice we make when comparing options is in this direction because we cannot go in a direction that would give us less satisfaction than what a more satisfying option would offer, given our individual perspective.
It isn’t any different than just another inherent component of the laws of matter. What you need to bear in mind is that the agent (the I, the self, the decision maker) is responsible for making his decisions because nothing other than the agent can force a choice on him without his permission. In other words, he can’t say "my heredity made me do it, my history made me do it, my environment made me do it, my synapses made me do it, because nothing has the power to make him do anything he, AS THE DECISION MAKER, DOESN’T WANT TO DO. You will see why this is important, and it doesn’t conflict with the laws of matter.
Who is saying anything could be any different? But I’m hoping that with further clarification people will want to learn more to see how this law of our nature plays out hypothetically and eventually realistically.
You are right. You have chosen to keep repeating yourself in the direction of greater satisfaction. Whether you have to repeat yourself again is up to you because before you do something, you have a choice to repeat or not to repeat. Once you make the choice, it could never have been otherwise.
You talk about autonomy as if being able to do, think, say, and feel cannot be done without libertarian free will. This is why clarifying terms is so important. Autonomy, as I understand it, doesn’t give me free will. It just means I am making my own decisions. You are making a false distinction between mindless matter (the domino effect where we have no say in what we choose because there’s no will at all) and autonomy that gives us the ability to make choices. This rift has caused a problem in the free will/determinism debate for millennium. There is no contradiction if we use the term “free” in a conversation as long as it’s qualified to mean there is no physical constraint. IOW, there is nothing wrong with saying “I did this of my own free will” when it is understood to mean, "I did this ‘of my own desire’ because I wanted to. It doesn’t mean we are free to move in the direction of less or [dis]satisfaction (which would go against the laws of our nature). Again, once a choice is made in the direction of greater satisfaction [than what the present position offers], it could not have been otherwise.
Hmmm, I see why we’re having problems. Do you think you could justify yourself by saying, your brain or neurons made you pull the trigger? You as the agent didn’t give the consent? That’s why the author wrote that NOTHING BUT NOTHING can make you do anything you don’t give consent to, or anything against your will to do. This is very very important to understand before I can move forward.
Thank you for your response, but I’m not sure where this fits in to my previous post, other than to say that the doomsday clock is ticking, and that our intuition is trying to warn us of this impending doom. That’s why the knowledge I am presenting is so )timely.[/quote
And Thank You, for Your response, and again point to it as possibly the expected response to object, on some basis, and the disclaimer as to its essential utility within Your intent for this forum.
I did make room for this possibility, which in fact, appears unacknowledged.
In addition, the parting shot conveyed was the alternate to this possibility, that apart from this, would be greatful to hear the proposal out forward by the double invitation to new participation, one: by literally getting on board, and two: by getting informed as to the methodology by which certainty could be attained, esp. by careful reading of the first 2 pages.
For the above two reasons, it appears, even though Your response was adequate, it conveys a sense of limiting temporal space, of which Bergson speaks in relation to the authoritarian paternalism of panoptical reactive social psychology.
Again , this may be interpreted as some restraint on compatibility , or not, but for my part it does serve little to advance an illusory emergence based on pure imagination.
Therefore, I see no need to either dispense with it , or, embrace it as a qualification to expanding consciousness in other terms.
At any rate, I look forward to an actual beginning to the proposed way to deal with the nuclear management in ways You describe as a newer proposal.
I really was surprised to hear the interpretation of my query, as basically merely fixative recurring glance at the nuclear ‘doomsday’ clock, which fits in to the general discussion, , and how compatibility issues , can or need at all be factored in, especially in light of the disclaimer, into it.
This is especially of interest , because of the increasing and urgent need to correlate all formal factions within a more and more spectral and multi leveled expanding problem, not to mention those that substantially can have bearing on them from without .
I didn’t mean to say that your concerns don’t have merit, but that the knowledge I’m presenting solves these multi-level problems. No one seems that interested because they are skeptical, which is understandable. But skepticism shouldn’t prevent them from wanting to learn more.
…but I , we are very much interested, our veritable life may depend on it, Yours, mine, our kids, our communities and ways of life, forget my views which source from imagination, not mine, but from those archaic communes whose ethos develops from what Levi Strauss coins as based on a participation mystique, in addition to the facts people glean from serpent tongued institutions and political misadventurors and ego laden sceptical extremists! (To say the very least)
I am no such typical sceptic, assuredly.
At any rate, looking forward toward the spectral plan of development of Your thoughts, from imagination through symbol to actualization of outcome.
Hoping for no reoccurance to the 50’s ’ This is a test, only a test, in the event of a real nuclear emergency, please stay follow the directions…
Resume to tune in to Your regularly scheduled programming…
I posted the first three chapters but people seem reluctant to read what may be an investment of time without proof of benefit. I hope you take the time to read these chapters because they are the foundation for the rest of the book. If you feel it’s too long-winded, you can skip the introduction and go right to Chapter One. I have been explaining in this thread that although man’s will is not free, nothing can make him do anything against his will. These two principles (which are summarized at the end of Chapter One) are important to understand before moving to Chapter Two.
[i]Let me summarize by taking careful note of this simple
reasoning that proves conclusively (except for the implications already
referred to) that will is not free. Man has two possibilities that are
reduced to the common denominator of one. Either he does not have
a choice because none is involved, as with aging, and then it is obvious
that he is under the compulsion of living regardless of what his
particular motion at any moment might be, or he has a choice and
then is given two or more alternatives of which he is compelled by his
nature to prefer the one that appears to offer the greatest satisfaction
whether it is the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods, or a good
over an evil. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible for will to be free
because man never has a free choice, though it must be remembered
that the words good and evil are judgments of what others think is
right and wrong, not symbols of reality.
The truth of the matter is
that the words good and evil can only have reference to what is a
benefit or a hurt to oneself. Killing someone may be good in
comparison to the evil of having that person kill me. The reason
someone commits suicide is not because he is compelled to do this
against his will, but only because the alternative of continuing to live
under certain conditions is considered worse. He was not happy to
take his own life but under the conditions he was compelled to prefer,
by his very nature, the lesser of two evils which gave him greater
satisfaction. Consequently, when he does not desire to take his own
life because he considers this the worse alternative as a solution to his
problems, he is still faced with making a decision, whatever it is, which
means that he is compelled to choose an alternative that is more
satisfying.
For example, in the morning when the alarm clock goes
off he has three possibilities; commit suicide so he never has to get up,
go back to sleep, or get up and face the day. Since suicide is out of
the question under these conditions, he is left with two alternatives.
Even though he doesn’t like his job and hates the thought of going to
work, he needs money, and since he can’t stand having creditors on
his back or being threatened with lawsuits, it is the lesser of two evils
to get up and go to work. He is not happy or satisfied to do this when
he doesn’t like his job, but he finds greater satisfaction doing one
thing than another.
Dog food is good to a starving man when the
other alternatives are horse manure or death, just as the prices on a
menu may cause him to prefer eating something he likes less because
the other alternative of paying too high a price for what he likes more
is still considered worse under his particular circumstances. The law
of self-preservation demands that he do what he believes will help him
stay alive and make his life easier, and if he is hard-pressed to get what
he needs to survive he may be willing to cheat, steal, kill and do any
number of things which he considers good for himself in comparison
to the evil of finding himself worse off if he doesn’t do these things.
All this simply proves is that man is compelled to move in the
direction of satisfaction during every moment of his existence. It does
not yet remove the implications. The expression ‘I did it of my own
free will’ has been seriously misunderstood for although it is
impossible to do anything of one’s own free will, HE DOES
EVERYTHING BECAUSE HE WANTS TO since absolutely
nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to.
Think about this
once again. Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his
followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death
which was judged, according to their circumstances, the lesser of two
evils? In their eyes, death was the better choice if the alternative was
to lose their freedom. Many people are confused over this one point.
Just because no one on this earth can make you do anything against
your will does not mean your will is free. Gandhi wanted freedom for
his people and it was against his will to stop his nonviolent movement
even though he constantly faced the possibility of death, but this
doesn’t mean his will was free; it just means that it gave him greater
satisfaction to face death than to forego his fight for freedom.
Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he
did against his will, that he really didn’t want to but had to because he
was being tortured, he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because he could die before being
forced to do something against his will. What he actually means was
that he didn’t like being tortured because the pain was unbearable so
rather than continue suffering this way he preferred, as the lesser of
two evils, to tell his captors what they wanted to know, but he did this
because he wanted to not because some external force made him do
this against his will. If by talking he would know that someone he
loved would be instantly killed, pain and death might have been judged
the lesser of two evils. This is an extremely crucial point because
though it is true that will is not free, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
ON THIS EARTH CAN MAKE MAN DO ANYTHING
AGAINST HIS WILL. He might not like what he did — but he
wanted to do it because the alternative gave him no free or better
choice. It is extremely important that you clear this up in your mind
before proceeding.
This knowledge was not available before now and what is revealed
as each individual becomes conscious of his true nature is something
fantastic to behold, for it not only gives ample proof that evil is no
accident but it will also put an end to every conceivable kind of hurt
that exists in human relations. There will take place a virtual miracle
of transformation as each person consciously realizes WHAT IT
MEANS that his will is not free, which has not yet been revealed. And now I shall demonstrate how these two undeniable laws or
principles — that nothing can compel man to do anything against his
will because over this his nature allows absolute control, and that his
will is not free because his nature also compels him to prefer of
available alternatives the one that offers greater satisfaction — will
reveal a third invariable law — the discovery to which reference has
been made.[/i]
How, in a wholly determined universe, could I reach that juncture in my life where I either choose to try to convince you or not [as you try to convince me or not] and not choose only that which I was ever going to have chosen given the manner in which my brain/mind is just another inherent component of all that can ever be understood about existence itself?
No, it presupposes that any agent/entity [from subatomic particles to human beings to the multiverse] is quite the opposite of problematic. All is only as it was ever going to be given that all is only as it ever could have been.
As though my “relinquishing” is not in turn only as it ever must be. It’s just that when the agent/entity evolves into the human brain/mind it necessarily acquires a psychological component that predisposes it to think that it is choosing freely. Again, in the manner in which I construe a determined universe. When, in fact, “I” may not be wholly determined at all.
Unless, of course, the person in the present is considering only that which it was only ever able to consider. And then acting on that consideration in the only manner in which it was ever able to. Like imagining chess pieces with brains. They are aware of having moved as they do but they were never able to not move as they do.
He didn’t chose to be killed in the manner in which one chooses to be killed given some measure of human autonomy. In the latter instance he was able to choose not to be killed. Here in my view choice is circumscribed/circumvented by the components of my own argument: dasein, conflicting goods and political power. The assumption is that “I” has some capacity to choose freely but only as an existential contraption.
So Ghandi moved in the only direction that he was ever able to move. You call this him moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. Why? Because that is the only reaction that you were ever able to have. This exchange is necessarily embedded in a wholly determined universe and it embodies the “greater satisfaction” of both of us. But somehow you make it appear as though my reaction to all of this should be more in sync with your reaction. That somehow my missing your point is more egregious than you missing mine. Even though in choosing the points that we do we are necessarily in sync with our wholly determined existence. Necessarily in sync with whatever explains the existence of existence itself.
All I can do here is to appeal to others:
What really important point do I keep missing here? Assuming that we do live in a wholly determined universe. Which, from my frame of mind, assumes that I could never have not missed it.
Sigh…
I chose not to read it because I could never have chosen not to not read it. Not because others compelled me to not read it but because all of my choices must be in sync with the manner in which all matter necessarily unfolds [including my brain/mind] in a wholly determined universe.
Isn’t this why dualism has always been an important consideration in philosophy? How is the mind [or for some the soul] not just the brain?
Okay, but, if, one day, they are not freaked out, it is only because their new understanding was always going to be a part of a future that could only ever be. The past, present and future of “I” — how is it really different [for all practical purposes] from the past, present and future of those dominoes set up by an individual who was no less set up by the laws of nature. How [to nature] is “I” not just a thinking domino?
No, these things don’t have to continue. But in however they do continue it won’t be because of anything that you and I and others were able to freely choose to do. The dominoes toppling over onto each other may not make it to the end. A mistake in setting them up was made. But [per nature] the one setting them up was never able to not make that mistake. For both the dominoes and the one setting them up the past, present and future are what they are. What they were only ever going to be. The same with war. Any war.
No conflict and yet our reaction to these relationships are different. With respect to either an autonomous world or a wholly determined world. Yet both would seem to be subsumed only as they ever could have been in a determined world.
But: I could only have been satisfied in a determined universe. I have “absolute control” only in the sense that you were compelled by the laws of matter to say this. You could never have chosen freely not to say it. My mind was made up from the moment that existence itself began to unfold only as it ever could have given these laws of matter.
So, in some distant future that could only ever have been what it is, this new world will have progressed such that behaviors that you find unappealling will have given way to those behaviors that you do?
Is that actually what you are saying? Even though as this all unfolds “we, as agents, have no say in what we choose.”
Same thing tomorrow? next week? next month? next year? All the way up to the day we die? Nothing could have been done differently?
Back again to you insisting that, “nothing can force us to choose something we don’t want to choose.” And then you acknowledging that all that we come to want is all that we could only have come to want.
Unless I am misunderstanding how you connect the dots here. Given that somehow I had the capacity to not misunderstand this.
Well, if I did want to be right at all cost, I could never have not wanted to be. Right?
But my point is always that none of us have the capacity to claim that because none of us are able to demonstrate what actually is in fact right here going back to the explanation for existence itself.
We don’t even have the capacity to fully demonstrate that this exchange itself is unfolding either only as it ever could have or as we freely choose to twist and turn it.
Instead we have these arguments embedded tautologically in the assumptions we make about the definition and the meaning of words put in a particular order.
Sometimes this seems reasonable to me and sometimes it does not. The distinction I tend to focus on is the one between the either/or world and the is/ought world — in a No God world in which the assumption is made that I do have access to some measure of autonomy.
By defining determinism in this way, you are abdicating all responsibility for any choice made since, according to your definition, it’s not you doing the choosing; you’re just going along for the ride. Your definition of determinism differs from mine which is why we aren’t on the same page.
It’s not problematic in the sense that everything is mapped out the way it had to be mapped out, but it is problematic (which many philosophers worried about) in that a person could just excuse himself by saying, “I couldn’t help shooting that person because my will is not free.” That’s what Johnathon Schooler’s experiment tried to show when college students were told their will isn’t free. But there is an interesting take on this which needs explaining.
Maybe the idea that we have free will is because we have choice, and people don’t usually think beyond that unless they are interested in this topic and go deeper. Relinquishing the agent appears to be what you construe as determinism. I am saying that having agency does not negate determinism.
That is true, they would be aware of having moved as they did and that they were never able to NOT move as they did. But before a move is made, they have a choice. Compatibilists call this free will, which it is not. The word ‘choice’ though is misleading for it makes it appear that there is more than one possibility. In actuality, this is a delusion since the choice that is made (out of necessity) has to be the choice that gives greater satisfaction after all options are considered.
Gandhi was able to choose not to be killed (that was one of the choices available to him) but not at the cost of losing his freedom, and no ultimatum by his captors could make him do what he didn’t want to do when unafraid of death. I’m not sure where your comment regarding conflicting goods and political power comes into play. We know the capacity to choose freely is false even though it often appears as if we’re making a free choice.
Because I’m explaining a more accurate definition of determinism, and yes, it’s the only reaction that I was ever able to have.
I’m not missing your point, and I’m not saying one is more egregious than another. I’m saying one is more accurate. You cannot leave out the agent, and yet you obviously have no choice but to believe that agency equals free will. That is wrong and that is why my definition of “greater satisfaction” is a more accurate definition. Nothing can cause you to make the choices you make even in a wholly determined universe. You make the choices you make in the direction of greater preference or satisfaction based on the options under consideration, and yet still part of a wholly determined universe.
You have autonomy to do what you want to do, as long as your choices are not constrained by physical force. Even drug addicts are under a compulsion but they still have a choice to not take drugs, albeit difficult as we know it is to break an addiction. Having choice is what most people think free will to be. But, as we know, we don’t have a free choice to pick what is the least preferable among the alternatives that are under our present consideration.
How is having a “disposition for random acts of extreme violence” different from having a “predisposition” for the same? How wide is the gap here between them given this particular tendency? In a universe where human autonomy was actually able to be measured, a disposition/predisposition for acts of violence would be construed by me as an “existential contraption”.
But in a wholly determined universe there would seem to be no existential contraptions in the manner in which I construe them. There is only the contraption that is existence itself unfolding in its entirety only as it ever can.
In other words, anything that we come to know about the passions that we have is only that which we were ever going to know.
So, all of this speculation would in turn seem to be but one more necessary component of that.
You couldn’t conceive of an existential contraption on the same page, if seeking difference between disposition and predisposition. I hope to explain this .
A predisposition, once differentiated from merely a disposition, can not entail anything on the order of dispositing factors, dice they are not contraptions, other than natural ones.
However, natural phenomenon can not be the product of existential markers, by definition.
“…nothing can force or compel us to do anything against our will.”
Yet, from my frame of mind, in a determined universe, everything compels us to do what we do.
In that everything in the universe is an inherent, necessary component of existence itself. In other words, if that is actually true.
“Blame” here is just another domino.
…and we want to be here only because we could never have not wanted to be here. Nothing escapes here. It is always everything that we think, feel, say and do.
And this [to me] is precisely the point that the free will folks will make. When you make it however I just get confused all over again.
Unlike the domino, the agent “I” chooses to topple over in behaving in particular ways. But like the domino, it topples over only as it ever and always must.
So, sure, if you focus on the word “choose” then “I” is clearly not a domino. But nothing changes. The reality that is existence unfolds for both the domino and “I” in the only way that was ever possible, permissible given a complete understanding of the laws of matter.
But how does he make a distinction between “I” and all of those components other than as he is compelled to? If nothing changes in his life because nothing was ever able to change what can ever really be more or less important?
But: How is further clarification not in the same boat as the previous clarification?
You say it is up to me but is it ever really up to me to choose not to be repetitive?
This all sort of reminds me of the arguments that religious folks make in regard to reconciling the free will of mere mortals with an omniscient God. God knows all but I am still free to do what I choose because once I do it I could never have chosen not to do it. Or something like that.
It’s all a world of words. I am still unable to connect the dots between them and the behaviors that I think I may or may not be free to choose.
Yet the dictionary lists the following synonyms for it: choice, free will, self-determination, volition
You are either making decisions that you could have chosen not to make or you aren’t.
I am making the only distinction that I was ever able to “choose” to make. In a determined universe.
I have a say the way tides have a say in rising and falling wholly in sync with the gravitational interaction between the Earth and the Moon. Brain matter may extraordinary but it is no less in tune with the laws of matters.
Unlike the tides, I do something because I desire to do it. But I was never able to not desire to do it.
Justification is just another domino though. I can only justify or not justify that which the laws of matter propel me to. My “consent” is a given.
In a determined universe [as I understand it] “I” give consent in the manner in which the heart gives consent to beat. The brain is just another internal organ in a body that is just another component of existence unfolding.
Again, as though I am able to think this through…only this time I choose to understand your point.
Is that or is that not precisely the point that the free-will folks will make?
Until people learn that it isn’t useful. Then it won’t be just another domino.
We could never have not wanted to be here because it gave us greater satisfaction TO BE HERE. When the options provided to us give us a better choice than to be here, we will no longer choose to be here, in the direction of greater satisfaction.
There’s nothing to be confused about. It’s really rather simple but you’re making it confusing because you’re thinking that if we make choices as autonomous individuals (i.e., without external constraint), then that’s what free will is, but that’s not what free will is.
The only difference is that we, as humans, are able to contemplate before a choice is made. It doesn’t change the direction we must go, or the fact that life unfolds according to natural law.
Only that the “I” is the one that makes choices, which are based on all of the pros and cons being considered when making a choice. The “I” is different only in the sense that we are able to contemplate, ruminate, think ahead, etc. The “I” or “self” is still following its course as it unfolds and as it could ever be. But as we gain new knowledge, we can learn ways to stop the domino, so to speak, (e.g., the wars, the poverty, the crime, etc.) from knocking us down in ways that we don’t want and can prevent.
This is not about what is less or more important, right and wrong, good and bad intrinsically. This is about understanding our nature so that we can use it for our betterment, all in the direction of what must unfold necessarily since we are compelled to move toward what is better, not worse, for ourselves. If you had a choice, wouldn’t you choose joy over sorrow, peace over war, health over sickness, sustenance over poverty? If you could choose either/or, would you really be given a choice?
It is in the same boat, but sometimes it doesn’t become clear until further clarification is made. Haven’t you ever read a book a second time and got more out of it than the first time?
It is up to you, but only if you want to be less repetitive.
If you could never have chosen not to do it, where are you free? This has nothing to do with the kind of free will that religious folks believe we have. Remember, just because we aren’t constrained by external force doesn’t mean we aren’t compelled to choose only that option that is the most preferable given our particular circumstances. We’re all different to a degree so what you may find preferable may not be what I find preferable.
[i] 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 agree with all this, but how many times in your life have you
remarked, ‘You give me no choice’ or ‘it makes no difference?’”
Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value
where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which
is preferable, while other differences need a more careful
consideration, does not change the direction of life which moves
always towards greater satisfaction than what the present position
offers. You must bear in mind that what one person judges good or
bad for himself doesn’t make it so for others especially when it is
remembered that a juxtaposition of differences in each case present
alternatives that affect choice.
“But there are many times when I have been terribly dissatisfied
with things that I have done, and at that exact moment isn’t it
obvious that I am not moving in the direction of satisfaction because
I am very dissatisfied? It seems to me that it is still possible to give
an example of how man can be made to move in the direction of
dissatisfaction. If I could do this, all your reasoning would be shot to
hell.”
“That’s true, but I defy you or anyone else to give me an example
of this. Go ahead and try.”
“Let us imagine that of two apples, a red and a yellow, I prefer the
yellow because I am extremely allergic to the red, consequently, my
taste lies in the direction of the latter which gives me greater
satisfaction. In fact, the very thought of eating the red apple makes
me feel sick. Yet in spite of this I am going to eat it to demonstrate
that even though I am dissatisfied — and prefer the yellow apple —
I can definitely move in the direction of dissatisfaction.”[/i]
The word free is misleading because everything we do we are compelled to do. Even scratching an itch, or changing position are all part of movement away from that which dissatisfies to a more satisfying position, which is life. We cannot move in a direction that is worse for ourselves [in our eyes] when a better option is available. Could you not satisfy an itch by scratching it in order to relieve the uncomfortable position you were in? Could you not change position when your arm falls asleep to relieve the uncomfortable position you are in? There’s only one direction we can go and only one choice is possible at any given moment in time. I’ll repeat this excerpt. Maybe you’ll get it this time or maybe you won’t. Whatever your response is could not have been any different.
[i]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?
“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. Nothing causes man to
build cities, develop scientific achievements, write books, compose
music, go to war, argue and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to
God, for these things are mankind already at a particular stage of his
development, just as children were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These
activities or motions are the natural entelechy of man who is always
developing, correcting his mistakes, and moving in the direction of
greater satisfaction by better removing the dissatisfaction of the
moment, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he
has absolutely no control.
Looking back in hindsight allows man to
evaluate his progress and make corrections when necessary because he
is always learning from previous experience. The fact that will is not
free demonstrates that man, as part of nature or God, has been
unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate and during every
moment of his progress was doing what he had to do because he had
no free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to do
anything against his will, for the word cause, like choice and past, is
very misleading as it implies that something other than man himself
is responsible for his actions.[/i]
True, but I’m trying to help you understand why the word autonomy doesn’t give you free will so that maybe your question will be answered adequately.
Yes, and your choice not to do something (or do something against your will) is also wholly in sync with the laws of matter because you can’t be forced to do something you don’t want to do.
Just because I cannot be made to do
something against my will does not mean my will is free because my
desire not to do it appeared the better reason, which gave me no free
choice since I got greater satisfaction. Nor does the expression, ‘I did
it of my own free will, nobody made me do it,’ mean that I actually
did it of my own free will — although I did it because I wanted to —
because my desire to do it appeared the better reason which gave me
no free choice since I got greater satisfaction.”
You can say it is another domino as part of the unfolding, but when there is no justification for pulling the trigger, then we won’t be able to pull the trigger [as a preferable choice in the direction of greater satisfaction], which also becomes part of the unfolding.
Great! Then that means you understand the second principle, and we can move forward.
You can describe what’s happening any way you want. What matters is that your explanation using your terminology is the same as my explanation using my terminology.
You made an effort to listen to my point. I’m glad you understood it. Some people try to understand a point, but they can’t. It’s not of their choosing for if they could, they certainly would choose to understand.
Being able to choose to listen to my point may be what free-will folks think of as free will, but it is anything but as you and I well know.
