New Discovery

When we are hurt we have two options; we can strike back ‘an eye for an eye’ or we can turn the other cheek. This knowledge prevents the first cheek from ever being struck, so there will be no need to do either.

I’m not asking people to read the entire book but I am asking them to meet me half way by reading the first three chapters. If this is a true discovery, 130 pages is not that much to devote your time to. I can’t keep repeating the same thing over and over. I said that this discovery is based on the knowledge that man’s will is not free, but this is just the gateway that leads to the two-sided equation. The two-sided equation is the discovery itself which is explained in Chapter Two. I am not hiding anything. Another problem is if I shorten this anymore than I already have, the clarity could be further compromised. Would you ever think of demanding a synopsis of Nietzsche’s work, or any famous philosopher for that matter? Any of the great philosophers have been carefully studied and their work analyzed and dissected backward and forward. Haven’t you ever read a book the second time around and found things that you didn’t notice the first time. This is that kind of book. It deals with a serious topic and it’s a new perspective which does not permit a quick skim. I know that’s what everyone wants but it won’t do the book justice although I’ve been trying to cater to everyone’s wants since I’ve been here. I have said all along that this is not the best venue for introducing something new, but unfortunately I have been unable to reach philosophers interested in this topic who could be more instrumental.

http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-2-13-2019-THREE-CHAPTERS.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1ehH5XaQCSCFcNYvHvC_pxbvcl8vpSTDYkkKxNDMECqrpIBpmaLKH88Yo

I’ve explained why man’s will is not free. No one seems to understand that the conventional definition of determinism is a problem. If you read the first chapter (which is not that long) and you have questions, I will answer them to the best of my ability. If you are intrigued and want to read Chapter Two, then after that we can discuss it. I will admit that the introduction and beginning of Chapter One is a little long winded but that is not here nor there. Form is not content. People have criticized the writing and never asked one pertinent question regarding the actual content.

So if a person has this knowledge, then he/she will never do anything hurtful/bad/wrong?

I find that astonishing and unrealistic.

There are only so many hours in a day/lifetime and some many demands for attention. One has to pick and choose where to spend one’s time. And unfortunately, the decision is based on some small and perhaps superficial fragments which pique interest.

We live in a cut and paste world.

Yes I would. There are lots of very short books and even graphic books which are introductions to philosophers and philosophies.
For example:
amazon.com/Introducing-Nietz … 1848310099

If somebody is a professor who is teaching philosophy, then he/she would do that. But most people are not going to invest that much time because they have other interests and other things to do.

If you can’t get people interested, then this important “discovery” will be lost.

So make it interesting and accessible. Make it easy.

I’m not asking about that.

I’m asking for an explanation of an effective deterrent.

Mr X kills Ms A.

What reduces the likelihood of that happening in the first place? What do you do with Mr X afterwards?

The way it works now : if Mr X thinks about it prior to acting, then the risk of being caught, imprisoned or executed will reduce the appeal of killing Ms A.

If he does kill her, then he is removed from society so that he doesn’t kill anyone else. Seeing Mr X punished, discourages Mr Y from killing Ms B.

So what happens in your “new world”?

I think we have a few more options than that. An eye for an eye is a specific guideline for punishments. There can be and there generally are other ones. There can be mixtures of education and punishment. There can be incarceration not as punishment to separate out dangerous people from potential victims. There can be community service and any of the above. There can be confrontations and potential reconciliation with victims, they can be civil suit type punishments. And there are more options, many of them practiced or have been practiced. And I don’t know how well turning the other cheek works or in which types of situations or with which people.

First, nobody demanded anything. It was suggested. 2) Nietzsche’s work is summaried in many different media and in many different formats. But then, you are not a famous philosopher. And, as far as we can tell, you haven’t made it through the gauntlet of getting the book published traditionally. This doesn’t mean it isn’t a great text, but perhaps we would feel drawn to read it if our experiences with your disucssions here made us curious. It’s like you do not consider our choice rational and appropriate. There are works by famous philosophers I have not read. Not only did those works make it through the gauntlet of a publisher, they have also stood the test of time.

Consider people’s reactions to your suggestion to read the book as feedback on your posts. Consider your inability to get the work to philosophers as feedback about the quality of your book or your approach to reacing them.

Right now you blame people for not reading your book, instead of taking responsibility for a general lack of interest. Any single one of us may be a closeminded petulant reader who avoids your book for the wrong reasons. But there is a general pattern. Perhaps the book needs reworking. Perhaps you need to hone your online discussion skills to the point where people think ‘hey this guy says interesting things, I want to read more.’

There are thousands of philosophy books, fairly recently written, which have managed to convince a good number of people to read them. This is what you are competing with. To more or less state that we are making a mistake by not choosing to read your rather than one of those is not going to get your book read. Especially since the book in part has to do with morals.

I have just read Chapter One and understand the logic of the argument but I think it would work better on a mathematical level without also referencing God
I say this because as an atheist I am not remotely convinced by any God argument and also the switching between math and religion is not actually necessary
And so this first chapter could have said exactly what it did without any reference to God which would have made it shorter and easier to understand as well
I am assuming that your father was Jewish which would explain the references to rabbis but he could have left that out and just focused on the math instead

To save you all the bother of having to read the first chapter it basically says this :

All so called free will decisions involve automatically selecting the most favoured option available regardless of how undesirable it may be
Because the other option / options are by comparison judged to be even worse and this therefore invalidates the entire notion of free will
No one is knowingly going to choose a least worst option so they are compelled every single time to choose the one most preferred instead

Also since you cannot go back in time and change your decision this also invalidates the so called notion of free will which is not really free at all

The first chapter is forty two pages long but as I said it could be less than that if it just focused on the mathematics and so I hope this summary will suffice
I will read the rest of the book chapter by chapter and offer a short summary of each for any one to discuss with peacegirl as I have done with the first one

Peacegirl, that’s a disproof of the ENTIRE book!!!

Nobody breaks natural laws

By saying this, I believe gravity breaks down under certain conditions, but under the other conditions, it NEVER does.

But you go even further than this, you state that determinism towards peace is the highest immutable law in existence … the ONLY thing a person is required to do, to disprove this entire book is check with themselves (falsification - science - that stuff you claim you are doing) all they have to do is check with themselves and ask “is anyone’s consent being violated in existence?” If they answer “yes”, then your book does not describe a natural law.

That’s it. Proof, real proof. Not like you use the word, but how it’s actually used.

This book is false. It’s not true.

It’s unrealistic because it feels like it’s an impossible feat. I get it.

I’m really trying my best. You are right. It’s hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Very true.

Maybe so, but if you’re a serious philosophy student this wouldn’t be enough. I can’t do more than I’m doing. If I can’t people to read even if they skip the introduction, then I guess they won’t learn what this is about. I am bending over backwards already.

If somebody is a professor who is teaching philosophy, then he/she would do that. But most people are not going to invest that much time because they have other interests and other things to do.

True, and I’m not getting any younger.

I’m trying my best. I’ve already gone over why man’s will is not free, but when it is accepted to be true, once and for all, then we can reap the benefits as we extend the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame.

I’m not asking about that.

If this law is immutable, there will be no afterwards because no one will desire to strike a first blow without justification. But in order for this to work, we must remove all of the things that justify retaliation, and there are many.

Number one, he won’t desire to kill her, but in this world he may desire this and may take the chance if he believes he won’t get caught. But for us to get to the point where no one wants to kill anyone, we have to remove the hurt that allow people to justify what they’re about to do.

It is a deterrent to know that the serious consequences of going to jail or the death penalty will be enforced, if caught, but not everyone heeds these threats.

These things will not occur because the environment in which children are raised will be so different that the thought of gaining at someone’s expense or hurting someone in any way will not even enter their minds. There are some mentally ill people and they may be so far gone that their conscience no longer can control their behavior therefore they may need to be institutionalized, but as a new generation is born into this new world, mental illness will be virtually wiped out.

Thank you! Maybe we can get somewhere.

I skipped Chapter 1. I’m familiar with the arguments for and against determinism. I just choose to ignore them. :wink:

I read Chapter 2. I think it’s a mistake to think that nobody with strike first. It’s just not a correct understanding of human behavior. That appears to be the critical flaw.

I think that the desire will still be there and people will act on it. People are not going to become as caring as the author believes.

This from Chapter 2 page 86 (page 104 of the pdf) explains why nobody will inflict harm on others :

It doesn’t seem reasonable to me.

Peacegirl is avoiding the scientific disproof here like the plague:

viewtopic.php?p=2729641#p2729641

I think however, that we must consider, that if peacegirl is disproven, she will shoot up a church.

Maybe we should just pat her on the back instead of treating her as a rational being.

That is not the way to win an argument… please adjust your manner to adhere with board rules.

I can edit it for you, but I have no idea what I’m editing it from?

No wonder it doesn’t seem reasonable to you. This chapter began on page 60 and you took an excerpt from 86 which was a conclusion based on the 26 pages that preceded it. Do you have any other questions before telling me there’s a fatal flaw. THAT seems unreasonable to me.

The chapter begins with a discussion of blame and responsibility. It presents the concept of THOU SHALL NOT BLAME. The real mechanics of how it would all work begins around page 75 (page 93 of the pdf) when the author is asked these questions:

I encourage people to read the chapter and decide for themselves whether it seems reasonable or not. (It’s about 34 pages long.)

What makes you think that by simply “removing” blame, people would become thoughtful and caring?

Some people are putting a lot of thought into their actions but many are not.

Some people already see themselves as blameless.

Some people are completely indifferent to the pain and suffering of others.

This new discovery would have no effect on these people.

Sorry, I forget the number of the post. I will try to post it again to see if it turns out on my end. If not, I’ll let it go. Not important.

Sorry peacegirl / mags,

Sometimes association gives me acid tongue sometimes. I think, if I remember correctly, that someone did the same thing to me about 6 years ago, it made me feel horrible.

Phyllo, you are getting way ahead of yourself and it’s not fair to the author. You said you know all about determinism, so what is his explanation of why man’s will is not free? His description is different than others, so you can’t just say you’re jumping ahead because you know the arguments.

What does this have to do with anything?

Because they are.

You are again basing your thoughts on the vantage point of a free will environment, which you cannot do if you want to understand this discovery.

Not in the environment that created them to be that way. You’re right, but we are talking about a different environment that would not create the same kind of individual.

It’s okay, you’re forgiven. We all do things we regret but we make amends and move on. :slight_smile:

“What does this have to do with anything?”

But seriously … I’m accepting that determinism is correct. That way we can move on to actual scenarios that arise in the world.

If the argument is based on the author’s particular definition of determinism, then it’s all a word game and it won’t produce results. As Ecmandu suggests, if it’s a law, then it ought to be working already - independently of any verbal gymnastics.

Well his argument requires gaining some sort of intellectual understanding of freewill and determinism which changes behavior. Somebody who is not putting thought into their decisions is not going to act any differently.

I don’t think that I’m doing that. Especially in this quote which really has nothing to do with freewill.

I think that you are assigning too much value to the environment.

Let’s consider a lion.

I don’t blame it for wanting to eat me. It doesn’t know or care whether I blame it or not. It’s still going to try to eat me. I’m food.

There are a lot of human predators which are thinking and acting exactly as a lion. I and others are their prey. I need to defend myself by discouraging the predator from attacking. It’s a practical necessity.