But thats just freedom, freedom to follow ones will. This was indeed the original meaning of the term.
Free will as a pseudo scientific problem is about the will being its own cause rather than a product of history. The distinction is one of degrees though and this ties back to the original meaning. The will is relatively self-reliant in an apex predator with a powerful mind compared to the will of a rabbit. This doesn’t eliminate causes but it allows more of the present to factor in, more to be enjoyed. I think free will is about enjoyment and the metaphysical right to it.
Faust is going to say “too metaphysical”, but there are practical applications. Humanity has a desperate need to blame others, something, other than the Self. Humanity has a desperate need for “Cosmic Sky Daddy”, responsible for any and everything. It destroys the Human psyche, to begin to believe, “I am the cause”, “I am responsible”, and to have Moral Agency. I don’t really care what Faust has to say about it. Some people are responsible; but most are not. People know this intuitively if not rationally.
And concerning the rare ‘Genius’ type who appears throughout history as “spiritual leaders”, “gurus”, “cult leaders”, etc. they have that aire of Causation. They are self-possessed, free individuals. In other words, these are the types who can build their own houses in the meadow regardless of other people saying “No you can’t!” or even trying to prevent them from doing so.
This is something I’ve picked up along the way to Free-Will. The closer you are to Autonomy, “being your own Man”, the more others will try to stop you, prevent you, get in your way, whether it is out of spite, intimidation, resentiment, envy, or perhaps, all of these emotions together. The Slave resents the Free-man, both by Envy for what he can never have himself, and self-hatred because of this admission.
That’s just it, Jake. Free will is a perfectly benign idea in the hands of ordinsry people. In the hands of philosophers, it becomes a religious term, and therefore a political one. This hs made some people famous. And it has confused a lot of students of philosophy.
Once the great freedom of the will was from God - but man quickly found out that this freedom was actually a lack. God had been a vessel for the will, like a fast car. You could take the will places with him, deeds had purpose. God, when believed, is an ultimate value, so provides a lot of current to the will.
This is the reason Nietzsche produced the idea of the Uebermensch, a goal to replace pleasing God or being worthy of Gods as a drive for mankind. A skeptic way of looking at that says mankind doesn’t care about the future, a romanic way says that Stan Lee is a good omen.
Geez, Pedro. I’ll just about die if you don’t read another word.
By social justice I mean the true subject matter of morality. Distributive justice.
As oppposed to worrying about whether or not your boyfriend just lied to you about where he was last night. Morality is only interesting in terms of a given social group. Like a country. Because it’s all politics, anyway.
I hope this gets you to read another word. I was sooooo excited when I saw that you responded.
"By social justice I mean the true subject matter of morality. Distributive justice. "
For the man I consider to have the most rigorous approach to philosophy that I have seen that is alive, this is like a shit in the face.
I’ll just say this: I never heard you mention it… Before Greta.
No, I won’t read another word. This is disasterous.
My man.
We have a hard enough time pinning down justice. Never mind! Never mind social. And suddenly, like a fully baked cake, off-hand enough to be disdainful about,
positive law is social justice then, distributive.
As opposed to natural justice, as a presumed tuning fork of evolution. Evolution in A natural.
A good positive law is attuned to natural law but overlays it like a chord. The US constitution is a massive 12 gauge chord.
Again, this is what happens when you use the noun form, “truth”. And when you apply it to something besides a statement. And when you use “truth” in a statement about which you want to ascertain the truth of. I really should have coverrd this earlier.
Ecmandu - you have, once again, committed a violent rape. Which appears to be your hobby.
Language must assume itself as universal truth to bring all possible options for reality under its scope.
Universal truths inside of language include grammatical laws, that for example that subject relates to an object through an action. Concepts like “consent” and “violation” derive from this grammar as much as they do from the rest of reality.