Determinism

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Determinism

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Jun 09, 2021 2:18 am

promethean75 wrote:But this is philosophy-fiction. One cannot imagine a world in which during a court trial as a defendant is being reprimanded, the DA, jury and judge do so without placing blame and demanding culpability. It's logically impossible.

From what I can see - that is exactly what is happening in Washington DC. It is entirely governed by socialists who never hold each other accountable for anything - guaranteed employment for life - guaranteed lake of prosecution. And look what they do - fake out the people - criminal bribery - extortion - treason - power grab.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2924
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jun 09, 2021 2:35 am

phyllo wrote:It's irrelevant whether Kropotkin is freely opting to be full of shit or he can't help being full of shit.

He is full of shit either way.

That's the problem at hand which has to be tackled.


iambiguous wrote:Right, like "calling" something a problem in a wholly determined universe is not in turn making it a "problem" only given the psychological illusion of "freely" calling it a problem when you could never have not called it a problem. Or, as peacegirl might put it, "it gave you a greater satisfaction to call it a problem". As though feeling satisfaction in and of itself was ever actually something you could freely opt not to feel.


Sculptor wrote:I can be full of shit or not full of shit. I might be full of shit today, or full of shit tomorrow. Whether I can help it to be or not to be full of shit may or not be my choice but which ever it is; it is determined that way.
As Schoppenhauer used to say:
I can do as I will, but I cannot will as I will.


Yeah, that's my point to peacegirl in regard to greater satisfaction. You can feel satisfaction...but you could never have not felt satisfied given determinism as I construe it.

You can feel satisfied after aborting your fetus but you could never have not felt satisfied doing it. You can feel satisfied if a woman and her doctor go to prison for killing an unborn baby but you never have not felt satisfied.

Some satisfaction. Reminds me somewhat of the Twilight Zone episode "A Nice Place to Visit". Rocky the crook is shot by the cops and he ends up in a place where he is always satisfied. Everything he does -- gambling, shooting pool, making it with the ladies -- finds him a winner. He thinks he's died and gone to Heaven. Until it begins to dawn on his that his satisfaction is all rigged. He can never not win. And, for him, that's Hell.

It's like, hypothetically, you're watching a film unfold that you've seen many times. You're telling someone who has no idea what a movie is, what the characters will say and do. Here the screenwriter and the director become analogous to nature. Only given my own understanding of determinism the screenwriter and the director themselves are no less "characters" in the production that is nature itself unfolding only as it must, as it will.

It's one thing to tell someone they are full of shit in regard to determinism when there is in fact a way to know definitively whether human beings have free will. And that you grasp this because you are better able to think through -- of your own volition -- all of the intertwined variables in order to arrive at the most rational answer. This as opposed to nature wholly determining what you think that you have thought through yourself such that bullshit itself becomes just another inherent component of the only possible reality.

I can make choices, but those choices are determined. THey can only be "free" if not externally compelled. Like it or not I cannot be free of my choices, because they are based upon who, and what I am.
At some point along the line we follow necessity regardless.


As with obsrvr524, let's put you at a demonstration in which those opposed to abortion and those not opposed to it go at it. You note this to them. I'm trying to imagine in the real deal free will world their reaction to that particular intellectual contraption.

And how can the laws of nature themselves not be the mother of all compulsions? Nothing and no one is external to that.

But, again, only given my own wild ass guess here.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jun 09, 2021 2:43 am

phyllo wrote:If my tire is flat, then I fix it or throw it away.

The same happens with thieves, rapists and murderers ... they are either rehabilitated or removed from society.

That's moral responsibility in a deterministic world.


Note to nature:

You explain the difference to him.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Wed Jun 09, 2021 2:59 am

Ah, there's that passive-aggressive arrogance. You know and understand better than anyone.

Oh, but you never claim to know and understand better than anyone. O:)
User avatar
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12404
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jun 09, 2021 3:19 am

iambiguous wrote:Then you understand that you don't understand only because nothing that any of us understand was ever not to be understood given that all understanding is an inherent manifestation of the only possible reality.

On the other hand, given a real deal free will world [not yet fully understood by either science or philosophy...to the best of my current knowledge], I contend that you argue this as an objectivist. Whereas I do not. I recognize that my own conclusions here are at best a wild ass guess on my part given the gap above.

Note to Kropotkin:

At least he's conceding that neither one of you are ever really right or wrong given the assumptions of free will advocates.



obsrvr524 wrote::lol:

You fell for the trick that James explained years before he came to this board. He said that this freewill argument was "merely a mind game". And it seems that you are an excellent example.


In other words, I was no less able to not fall for it than Saint was able to not explain why I did. But somehow Saint still comes out the "winner" here. Just as you come out the "winner" over Kropotkin.

Now, of course, for all we know nature will unfold down the road such that you concede to Peter that Trump is a pathological, lying scumbag. One of nature's very own tricks! Meanwhile Trump himself, like all the rest of us, is just along for the inevitable ride.

Right?

obsrvr524 wrote: What everyone seems to be saying to you is that it doesn't matter whether everything is determined - you have to go on just as if it wasn't determined (unless you are investigating causes). You seem to be having trouble understanding that issue. Determinism brought you to this point. Determinism brought you to be arguing. Determinism brought us to this point of trying to explain that it doesn't matter.


But it doesn't matter to them solely because up to now it was never even possible that it could matter to them. But, again, down the road nature's laws might turn it all around and it will matter to them. But either way -- Trump wins, Biden wins -- the only thing that does matter is that there are no winners and losers in this exchange in the manner in which those who reject determinism construe that.

And that will matter to some more than others.

At the same time, even in accepting the reality of free will, my point is that political value judgments embraced by objectivists of your ilk are but political prejudices rooted subjectively in dasein. And the possibility of that is particularly disturbing to the fulminating fanatics.

But again, you won't go there. Instead, as with Saint, you are [in my own opinion compelled or not] far more comfortable up in the intellectual clouds:

obsrvr524 wrote: You are a part of the effort called living. Living IS handling whatever determinism has brought about. Either you handle or you don't. If you don't - you don't live. But determinism gave you impetus to live - so you (and we) continue to handle it the best way we know how. Determinism arranged what options we all think up to try. Determinism ensures that we pick one. Determinism inspires us to act on that choice. And determinism forms what comes of it.


Come on, if you "handle" life "freely" only given the psychological illusion of handling it of your own volition, then everything that everyone does here is really just a manifestation of all that could ever have been. Including your "support" for Trump. You're like nature's own sock puppet here or nature's own marionette never really being able to pull your own strings.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jun 09, 2021 3:24 am

phyllo wrote:Ah, there's that passive-aggressive arrogance. You know and understand better than anyone.

Oh, but you never claim to know and understand better than anyone. O:)


Unbelievable. Over and over and over again I flat out admit that my own assessment here is as much a wild ass guess as anyone else who is not privy to a comprehensive understanding of existence itself.

Meaning "retorts" of this nature are as good a way as any to avoid actually responding to the points that I raised above.

Note to others:

Is Larry on the way? 8)
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Wed Jun 09, 2021 3:36 am

The hypocrisy
User avatar
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12404
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jun 09, 2021 3:43 am

phyllo wrote:The hypocrisy


Nature at its cruelest let's call it.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Jun 09, 2021 7:55 am

iambiguous wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote: What everyone seems to be saying to you is that it doesn't matter whether everything is determined - you have to go on just as if it wasn't determined (unless you are investigating causes). You seem to be having trouble understanding that issue. Determinism brought you to this point. Determinism brought you to be arguing. Determinism brought us to this point of trying to explain that it doesn't matter.


But it doesn't matter to them solely because up to now it was never even possible that it could matter to them. But, again, down the road nature's laws might turn it all around and it will matter to them. But either way -- Trump wins, Biden wins -- the only thing that does matter is that there are no winners and losers in this exchange in the manner in which those who reject determinism construe that.

And that will matter to some more than others.

So I was right - you are having trouble understanding the issue.

The issue is NOT about whether the person believes in determinism or free-will or even if he thinks it is an important issue - that is not what I meant by it not mattering.

What I meant was that whether he is concerned about determinism or not - his situation is the same - requiring the same priorities and the same consequences. If he believes in determinism he might make a different choice as to what to do - but either way he is still stuck with a flat tire and must choose between limited options. The best option will be the same whether he had free-will or not. The worst option will be the same whether he had free-will or not. The only difference his belief makes is in offering confusion and delays. The tire isn't going to choose to inflate on its own regardless of his beliefs.

iambiguous wrote:the same time, even in accepting the reality of free will, my point is that political value judgments embraced by objectivists of your ilk are but political prejudices rooted subjectively in dasein. And the possibility of that is particularly disturbing to the fulminating fanatics.

That is Your objectivist opinion about an irrelevant topic.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2924
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Determinism

Postby Sculptor » Wed Jun 09, 2021 12:10 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Sculptor wrote:I can be full of shit or not full of shit. I might be full of shit today, or full of shit tomorrow. Whether I can help it to be or not to be full of shit may or not be my choice but which ever it is; it is determined that way.
As Schoppenhauer used to say:
I can do as I will, but I cannot will as I will.


Yeah, that's my point to peacegirl in regard to greater satisfaction. You can feel satisfaction...but you could never have not felt satisfied given determinism as I construe it.

Sadly no one really knows if, or how, exactly, you are construing anything.
I do not think you, yourself really know.

You can feel satisfied after aborting your fetus but you could never have not felt satisfied doing it. You can feel satisfied if a woman and her doctor go to prison for killing an unborn baby but you never have not felt satisfied.

Is this word salad?
I never mentioned satifaction. Why are you bring this into the discussion, if not to avoid facing the issue?

Some satisfaction. Reminds me somewhat of the Twilight Zone episode "A Nice Place to Visit". Rocky the crook is shot by the cops and he ends up in a place where he is always satisfied. Everything he does -- gambling, shooting pool, making it with the ladies -- finds him a winner. He thinks he's died and gone to Heaven. Until it begins to dawn on his that his satisfaction is all rigged. He can never not win. And, for him, that's Hell.

uh
It's like, hypothetically, you're watching a film unfold that you've seen many times. You're telling someone who has no idea what a movie is, what the characters will say and do. Here the screenwriter and the director become analogous to nature. Only given my own understanding of determinism the screenwriter and the director themselves are no less "characters" in the production that is nature itself unfolding only as it must, as it will.
uh

It's one thing to tell someone they are full of shit in regard to determinism when there is in fact a way to know definitively whether human beings have free will. And that you grasp this because you are better able to think through -- of your own volition -- all of the intertwined variables in order to arrive at the most rational answer. This as opposed to nature wholly determining what you think that you have thought through yourself such that bullshit itself becomes just another inherent component of the only possible reality.
uh

I can make choices, but those choices are determined. THey can only be "free" if not externally compelled. Like it or not I cannot be free of my choices, because they are based upon who, and what I am.
At some point along the line we follow necessity regardless.


As with obsrvr524, let's put you at a demonstration in which those opposed to abortion and those not opposed to it go at it. You note this to them. I'm trying to imagine in the real deal free will world their reaction to that particular intellectual contraption.

Anti-abortionist are trying to deny those that wish to abort their free will. There is nothing more to be said here. They are both determined to have their say, of necessity. So-called prolifers are against liberty of the woman's right to chose.
What is it you do not understand here?
"Free will" to the ability to follow your determined will, regardless of the will of others. That is ordinary compulsion that I mention above.
This is a compatibilist position which is a subset or clarification of determinism.

And how can the laws of nature themselves not be the mother of all compulsions? Nothing and no one is external to that.

But, again, only given my own wild ass guess here.


Why are you beating around the bush?
What is your position here? Or are you just content to dance?

This waltz is the most absurd of your moves.: "And how can the laws of nature themselves not be the mother of all compulsions? Nothing and no one is external to that. "
The laws of nature are codes written by humans, they have no volition, they are not any kind of mother, nor do they compel. They are just descriptions of and reductions of reality.
Nature as it is, simply acts to necessity. It is absurd to call that compulsion or to give it human characteristics. You seem to be living in a child's world of animism, to formulate such a question. I'd suggest you read some Spinoza, but I think you would simply miss the point. His "god" is necessity. "God" has no desire, need, volition, it is more like the structure of reality.
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:40 pm

obsrvr524 wrote: What everyone seems to be saying to you is that it doesn't matter whether everything is determined - you have to go on just as if it wasn't determined (unless you are investigating causes). You seem to be having trouble understanding that issue. Determinism brought you to this point. Determinism brought you to be arguing. Determinism brought us to this point of trying to explain that it doesn't matter.


iambiguous wrote:But it doesn't matter to them solely because up to now it was never even possible that it could matter to them. But, again, down the road nature's laws might turn it all around and it will matter to them. But either way -- Trump wins, Biden wins -- the only thing that does matter is that there are no winners and losers in this exchange in the manner in which those who reject determinism construe that.

And that will matter to some more than others.


obsrvr524 wrote: So I was right - you are having trouble understanding the issue.


Right in the sense that nature determined that you could never have thought to yourself that you were wrong.

That kind of "right"?

As for understanding the issue, again, from my frame of mind, you want your cake here and to eat it too. You want to argue for determinism but also to insist that you "win" here becasue you claim to understand the issue while I don't. As though either of us can grapple with the issue other than as nature compels us to.

obsrvr524 wrote: The issue is NOT about whether the person believes in determinism or free-will or even if he thinks it is an important issue - that is not what I meant by it not mattering.


Who cares about the way you mean that anything matters if the only way that you could ever have meant it matters is necessarily in sync with laws of matter?

And that would certainly include what you think matters about Trump and Biden.

Right?

Nature then continues your "narrative":

obsrvr524 wrote: What I meant was that whether he is concerned about determinism or not - his situation is the same - requiring the same priorities and the same consequences. If he believes in determinism he might make a different choice as to what to do - but either way he is still stuck with a flat tire and must choose between limited options. The best option will be the same whether he had free-will or not. The worst option will be the same whether he had free-will or not. The only difference his belief makes is in offering confusion and delays. The tire isn't going to choose to inflate on its own regardless of his beliefs.


Okay, but, as I noted with Phyllo above, what about this part:

"Okay, John punctures your tires. All four of them. But, unlike with the tires themselves, there is a discussion and debate among scientists and philosophers and others as to whether John could of his own volition have chosen not to puncture them. And whether the reason that John acted in this manner was derived from his capacity to think the situation through and freely opt to choose to do it. Or whether that reason too, in and of itself, was fated/destined given the laws of matter. The tire doesn't grapple with being inflated or flat as a 'problem'/problem. You do."

Determinism as you/Saint understand it and conflicting goods. Determinism and moral responsibility.

iambiguous wrote:the same time, even in accepting the reality of free will, my point is that political value judgments embraced by objectivists of your ilk are but political prejudices rooted subjectively in dasein. And the possibility of that is particularly disturbing to the fulminating fanatics.


obsrvr524 wrote: That is Your objectivist opinion about an irrelevant topic.


Right, given the real deal free will world, an "objectivist opinion"!!!

And, given Saint's/your own understanding of determinism, how could any topic be irrelevant when every topic is relevant given the assumption that in a wholly determined universe nothing is not going to unfold other than as it must.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:37 pm

You guys will hate me for saying this, and need not consider it, but I am compelled to say, that the appearent contradictions in your interchange points to a problem with the structural design within which your arguments are bracketed. within.

By de-sign i mean the current interpretation of mutually understood signs, deconstructed to yhap particular level of mutual understanding

That level frames the signals of communication in terms which may exclude one anothether at relevant points by definition.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9054
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:40 pm

Sculptor wrote: I can be full of shit or not full of shit. I might be full of shit today, or full of shit tomorrow. Whether I can help it to be or not to be full of shit may or not be my choice but which ever it is; it is determined that way.
As Schoppenhauer used to say:
I can do as I will, but I cannot will as I will.


Yeah, that's my point to peacegirl in regard to greater satisfaction. You can feel satisfaction...but you could never have not felt satisfied given determinism as I construe it.


Sculptor wrote: Sadly no one really knows if, or how, exactly, you are construing anything.
I do not think you, yourself really know.


Note to nature:

Straighten him out here.

Besides, "sadly", "happily", it's all as one to the laws of nature. Right? Or are you just one more run of the mill compatibilist?

You can feel satisfied after aborting your fetus but you could never have not felt satisfied doing it. You can feel satisfied if a woman and her doctor go to prison for killing an unborn baby but you never have not felt satisfied.


Sculptor wrote: Is this word salad?


Okay, given your own understanding of determinism how is this word salad not relevant to the abortion wars?

Sculptor wrote: I never mentioned satisfaction. Why are you bring this into the discussion, if not to avoid facing the issue?


Well, the issue for me is in noting the satisfaction that you seem to accrue in configuring into just another one of my Stooges here... in a world that I have to acknowledge, given my own frame of mind "here and now", was never not going to be other than as it must be.

Some satisfaction. Reminds me somewhat of the Twilight Zone episode "A Nice Place to Visit". Rocky the crook is shot by the cops and he ends up in a place where he is always satisfied. Everything he does -- gambling, shooting pool, making it with the ladies -- finds him a winner. He thinks he's died and gone to Heaven. Until it begins to dawn on his that his satisfaction is all rigged. He can never not win. And, for him, that's Hell.


Sculptor wrote: uh


Note to nature:

uh?!!!

It's like, hypothetically, you're watching a film unfold that you've seen many times. You're telling someone who has no idea what a movie is, what the characters will say and do. Here the screenwriter and the director become analogous to nature. Only given my own understanding of determinism the screenwriter and the director themselves are no less "characters" in the production that is nature itself unfolding only as it must, as it will.


uh


Wow, just like me, nature repeats itself!!!

It's one thing to tell someone they are full of shit in regard to determinism when there is in fact a way to know definitively whether human beings have free will. And that you grasp this because you are better able to think through -- of your own volition -- all of the intertwined variables in order to arrive at the most rational answer. This as opposed to nature wholly determining what you think that you have thought through yourself such that bullshit itself becomes just another inherent component of the only possible reality.


Sculptor wrote: uh


Note to others:

So, given the real deal free will world, does "uh" cut it for you given the points I raised? Or, instead, have I managed to reduce yet another one here down to this "uh" mentality.

Sculptor wrote: Anti-abortionist are trying to deny those that wish to abort their free will. There is nothing more to be said here. They are both determined to have their say, of necessity. So-called prolifers are against liberty of the woman's right to chose.
What is it you do not understand here?


What I don't understand is how we can finally pin down once and for all if either side here was ever actually able to think, feel, say or do anything at all other than as the laws of nature command them. Given Saints, obsrvr524 and/or your own understanding of determinism. Because, given my own wild ass guess "here and now", nope, it is as though one of you confronted both sides spitting on each other in a dream: the brain fully on automatic pilot.

Only now awake. How is it not -- re nature -- on automatic pilot then?

Sculptor wrote: "Free will" to the ability to follow your determined will, regardless of the will of others. That is ordinary compulsion that I mention above.
This is a compatibilist position which is a subset or clarification of determinism.


Great, another hopelessly obtuse intellectual contraption. Again, how is this applicable to the abortion wars?

Also, to your "greater satisfaction", you posted it. Given your own understanding of determinism was there ever the possibility that you could have opted not to post it? Can you freely rethink it all through again and then come back here tomorrow and change your mind?

And how can the laws of nature themselves not be the mother of all compulsions? Nothing and no one is external to that.

But, again, only given my own wild ass guess here.


Sculptor wrote: Why are you beating around the bush?
What is your position here? Or are you just content to dance?


More to the point, was I ever able to have done otherwise given your own understanding of determinism?

Sculptor wrote: This waltz is the most absurd of your moves.: "And how can the laws of nature themselves not be the mother of all compulsions? Nothing and no one is external to that. "


Right, like that is not the conclusion any number of determinists come to.

Sculptor wrote: The laws of nature are codes written by humans, they have no volition, they are not any kind of mother, nor do they compel. They are just descriptions of and reductions of reality.

Nature as it is, simply acts to necessity. It is absurd to call that compulsion or to give it human characteristics. You seem to be living in a child's world of animism, to formulate such a question. I'd suggest you read some Spinoza, but I think you would simply miss the point. His "god" is necessity. "God" has no desire, need, volition, it is more like the structure of reality.


I'm sorry, but: HUH?!!

Physics, chemistry, biology, geology, meteorology, etc. etc. etc., are just codes written by us?

Or, if not that, we've been here before when you noted that nature doesn't compel us. It just is what it is. Only we have no idea going back to a comprehensive understanding of existence itself if there is a teleological component to nature. Something along the lines of, say, the No God Buddhist religion. Or the many pantheist narratives.

We just don't know. Well, not counting the many metaphysical objectivists we've encountered here at ILP over the years.

Again, are you one of them?

And if you just shrug and say nature "is what it is" what does that tell us about the human condition given that it is clearly a part of nature.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:56 pm

Meno_ wrote:You guys will hate me for saying this, and need not consider it, but I am compelled to say, that the appearent contradictions in your interchange points to a problem with the structural design within which your arguments are bracketed. within.

By de-sign i mean the current interpretation of mutually understood signs, deconstructed to yhap particular level of mutual understanding

That level frames the signals of communication in terms which may exclude one anothether at relevant points by definition.


Note to nature:

And to think you've had billions and billions of years to practice!! 8)
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Wed Jun 09, 2021 7:15 pm

Yes, squeezed into one micro second!
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9054
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Jun 09, 2021 7:23 pm

iambiguous wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote: So I was right - you are having trouble understanding the issue.


Right in the sense that nature determined that you could never have thought to yourself that you were wrong.

That kind of "right"?

As for understanding the issue, again, from my frame of mind, you want your cake here and to eat it too. You want to argue for determinism but also to insist that you "win" here becasue you claim to understand the issue while I don't. As though either of us can grapple with the issue other than as nature compels us to.

obsrvr524 wrote: The issue is NOT about whether the person believes in determinism or free-will or even if he thinks it is an important issue - that is not what I meant by it not mattering.


Who cares about the way you mean that anything matters if the only way that you could ever have meant it matters is necessarily in sync with laws of matter?

And that would certainly include what you think matters about Trump and Biden.

Right?

Nature then continues your "narrative":

obsrvr524 wrote: What I meant was that whether he is concerned about determinism or not - his situation is the same - requiring the same priorities and the same consequences. If he believes in determinism he might make a different choice as to what to do - but either way he is still stuck with a flat tire and must choose between limited options. The best option will be the same whether he had free-will or not. The worst option will be the same whether he had free-will or not. The only difference his belief makes is in offering confusion and delays. The tire isn't going to choose to inflate on its own regardless of his beliefs.


Okay, but, as I noted with Phyllo above, what about this part:

"Okay, John punctures your tires. All four of them. But, unlike with the tires themselves, there is a discussion and debate among scientists and philosophers and others as to whether John could of his own volition have chosen not to puncture them. And whether the reason that John acted in this manner was derived from his capacity to think the situation through and freely opt to choose to do it. Or whether that reason too, in and of itself, was fated/destined given the laws of matter. The tire doesn't grapple with being inflated or flat as a 'problem'/problem. You do."

So you are just so blinded by your bias and prejudice and emotional issues that you cannot understand the concepts at hand.

No point in arguing with a dog about color.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2924
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jun 09, 2021 7:26 pm

Meno_ wrote:Yes, squeezed into one micro second!


Of course we'll need Nature to confirm this.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jun 09, 2021 7:45 pm

iambiguous wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote: So I was right - you are having trouble understanding the issue.


Right in the sense that nature determined that you could never have thought to yourself that you were wrong.

That kind of "right"?

As for understanding the issue, again, from my frame of mind, you want your cake here and to eat it too. You want to argue for determinism but also to insist that you "win" here becasue you claim to understand the issue while I don't. As though either of us can grapple with the issue other than as nature compels us to.

obsrvr524 wrote: The issue is NOT about whether the person believes in determinism or free-will or even if he thinks it is an important issue - that is not what I meant by it not mattering.


Who cares about the way you mean that anything matters if the only way that you could ever have meant it matters is necessarily in sync with laws of matter?

And that would certainly include what you think matters about Trump and Biden.

Right?

Nature then continues your "narrative":

obsrvr524 wrote: What I meant was that whether he is concerned about determinism or not - his situation is the same - requiring the same priorities and the same consequences. If he believes in determinism he might make a different choice as to what to do - but either way he is still stuck with a flat tire and must choose between limited options. The best option will be the same whether he had free-will or not. The worst option will be the same whether he had free-will or not. The only difference his belief makes is in offering confusion and delays. The tire isn't going to choose to inflate on its own regardless of his beliefs.


Okay, but, as I noted with Phyllo above, what about this part:

"Okay, John punctures your tires. All four of them. But, unlike with the tires themselves, there is a discussion and debate among scientists and philosophers and others as to whether John could of his own volition have chosen not to puncture them. And whether the reason that John acted in this manner was derived from his capacity to think the situation through and freely opt to choose to do it. Or whether that reason too, in and of itself, was fated/destined given the laws of matter. The tire doesn't grapple with being inflated or flat as a 'problem'/problem. You do."


obsrvr524 wrote:So you are just so blinded by your bias and prejudice and emotional issues that you cannot understand the concepts at hand.

No point in arguing with a dog about color.


So, in the real deal free will world, I have managed yet again to reduce him down to completely avoiding the points I raised regarding his fanatically fulminating "heads I win/tails you lose" assessment of Trump, Biden and punctured tires.

And in a determined universe as Saint understood it? Let him tell me.

Though, alas, as I understand determinism, yes, yes, he's off the hook.

So, is Sculptor next? :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Wed Jun 09, 2021 7:47 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Meno_ wrote:Yes, squeezed into one micro second!


Of course we'll need Nature to confirm this.






H a ha!
Mother nature is not to be excluded from our memory even in simulated contextual relevance
Even as a footnote to near infinite descending footnotos to even a single reference and then some.



"Abstract

Augenblick, meaning literally 'In the blink of an eye', describes a 'decisive moment' in time that is fleeting, yet momentously eventful and incredibly significant. In this book, Koral Ward investigates the development of the concept into one of the core ideas in Western existential philosophy, alongside such concepts as anxiety and individual freedom. From its inception of this idea in Kierkegaard's works and the writings of Jaspers and Heidegger, Ward draws on a vast array of sources beyond just the standard figures of 19th and 20th century Continental philosophy, finding ideas and examples in photography, cinema, music, art, and the modern novel.




Citations (12)

References (3)

... With this concept it is difficult to surmise the line between Bloch's philosophy and his interpretation of Faust. While there is a vast amount of literature discussed in the Principle of Hope, it would seem that Bloch's definition of the fulfilled moment comes from the interpreted text itself, rather than philosophical concepts like anticipatory consciousness; indeed, Goethe's description of Faust's vision of a future schönste Augenblick has become a philosophical trope, probably due in large part to the thematic of the eternal recurrence overcoming bourgeois nihilism in Nietzsche's Zarathustra, and Kierkegaard before him, and thus contributed to the modern discourse on temporality and transcendence(Ward 2008). Bloch and Lukács were both heavily influenced by the problematics introduced by the reception of Nietzsche's critique of modernity, as were most European fields of philosophy, as well as Goethe's Faust. ...
Faustian Modernity: rethinking mythos and logos in German social theory after Goethe's Faust
Thesis

Full-text available
Jan 2020
Julian J Potte
Show abstract

... The second group consists of people who ignore it and supposedly neutralize it by logic and justifications which are apparently rooted in some firm principles. However, the third group accept the conflicts courageously and gain power from the existing inconsistencies (Ward, 2016). This situation can alter the thought of "I" and creates a different view of "self" (Kheradmand & Nazar Nejad, 2012). ...
Meeting death and embracing existential loneliness: A cancer patient’s experience of being the sole author of his life
Article
Full-text available

Feb 2020DEATH STUD
Farideh Razban
Roghayeh Mehdipour-Rabori
Masoud Rayyani
Parvin Mangolian Shahrbabaki
V

Show abstract

... The second group consists of people who ignore it and supposedly neutralize it by logic and justifications which are apparently rooted in some firm principles. However, the third group accept the conflicts courageously and gain power from the existing inconsistencies (Ward, 2016). This situation can alter the thought of "I" and creates a different view of "self" (Kheradmand & Nazar Nejad, 2012). ..

Dec 2019

Tayyebeh Gazestani
Parvin Mangolian Shahrbabaki
Roghayeh Mehdipour-Rabori
Mansooreh Azizzadeh Forouzi

Show abstract

... 42 This is not only a linguistic or semantic resemblance, rather it is also (and more significantly) a terminological and conceptual overlap. See Ward (2008). 43 David F. Swenson also opts for ''the moment'' in his translation of Philosophical Fragments. ...
The moment of self-transformation: Kierkegaard on suffering and the subject

Jun 2016Continent Philos Rev
Samuel Cuff Snow
View
Show abstract

Merab Mamardashvili: the concept of event and the post-secular situation

Show abstract

IMAGE FLOW: Photography on tap
Article

Show abstract

Instante y situación. Problematización de la relación entre instante y situación en torno a Ser y tiempo de Martin Heidegger


Show abstract

Emergent Times: Disruptive Logic as a Breeding Ground



The Spengler Connection: Total Critiques of Reason After the Great War



Darkness in a Blink of an Eye: action and the onto-poetics of a beyond

Show abstract
A Hermeneutics of Love for Community-Based, Participatory Action Research

Jul 2015J HUMANIST PSYCHOL
Robert Garfield McInerney


The Paralyzing Instant

Il cinema tra estetica e semiotica
January 2002
ARMANDO FUMAGALLI


Philosophie, modernité, politique. Éric Weil, critique de Martin Heidegger
January 2001 · Revue des Sciences Religieuses
Francis Guibal
Three moments of the debate between Weil and Heidegger are presented here. The "Heidegger's case" (1947) is the more obvious : the existential philosophy is judged as being negatively responsible of a (nazian) comittment that it could not forbid. The Logique of Philosophy (1950) deepens the view : this occasionnai thought has the singular interest of showing how the "finite" does let itself being ... [Show full abstract]Read more

American Continental Philosophy in the Making: The Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philoso...
January 2012 · The Journal of Speculative Philosophy
Robert C. Scharff
I want to start by seconding what others have already said about how lucky we were to come of philosophical age as the Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy (SPEP) was being born. I look back in wonder at how many of the early speakers were in fact primary sources for American Continental philosophy, either present in the flesh or directly represented by their students. By the ...

Existential humanism and philosophical poetics
January 2004

Tomas Kačerauskas
The article is devoted to the analysis of the humanism of Sartre and Heidegger. The human being of Sartre is a project of the freedom, the creative whole of the past and the future. The existence of Heidegger is a temporal project too. The recognition of the being to the death allows to enlarge this project. According to the author of the article the humanism is not separated from the poetical ...
© 2008-2021 ResearchGate GmbH. All rights reserved.



Wish I had the naive pride necessary to find even the time available at one glance & counting.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9054
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jun 09, 2021 7:49 pm

Meno_ wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Meno_ wrote:Yes, squeezed into one micro second!


Of course we'll need Nature to confirm this.






H a ha!
Mother nature is not to be excluded from our memory even in simulated contextual relevance
Even as a footnote to near infinite descending footnotos to even a single reference and then some.



"Abstract

Augenblick, meaning literally 'In the blink of an eye', describes a 'decisive moment' in time that is fleeting, yet momentously eventful and incredibly significant. In this book, Koral Ward investigates the development of the concept into one of the core ideas in Western existential philosophy, alongside such concepts as anxiety and individual freedom. From its inception of this idea in Kierkegaard's works and the writings of Jaspers and Heidegger, Ward draws on a vast array of sources beyond just the standard figures of 19th and 20th century Continental philosophy, finding ideas and examples in photography, cinema, music, art, and the modern novel.




Citations (12)

References (3)

... With this concept it is difficult to surmise the line between Bloch's philosophy and his interpretation of Faust. While there is a vast amount of literature discussed in the Principle of Hope, it would seem that Bloch's definition of the fulfilled moment comes from the interpreted text itself, rather than philosophical concepts like anticipatory consciousness; indeed, Goethe's description of Faust's vision of a future schönste Augenblick has become a philosophical trope, probably due in large part to the thematic of the eternal recurrence overcoming bourgeois nihilism in Nietzsche's Zarathustra, and Kierkegaard before him, and thus contributed to the modern discourse on temporality and transcendence(Ward 2008). Bloch and Lukács were both heavily influenced by the problematics introduced by the reception of Nietzsche's critique of modernity, as were most European fields of philosophy, as well as Goethe's Faust. ...
Faustian Modernity: rethinking mythos and logos in German social theory after Goethe's Faust
Thesis

Full-text available
Jan 2020
Julian J Potte
Show abstract

... The second group consists of people who ignore it and supposedly neutralize it by logic and justifications which are apparently rooted in some firm principles. However, the third group accept the conflicts courageously and gain power from the existing inconsistencies (Ward, 2016). This situation can alter the thought of "I" and creates a different view of "self" (Kheradmand & Nazar Nejad, 2012). ...
Meeting death and embracing existential loneliness: A cancer patient’s experience of being the sole author of his life
Article
Full-text available

Feb 2020DEATH STUD
Farideh Razban
Roghayeh Mehdipour-Rabori
Masoud Rayyani
Parvin Mangolian Shahrbabaki
V

Show abstract

... The second group consists of people who ignore it and supposedly neutralize it by logic and justifications which are apparently rooted in some firm principles. However, the third group accept the conflicts courageously and gain power from the existing inconsistencies (Ward, 2016). This situation can alter the thought of "I" and creates a different view of "self" (Kheradmand & Nazar Nejad, 2012). ..

Dec 2019

Tayyebeh Gazestani
Parvin Mangolian Shahrbabaki
Roghayeh Mehdipour-Rabori
Mansooreh Azizzadeh Forouzi

Show abstract

... 42 This is not only a linguistic or semantic resemblance, rather it is also (and more significantly) a terminological and conceptual overlap. See Ward (2008). 43 David F. Swenson also opts for ''the moment'' in his translation of Philosophical Fragments. ...
The moment of self-transformation: Kierkegaard on suffering and the subject

Jun 2016Continent Philos Rev
Samuel Cuff Snow
View
Show abstract

Merab Mamardashvili: the concept of event and the post-secular situation

Show abstract

IMAGE FLOW: Photography on tap
Article

Show abstract

Instante y situación. Problematización de la relación entre instante y situación en torno a Ser y tiempo de Martin Heidegger


Show abstract

Emergent Times: Disruptive Logic as a Breeding Ground



The Spengler Connection: Total Critiques of Reason After the Great War



Darkness in a Blink of an Eye: action and the onto-poetics of a beyond

Show abstract
A Hermeneutics of Love for Community-Based, Participatory Action Research

Jul 2015J HUMANIST PSYCHOL
Robert Garfield McInerney


The Paralyzing Instant

Il cinema tra estetica e semiotica
January 2002
ARMANDO FUMAGALLI


Philosophie, modernité, politique. Éric Weil, critique de Martin Heidegger
January 2001 · Revue des Sciences Religieuses
Francis Guibal
Three moments of the debate between Weil and Heidegger are presented here. The "Heidegger's case" (1947) is the more obvious : the existential philosophy is judged as being negatively responsible of a (nazian) comittment that it could not forbid. The Logique of Philosophy (1950) deepens the view : this occasionnai thought has the singular interest of showing how the "finite" does let itself being ... [Show full abstract]Read more

American Continental Philosophy in the Making: The Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philoso...
January 2012 · The Journal of Speculative Philosophy
Robert C. Scharff
I want to start by seconding what others have already said about how lucky we were to come of philosophical age as the Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy (SPEP) was being born. I look back in wonder at how many of the early speakers were in fact primary sources for American Continental philosophy, either present in the flesh or directly represented by their students. By the ...

Existential humanism and philosophical poetics
January 2004

Tomas Kačerauskas
The article is devoted to the analysis of the humanism of Sartre and Heidegger. The human being of Sartre is a project of the freedom, the creative whole of the past and the future. The existence of Heidegger is a temporal project too. The recognition of the being to the death allows to enlarge this project. According to the author of the article the humanism is not separated from the poetical ...
© 2008-2021 ResearchGate GmbH. All rights reserved.



Wish I had the naive pride necessary to find even the time available at one glance & counting.


Key word: abstract.

If you know what nature compels me to mean. And it's not like you could or could not.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Wed Jun 09, 2021 8:52 pm

Iambigious says:

"If you know what nature compels me to mean. And it's not like you could or could not.[/quote]"



Right! But it's between like would or could.

not"
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9054
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:17 pm

iambiguous wrote:
If you know what nature compels me to mean. And it's not like you could or could not.



Meno_ wrote:Right!


Note to nature:

I'm leaving it at that, okay?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:23 pm

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
If you know what nature compels me to mean. And it's not like you could or could not.



Meno_ wrote:Right!


Note to nature:

I'm leaving it at that, okay?




Sure.




& 4 the llove of god I wish You would / could!
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9054
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:42 pm

iambiguous wrote:
If you know what nature compels me to mean. And it's not like you could or could not.


Meno_ wrote: Right!


iambiguous wrote:Note to nature:

I'm leaving it at that, okay?


Let's now explore how nature reveals itself through Meno:

First this:

Meno_ wrote: Sure.


Short and to the point. Perfectly understandable.

But then nature compels itself to mull that over and come back further with this:

Meno_ wrote:& 4 the llove of god I wish You would / could!


Here I can only hope that nature compels ecmandu to explain it to me. 8)
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Wed Jun 09, 2021 10:07 pm

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
If you know what nature compels me to mean. And it's not like you could or could not.


Meno_ wrote: Right!


iambiguous wrote:Note to nature:

I'm leaving it at that, okay?


Let's now explore how nature reveals itself through Meno:

First this:

Meno_ wrote: Sure.


Short and to the point. Perfectly understandable.

But then nature compels itself to mull that over and come back further with this:

Meno_ wrote:& 4 the llove of god I wish You would / could!


Here I can only hope that nature compels ecmandu to explain it to me. 8)



We'l l wait for that, but until then the thought of the more getting away from 'her'(nature) the more holes are needed to fill up the. ever emerging gaps, becomes evident. Course don't take it litetally!
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9054
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users