Artimas wrote:Pg
I don’t want to speak for Meno but what I interpret from that, is that contrast or differentiation has to exist for the other to exist and he may mean for you to reintegrate that differentiation or contrast back into your philosophy so it can make sense logically/reasonably.
You mean counterfactuals? Or showing a way to falsify it? It's still very abstract for me. For me to do that, I need a concrete example of what in the book is not showing this contrast? He is speaking without any reference to the content.
Artimas wrote:The only way we can exist is through balance of varying differentiations. Take ignorance and wisdom for example, can’t be wise if there is no ignorance to be wise over. There are two or more variables in any case. Same for Determinism, we can only discuss determinism because there is a contrast or differentiation to it. If that’s what he means, Do you get it?
But the differentiation was discussed thoroughly. If we had free will (differentiation from determinism), we would be able to choose what we don't prefer in favor of what we do prefer when comparing alternatives. We could choose otherwise given the same exact scenario, but we know first of all that it is impossible to prove this. I'm not sure what I'm missing, but thank you for trying to explain.
Artimas wrote:He might mean you may be lacking a little vision if discussing singularly I think, though I am not completely sure because I’m not In Meno’s body and mind as my functioning identity. It only seems abstract, usually when thinking or discussing we think of the mass and collective of humanity, at least I do or in my own experience of discussing, it isn’t just me I think about. To evolve the species, you have to think and implement for the species collectively and figure what’s best. It may seem abstract, but it’s reasonable. If you think singularly then you only think for you and your perception is limited by you.
It's reasonable if it's clearly explained. He is making assumptions that everyone should be able to understand his very confusing terminology. I asked him to give a concrete example. He hasn't done that. I asked him what is the discovery. He didn't answer. How can someone give any kind of critique without knowing what the discovery is?

Artimas wrote:So before we progress we may need you to agree there is a differentiation/contrast and the semantics though they matter to an extent, won’t matter so much as long as it’s known and understood.
As I said, there is a differentiation between free will (the ability to choose either this option or that option equally when there are meaningful differences), and not having free will (being unable to choose what is less preferable or valuable to the individual given meaningful differences). He has proven that it is impossible to choose what offers the least satisfaction when something of greater value is offered as an alternative. Why are people making much to do out of this, when it is so obviously true using themselves as a reference. No one can judge what is good for the collective in this case since this is part of the problem; this constant judgment of what is right for everyone. The only thing this knowledge can do is remove any justification that would give someone permission to hurt others. How? By preventing all hurt to them, all critical judgment, and all blame from the environment. Obviously that's not an easy task, which is why he did not say we should suddenly stop blaming. There's much more to it than that. I agree that semantics is not a problem if it can be straightened out. The terms "free", "greater satisfaction", "will", "choice", "cause", and "determinism" can create major problems in communication if they are not defined in accordance with the definitions being articulated. There is a definite problem with the conventional definition of determinism (which brings up a cascade of issues with all the other terms) since nothing causes us to do anything (which is implied in the definition) if we don't want to, or against or will. Iambiguous still doesn't understand that, and says it's an intellectual contraption in the author's head.
