These are not universal truths...

[Faust]

Free will is interesting only in that it informs our thinking about moral agency. It is metaphysics, and therefore not to be taken seriously. It's a useful assumption, but it is not a primary consideration in social justice.

Social justice is mostly concerned with preserving various equilibria.

Determinism is a political idea.

A claim is true or false. Claims are the only things that are true or false. You could throw in "indeterminate" as a type of claim, or you could avoid this.

"I have a pet named Max" is the same as "it is true that I have a pet named Max". The tricky part is, believe it or not, to remember the redundancy.

If "reality" doesn't mean "the empirical world" to you, you're probably a philosopher. If it does, you can relax. You're gonna be okay.

We don't really have to know how we know, or even if we know. Epistemology is all about God. Or some god, anyway. It used to be that you couldn't, as a professional philosopher, put forth a moral theory without an epistemological one.

There are no "necessary truths." "Necessary" has, for some, taken the place of "objective."

Progress.

"All unmarried men are bachelors," is, lest we forget, the most trivial claim we can make. Philosophy should deal with the ordinary, but not the trivial.

Philosophy is a peculiar srudy of language. That's all it is, yet it can seem so difficult.

What in god's name does "universal truth" even mean?

[Urwrongx1000]

Free will is ... not to be taken seriously

Sounds like something you'd say on a Southern plantation, holding a whip, disciplining the slaves.

Although most people around here know how amateur your arguments are, rest assured, Free-Will does matter in everybody's lives.

It is not "metaphysical". It is physical. It is a product of Physics and Physical limitations, as well as Mental limitations.

[Faust]

Freedom matters to everyone. Freedom is a much more coherent term. One difference between the two is that no one takes seriously the idea of unlimited freedom. If you're free, you're free from something. Or many things. But not everything. What is free will free from?

[Fixed Cross]

What is free will free from?

Exactly... it would only contradict determinism if it were free from itself.

[Urwrongx1000]

There is the way the world is. I don't like it. I want to change it, more suited to my preferences, desires, and want. I see an empty meadow. I'm not satisfied with the empty meadow. So I build a house for myself. That discrepancy, between no-house, to house, is a reflection of my freedom and my creativity, which are essentially the same. There are many limitations and barriers between "reality" (no house) and "idealism" (house). This is common-sense. I need to chop trees, cut wood, assemble lumber, etc. All of the limiting factors, are what people try to be "free from", or simply, overcome.

[Fixed Cross]

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.

[Urwrongx1000]

Will is an accumulation of Causes.

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.

[Faust]

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.

Free will is the devil's work...

[Fixed Cross]

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.

[Pedro I Rengel]

" social justice.
"

Before I read another fucking word, you will have to explain to me what this is.

[Faust]

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.

Like, literally excited.

[iambiguous]

Caution: Serious philosophers at work!

[Pedro I Rengel]

"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,

Social justice.

Ave María Santísima...

[Pedro I Rengel]

I remember the first time I heard social justice.

The dishonesty was so patent, I had not until know suspected people viewed it as anything than strictly realpolitikal.

[Pedro I Rengel]

This really sucks.

[Fixed Cross]

Well that escalated quickly.

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.

[Fixed Cross]

3glwhb.jpg (52.4 KiB) Viewed 8183 times

[Prismatic567]

In metaphysics, a universal is what particular things have in common, namely characteristics or qualities. In other words, universals are repeatable or recurrent entities that can be instantiated or exemplified by many particular things.[1] For example, suppose there are two chairs in a room, each of which is green. These two chairs both share the quality of "chairness", as well as greenness or the quality of being green; in other words, they share a "universal". There are three major kinds of qualities or characteristics: types or kinds (e.g. mammal), properties (e.g. short, strong), and relations (e.g. father of, next to). These are all different types of universals.[2]

Paradigmatically, universals are abstract (e.g. humanity), whereas particulars are concrete (e.g. the personhood of Socrates). However, universals are not necessarily abstract and particulars are not necessarily concrete.[3] For example, one might hold that numbers are particular yet abstract objects. Likewise, some philosophers, such as D. M. Armstrong, consider universals to be concrete.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_(metaphysics)

The problem of universals is an ancient problem in metaphysics about whether universals exist. The problem arises from attempts to account for the phenomenon of similarity or attribute agreement among things.[4] For example, grass and Granny Smith apples are similar or agree in attribute, namely in having the attribute of greenness. The issue is how to account for this sort of agreement in attribute among things.

On the Question of Truth;
Note my point here;
Truth is a Relation, Condition, and Perspective
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195337&p=2745759#p2745759

[Faust]

What is most interesting about the problem of universals is that it is still discussed.

[Ecmandu]

It's like a spell was put on all of you for a moment!!

I know you all know this, but you posted the ignorance of it anyways.

"There are not universal truths"

Is either a universal truth or not.

If it is a universal truth: then universal truths exist

If it is not a universal truth: then universal truths exist.

Yeah... I'm surprised people are talking about this still as well...

Universal truths exist regardless of your opinion,

One notable universal truth is that nobody wants their consent violated.

People can lie to themselves and others as posturing, but when push come to shove; no being/organism really WANTS this to occur.

That's a universal truth for organisms that abstract yes/no on some level.

[Urwrongx1000]

Ah yes, the Ol' the only universal truth is no universal truth routine! Didn't see that one coming...!?

[Fixed Cross]

It's like a spell was put on all of you for a moment!!

I know you all know this, but you posted the ignorance of it anyways.

"There are not universal truths"

Is either a universal truth or not.

If it is a universal truth: then universal truths exist

If it is not a universal truth: then universal truths exist.

Thats good.

One notable universal truth is that nobody wants their consent violated.

"Nobody wants what they don't want" - "all bachelors are unmarried" -

But many people want to be overruled in some respects - those where they don't seek responsibility.

[Faust]

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.

[Fixed Cross]

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.

[Dan~]

Freedom is a feeling.
You probably have felt it before.

The biggest freedom is the enslaving of body by the mind.

Freedom means active, class-distinction.

One youtube user said:
"When you want to be somewhere, and you are there, you are then free."

Merging slave and master to get over duality.

Freedom is reuniting with self.