So apart from following your own philosophy and trying to live a happy life you are doing nothing to make the world a better place.
Endorsing meliorism and practicing it are apparently two very distinct things then. Much better to not endorse something if you cannot practice it. — Sir2u

I think attempting to live by a set of universalizable rules is the most practical way to make the world a better place, expressing itself in one's every action.

You have absolutely no grounds for saying I am doing nothing to make the world a better place and are essentially offering me personal insult. That does not say much for your own philosophy.

Side stepping the question does not help. I asked what EFFORT you are making to improve the world, not which books you are reading.
Conforming to the principles of long dead philosophers, or even many living ones for that matter, is not going to make the world any better.
Thinking like or thinking about everyone else in the hood is not necessarily a good thing. Conformists are usually a bad thing in the end. — Sir2u

I'm conforming to my own system, thank you very much. And the standard to which I hold that conformance is the currency of my own happiness and the happiness of those around me. And I very much feel I am living up to my personal philosophy every day. I stand by my philosophy and I make every effort to live by it every day, as anyone who knows me personally will vouchsafe I am sure.

What effort are you going to make to improve the world? — Sir2u

Well, my efforts at understanding have culminated in the discovery and embrace of a lot of highly "social" philosophies (like Mead, Marx, Habermas) which are oriented primarily around the notion of a communal good and a communal mind. And I am endeavouring to live my life according to principles conformant with those philosophies. And I feel that this is working, in my own life and in what I am able to give back to my community....Including rationalizing this activity.

In what way? — Sir2u

In the way that you just rejected meliorism, which I endorse. I think that is pretty straightforward.

Then that is what they call a "fundamental disagreement". I think that I can make a positive contribution, you think you cannot.

And there is the key question. A brighter future for whom or what? — Sir2u

It's just the difference between optimism and pessimism really, isn't it?

You cannot simply divorce humanity from nature by fiat. Whether you approve or disprove of our actions, we are as much a part of nature as everything else. Speaking personally, I feel that global recognition of this fact is the key to a brighter future. Systems Theorists in general also tend to this view. Organicism.

Made it through Capital, volume I in about seven weeks.

Starting Capital, volume II. It's the smallest of the three volumes, weighing in at a meagre 600 pages....

edit: finished Mind, Self, and Society - one of the best books I have ever read. I'd highly recommend this for anyone with an interest in social psychology.

On to Weber's Economy and Society now. I'll need to do another big book buy soon.

edit: throwing Sartor Resartus into the mix for good measure

Mother Nature will take care of fixing herself — Sir2u

"You imply disparity where none exists"

Atheism is the lack of a (religious) ideology It's there in the name. A (not) theism (religion). You qualify as an atheist simply by not believing in a god or gods. — Baden

Given the fact that most atheists (I have encountered) tend to be of the proselytizing variety, perhaps "rejection of religious ideology" would be more accurate?

An opinion that a painting is beautiful is formed by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will. To choose the opinion that the painting is ugly, would be equally logically valid. To be forced to say the painting is beautiful, provides an invalid opinion. — Syamsu

Not necessarily invalid, merely arbitrary.

If what I’m talking about is not the state then I’m happy to consider another term for what I’m talking about. Because I don’t see the individual as being up against governance only, as if everything the individual comes into conflict with springs from authority — Brett

Yes, I thought you were talking about some kind of social collective basically, and were using the term "state" loosely.

I notice you mention Weber. Have you read any Mead? Because one of the books I'm reading right now seems to go to the heart of this topic. It's called "Mind, Self, and Society" and it is quickly becoming one of my favourites.

The world universe does not need us to be here. Why would anyone think that anything we do would make the place better. — Sir2u

As I said, the human race is as much a part of the universe as anything else, so your premise, or rather, your objection to my premise, is flawed.

don’t see any difference except in size. And size may very well be the problem. But it’s a fact that can’t be ignored. I think states do — Brett

I think there is a significant difference between an organic community (family/clan/tribe) and one that is institutionalized (polity)

State does not equate to community — I like sushi

This is true. The state is an institution which appeared relatively late in the collective project.

Is it possible that this psychological response to the edict of hard-determinism is an argument against that hypothesis?

Being able to stay calm in situations that most people do not, doesn't mean anything other than they can stay calm in situations where most people do not. I can do the same thing. Humans and other animals have emotional reactions to specific stimuli in varying degrees. Some humans freak out over tiny things, like leaving their house (agoraphobia) and others don't react emotionally much at all (sociopaths). — Malice

Actually, there is a strong biological foundation for "delayed reaction" being fundamental to the development of more sophisticated responses (and response mechanisms). The earliest manifestations of neurogenesis (that is, in the evolutionary development of nerve, and ultimately cortical, cells) are associated with the phenomenon of hysteresis (delay in signal transmission). In fact, this occurs in the simplest organisms, where the membrane functions to delay the immediate responses to chemical changes in the environment.

So, perhaps the phylogenetic basis of "reflection"?

The world is getting along just fine, actually much better without us humans right now so I think that is sort of a nonsensical idea. — Sir2u

Why would you eliminate humanity from the equation? That was never part of the discussion. The human species is as much a part of the world (universe) as everything else, and so deserves the benefit of melioration. Unless you are an anti-meliorist.

OK, but isn't that just saying what we already know and why there is a problem? Brains are material things that engage in complex processes, so this statement boils down to saying that consciousness is the same as complex system properties. Is anyone convinced by that? Isn't this just claiming that Chalmers' easy problems explain the hard problem? — Graeme M

No, it is quite another thing. As said, you would need to be sufficiently versed in the vocabulary and concepts of Systems Philosophy to be able to grasp what is being presented. Laszlo very specifically addresses it, in the introduction I think. It is a compelling description.

any choice is either conservative or progressive — Syamsu

I would agree that there is some kind of a "gradient" applicable to the choices of free-will. It seems that you might be operating in a framework of meliorism, which is definitely my own orientation.

:up: Thanks!

Or choosing Coke instead of Pepsi? Like that?

Which is why I posted. I don't understand "making present an alternative possible future"? It is all so abstract, I cannot relate to it.

Free-will equals the power to choose?

Sounds ok to me.

So what is the proper definition of "free-will" which you are suggesting?

Does this not give you the impression that like a rock - always complying, never resisting nature's laws - our minds too are under the sway of logic, a law in its own right, and thereafter to "follow where reason leads" is to immediately realize that the only reasonable position is to face reality with "stoic calm"? — TheMadFool

Agreed. Stoicism has this sense of dispassion. But I think not all stoicism really implies this. There was some discussion of this around the M. Pigliucci topics.

gather from some of the articles I have read this means that any material object has a mind, of sorts at least. — Graeme M

It helps if you can learn to adjust your concept of mind. Systems Philosophy takes the phenomena of complex adaptive systems as fundamental. So what we think of as mental processes in this light are seen in more general terms as features of complex systems, feedback, control, increasing complexity and self-organization, etc. When you familiarize yourself with the theory and the vocabulary, then you can begin to see how material things can participate in what we call consciousness, to the extent that they likewise instantiate these properties or tendencies.

I recommend Laszlo's Introduction to Systems Philosophy, which touches on the issue. Von Bertalanffy also.

I provide IT support in the medical community. Typically, having computer problems and dealing with your tech guy is pretty stressful. These folks have so many times asked me how I manage to stay so constantly calm and tranquil. I figure, when a psychiatric counselor asks you your secret of serenity, you are moving in the right direction.

I don't feel I have suppressed anything, just reached a healthy state of mind. I am deeply passionate about many issues, which only motivates me to work even harder.

It is important to have the correct understanding of free will. — Syamsu

I find that different people are motivated by different objectives which can result in differing perspectives on the same thing, or differing uses of the same thing.

That being the case, I believe it makes rather more sense to focus on areas of core agreement than to quibble about peripheral areas which may not be actual disagreements, but simply areas in which our objectives do not overlap.

@Syamsu Could you provide a positive statement of your conception of the role or significance of free will (rather than a refutation of what to me is an illusory problem)?

How do you explain the "stoic calm", an allegedly possible state, even in the eye of a storm, in the midst of causally potent chaos? There are expressions in ordinary language like "he didn't bat an eyelid", "she was unfazed by his disparaging remarks", etc. that bespeak of such mind states that are practically isolated from the causal web. — TheMadFool

I have cultivated this state of mind for ages, with much success. Near the end of my undergrad, in the late eighties, I was reading in a Greek diner near Bloor and Spadina when the waitress dropped a whole tray full of glasses. I did not even blink, but in my peripheral vision it was quite easy to see every other head in the place whip around simultaneously. To me, it is a desideratum.

↪Pantagruel I’m not talking about free will vs determinism, but about incompatibilism vs compatibilism. The free will vs determinism argument only applies to incompatibilists, which Syamsu definitely is, and you seem also to be. Compatibilists think that's a false dichotomy.

Also, I think everyone in this thread agrees that free will exists. Syamsu just wants to talk about what it's like. — Pfhorrest

Yes, I know Syamsu believes in free will, I would never post to argue it. I don't think he realized I also endorse it, which is why I wondered if he were not a native english speaker.

As far as both free-will and determinism being true, Systems Theory nicely sorts that out, without much fuss. I suppose it is compatiblist, in that sense.

I believe, with Descartes, that free will is an essential component of thought, so the idea of eliminating free will, for me, is the same as eliminating thought.

you don't want to understand how it works — Syamsu

What's to understand? I will...I do. It's not rocket science. It's an empirical fact.

↪Pantagruel Again with your bizarre attitude. Just like with EVERYTHING else, the logic of how it works must be explained. And the dictionary definitions are corrupt for catering to free will deniers. Or dictionary definitions are talkative, and not really strictly logical.

The logic of free will does not function, when agency is asserted to be a factual issue. That is why it is essential for comprehension of free will to know that what the agency is, is a matter of chosen opinion. — Syamsu

Sorry. Maybe english is not your first language?

@Pfhorrest I agree with Popper that the burden of proof rests with the determinists. Personally, I think anyone who seriously wants to deny free-will is just funny. I guess some people were just pre-destined to be comedians.... :)

No, the correct explanation of free will is, having alternative futures available, — Syamsu

That is not a standard definition of free-will. A typical definition of free-will looks like this:

free will
/ˌfrē ˈwil/
noun
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

I'm not sure what it is that you are describing, but it isn't what most of the rest of the world thinks of as free-will.

The only thing bizarre is your failure to follow a simple example. Gravity works. We knew that millenia before we knew what gravity was. Free-will is as self-evident as gravity. I choose to do x, x happens.

If you think I don't have free-will, then the burden of proof is on you.

Pantagruel What does that mean? You have to explain how it works, just like with everything else. Are you just asserting it is real, without explanation of how it works? — Syamsu

People knew that massive objects fall to earth millenia before Isaac Newton explained "how it works."

It is self-evident that people have free-will. Whether or not anyone can explain "how it works" is another whole issue.

↪Pantagruel Sorry, you should just actually read my post. — Syamsu

I did read your post. I just don't believe free will is a problem, it is a phenomenon.

Ok, well that appears to be one person's summary. And even if there is such a thing as randomness, how does this imply that the will is subject to randomness?

I think you have overstated the case. Besides which, the evidence of free will is manifest. Free will doesn't require justification, it most obviously is. It is the denial of free will that needs proof.

the common objection of professional philosophers that free will is random, and therefore meaningless, — Syamsu

I have never heard the argument that free will is random. Which professional philosophers make this claim?

Could Dennett be that confused?
Or, is he a Zombie? — hypericin

Based on other arguments I've read of his, this seems plausible.

Well, surely it is true that man evolved as a social creature before he developed a genuine sense of self? That at least is George Mead's hypothesis, which is the basis for my reasoning.

Think of a lone individual - how would the process of self-identity ever develop? Life would be nothing but an unending series of environmental interactions. Conscious, maybe, but not self-conscious. Self is a social product.