The only reading of that collection of contradictory quotes that makes sense to me would be to see them all as instances of a contemporary attempt to tie the concept of 'free will' to christianity — csalisbury
Don't really think that imagery is helpful or useful. — StreetlightX
From my perspective, by linguistic convention I should at least say that "you have a choice as to what you eat" with respect to the imprecise situation you put forward. — sime
Supposing you now reveal that you have an allergy for cream. Then i might now say "it appears that you don't have that much of a choice relative to my previous understanding, given your newly admitted allergy for cream"
The question is, does there exist an absolutely precise and exhaustively describable circumstance that you can describe, or that I can observe, under which I am at least permitted to say without fear of controversy, that you have absolutely no choice but to take one of the presented options? — sime
Assume I've given all the relevant information, for the sake of discussion. — bert1
In the scenario, I am very hungry and want one of the cakes. I have a choice whether to eat a cake or not (according to street). The deliberation involves feelings of hunger and desire (nothing else). I eat one of the cakes. Not eating one of the cakes in this circumstance would involve other factors which I have not given (i.e. madness, cream allergy, diabetes, obesity, hallucination etc). My choice to eat one of the cakes is highly determined.
However I really don't mind at all which cake I eat. I make a choice and eat the jam doughnut. The question is, is this decision determined or not? I don't think it is. I think it is a free arbitrary choice. Is this even possible do you think? It's logically possible. Is it metaphysically possible? Physically possible? Psychologically possible? Or is there always a determinant? — bert1
Regarding vagueness, indulge me with this idealised scenario, which I grant might be impossible to actually exist. Just as the non-existence of perfect circles does not stop us calculating using assumptions of perfect circles when designing machines, I want to contrast the concepts of free and determined choice by using an idealised scenario. — bert1
Can we come up with an alternative account of freedom and responsibility that is simple enough for everyone to understand and consistent enough with ordinary notions of fairness such as to be acceptable to everyone? I have yet to see any such account. I have not yet seen any coherent alternative account that is consistent with ordinary notions of personal responsibility at all, whether simple or complex. — Janus
All of this in radical distinction to the solipsism of the fucking will, which bursts out of nowhere from some inner who-knows-what, engineered to be deliberately and radically distinct from any environment or world, meant solely to lash us ever more tightly to God least we burn in hell for not following his dictates. — StreetlightX
(They've been like six or seven threads on free will in the past week or so on the forum alone, each consecutive one more miserable than the other). — StreetlightX
In addition, explain having laws - as they would have no sway without the subject possessing the freedom of will, otherwise said, the freedom of self-determination. — Shamshir
Funnily enough I wasn't asking about Aristotle, I was asking you - and without fail, you produce a tangent and no answer.Funnily enough, for Aristotle, who had neither the word nor concept of 'machine', slaves were what he called 'animate instruments' (ktema ti empsychon) or 'instruments for instruments' (organon pro organon) (in the Politics). This was precisely in contrast to the free man, or master, who was distinguished by his use of slaves. One of the things this kind of approach brings out what counts as free or not free is not a metaphysical distinction, but a mobile one: that freedom is not coextensive with man as such, but with some men and not others. — StreetlightX
Neither is it in contrast, nor is that a distinguishing feature - but a proprietary status.This was precisely in contrast to the free man, or master, who was distinguished by his use of slaves.
The certain distinction between machine and man - is that man is fully autonomous.Aristotle's analysis of slaves notwithstanding, the takeaway here is that there is no reason to think that man can't be equated with machines, if certain conditions of freedom are not upheld. — StreetlightX
No it wouldn't mean any of that gibberish, you're squeezing in here everytime, to spite something you supposedly don't believe in.But thinking in this way would would mean, once again, having to give up the incredibly stupid idea of free will as some kind of a priori metaphysical guarantee of human freedom, served on a plate to man by God. — StreetlightX
It would require effort to ride a bike, simply reading a tutorial on riding a bike won't do.It would require, again, looking at the world, observing conditions, making at effort at understanding, and acting provisionally and with risk. This no doubt offends the sensibilities of those who think man is in any way special, which can only be a good thing. — StreetlightX
And you being the unthinking knee-jerk decided to respond. Alright.In any case, your questions at this point are just poo-lobbing from the monkey pen. They're unthinking knee-jerks beneath response. If you have something substantial and interesting to say, say it. No one gives a fuck about Egyptian ceremonies. — StreetlightX
Could've fooled me."A remarkable example of classical Egyptian philosophy is found in a 3,200-year-old text named “The Immortality of Writers.” This skeptical, rationalistic, and revolutionary manuscript was discovered during excavations in the 1920s, in the ancient scribal village of Deir El-Medina, across the Nile from Luxor, some 400 miles up the river from Cairo. Fittingly, this intellectual village was originally known as Set Maat: “Place of Truth.”"
Rest of the article details how the Egyptians were likely the progenitors of Greek philosophy. 'Tis good stuff. — StreetlightX
The message of Genesis isn't actually that humans screwed up listening to the Devil - and neither is the Devil implied within the Genesis story. The Devil is a title similar to Satan - in that it means misleader - and it is a title that is implied for many angels, both fallen and not fallen.The Devil (the word has a Persian origin) is an image of primal defiance; the existence of a will counter to God's. The message of Genesis is that humans screwed up by listening to the voice of the Devil and should leave behind a free will in favor of a will united with God's. But a person who is all good in every word, thought, and deed would seem to have no will of her own. So in this scenario the idea of a substantial self is directly tied to wrong-doing. The self is a problem, but not the source of good or evil. The sources are out in the cosmos. — frank
It's also the stance Paracelsus held.This conception of will is similar in some ways to the Stoic version which identifies all evil as a state of disease resulting from straying from the ways of Nature. For the Stoic, evil is always self-correcting because the tree that fails to grow toward the light dies. There's no need to punish it. — frank
Their origin is indeed based on discernment, though their prescription is based on judgement.In both of these outlooks, laws are divine in origin, which means they come from human discernment, not human judgment. We learn to judge by recognizing the truth of the laws. — frank
I would equate the Egyptian version with the Japanese Right way of Being, often conflated with Chinese Taoism.Do you think the Egyptian version is like that? Or different? — frank
The message of Genesis isn't actually that humans screwed up listening to the Devil - and neither is the Devil implied within the Genesis story. The Devil is a title similar to Satan - in that it means misleader - and it is a title that is implied for many angels, both fallen and not fallen. — Shamshir
The message is actually that the manmaker kept his promise in procuring free will for his creation.
If he were to disallow mankind to make mistakes, he would disallow them free will - so he would have to do what he did with Job, and more or less gamble - having them figure it out themselves. — Shamshir
Neither am I; though it doesn't matter.So what are we doing? Theology or anthropology? I'm not interested in theology because I'm not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. — frank
And I told you, over the last few millenia it's been interpreted and misinterpreted to the extent of debilitation.If we're studying human society, we look to how the text has been interpreted for the last few millennia, and so we know the Devil is most certainly mentioned in Genesis (newsflash: it's the snake) and the word Devil is Persian in origin. It has the same origin as deva, and it referred to the gods of the nomadic people who eventually became the Indians. — frank
It's a practical explanation.Again, you're doing theology, not anthropology. Plus your theology gives rise to the famous puzzle that God apparently set humanity up to fail and then punishes them for it. God the psychopath. — frank
To begin with the question of justice, I'm not that convinced that there really is any univocal understanding of 'modern' justice. I say this insofar as I'm cognisant of the raging debates that take place in modern philosophy over exactly this question, and understand it to be a rather open field. — StreetlightX
My understanding, such as it is, is that ancient ideas of personal responsibility were, by and large, rationally consistent with revenge models of justice. — Janus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.