That's it!

At least, I pretend .... You don't. — Tarskian

Nailed it, finally!

Isn’t our will not free because of limits, constraints, and entanglements? — praxis

Among other things. There is all that previous cause-and-affect stuff threading through the universe since its inception - bang or whimper, who knows? There are all the other influences, noticed and unnoticed, that have affected our thinking, perception, judgment and desires. There are a million things we don't know about that may have a bearing on every decision we make, every action we take....

I have no faith in the freedom of will, but I live as if it were a constant reality - because: What are the options?

If we had free will it seems like we wouldn’t make so many bad choices. — praxis

Well, there's other stuff at play. Stupidity and ignorance limit the range of freedom to choose. So do physical constraints and emotional entanglements. Sometimes the choice as we perceive it is not the real choice available, and sometimes reason is the least significant factor in a decision.

Looking at the level of global self-organizing processes of a living system will reveal a non-linear reciprocal causality that moves between the global and the elemental. — Joshs

Aha. It also oscillates backward and forward in time. Well, why not?
Of course, I don't know what self-organizing means in any global context, nor how Kant or Hume could have demonstrated that events in the world are uncaused. But that's okay; I'm not wedded to any philosophers, only to a physicist.

Put differently, in complex systems the past is changed by the present that it functions in. — Joshs

Sure events are rewritten in partisan histories, time travel stories and human memories. I've never seen it in a chemical reaction; thus remain unswayed.

No, I haven't. I'll put it on the list.

You aren’t limited to one act. At each moment there are an unfathomable series of acts being committed. — NOS4A2

How many of those have you committed in the past second? Each of your reasoned decisions can only result in one action.

In one case the basic biology and metaphysics is dead wrong. Nothing else determines one’s actions. — NOS4A2

Prove it. We simply cannot know from internal experience what confluence of factors caused all the previous experiences.
You believe one version of events, I believe another. No winners or losers - it just is.

Given this, we can conclude we could have acted differently for the simple reason we are not limited to only one act. — NOS4A2

In any given situation, you are, quite literally limited to only one act. Thinking you 'could have' acted differently is natural: if the act turned out to be incorrect, you can regret it and wish you could back and choose a different path. But you can't. If it turns out to be right, you can congratulate yourself. No harm in that.
It simply doesn't matter.

If you deny freedom, then you excuse yourself from responsibility for everything that freedom implies, but also forgo whatever benefits it confers. — Pantagruel

Denial or acceptance doesn't change anything. If you believe in free will, you can rationalize and justify your actions; if you don't, you can excuse yourself on those grounds. The benefits are either available or not; they're neither gained nor lost through belief.

Consider him considered. Plus Paul the fake apostle. That's two, I suppose you can add Socrates and Darrell Standing - still not a universal condition.

Kant says the "idea of freedom" is sufficient to freedom. — Pantagruel

That's a nice position to take outside a prison cell.
Of course you're not wrong. If you believe it, you experience it and it's true for you.
The fact that 13 billion years of atomic interaction have led up to your existence, your environment and your reasoning process need not intrude on that experience. We didn't witness all that, don't know about the details. It doesn't intrude on my experience, or most other people's.

If the “body and brain make the decisions”, and you are the body and brain, how are you not making decisions? — NOS4A2

By the fact your conscious awareness, which is only in the top 10% of the brain, doesn't know all the processes that lead to a decision, only the final result. Yes, it's 'you' deciding, but you can't have decided differently.
It doesn't matter. We feel as if, think as if and act as if we were making original, independent decisions, so we may as well believe it.

Sure. But the brain-body is an iceberg: most of it is beneath the level of consciousness.

does this not imply that I have free will? If so why not ? — kindred

Yes, but it's an illusion. Your body and brain make the decisions a split second before you're actually aware of them.
But it doesn't matter: You experience the preceding indecision, consider the options, then act on what has been decided. Other people judge your actions as if you had been free to do otherwise.
You may as well believe in free will, since we live as if we had it.

Metabolism and alcohol tolerance varies widely. Some heavy drinkers are able to stop when they decide it's enough; some social drinkers nobody would consider alcoholics cannot get through a day without a couple of glasses. Some people start and slurring their words after two drinks, while others can hold their liquor and not appear drunk even when they are. It's the same with how much drinking affects judgment: one may be in perfect command of their mind, but lose physical co-ordination, while another can walk a straight line and forget where they live....
...not that it has a whole lot to do with authoritarian government, but a great many T***p supporter seem to sport substantial beer bellies.

desperately wants to "prove" things about me, — Tarskian

I have no need or desire to prove anything, nor do I give a flying fig about 'you' - who or whatever that is. Your own words speak clearly enough.

All things considered, it's better to have money than not, but do you think being rich will make you happy? Or is a necessary condition for happiness? — RogueAI

It is if you're entirely devoid of sensibility and scruples. You can 'believe in' honour simply by throwing a few pennies at a minstrel to sing about it. You can have all the peasant girls you want, because they don't have honour and you're immune from the law.

The Russian Empire is a bit special in that regard. I don't know what percentage of Russian nobility got executed after the communist takeover. — Tarskian

85%. The rest went west and became paid companions to rich old men and women in Paris or taxi drivers in New York.

If you ever meet European nobility, you will quickly understand that they think exactly the same. — Tarskian

You mean we left some with their heads still on? A serious oversight, that.
Everyone should be a well-off foreign man in a non-democratic, patriarchal country with a corrupt government, and then the world would be a happy place.

I guess it's just very, very good to be you!

Even supposedly communist hellholes such as China or Vietnam are more pleasant places to live in. — Tarskian

For some....

You will invariably end up having to fend off the tax collector and the divorce-rape judge. — Tarskian

If you've been in a position to owe - and fail to pay - taxes, to cheat on your wife and rape someone. Not if you're the imported serf who was raped.

I agree with you. Whenever the state is weak, incompetent, or otherwise cannot reach, one can live relatively free. — NOS4A2

If that one is young, strong, male and economically privileged, yes. Until he gets up the nose of a war-lord, drug lord, or gang.

Now we come with the question what happens in countries where there are no dominant cultures and apart from abiding to state laws, no traditions and no values are taken to be the norm. — Eros1982

Nothing. There are no such countries. In theory, if all cultures and ethnicities were considered equal, without animosities, long-standing rivalries or opposing religions, all you need is a fair and well-articulated constitution on which to build a legal system. A country can be democratic even if the population prefers to live in like-to-like communities. What happens is, the most commonly spoken language becomes the preferred language of trade and commerce. As long as the laws are applied without bias to protect everyone, why should anyone want to curtail other people's freedom?

Danger to democracy is more likely in countries where there has been a dominant culture for a long time, and it's suddenly challenged by an influx of people from a different culture. Especially if that different culture had previously been under the rule of the dominant one and the people have been regarded as inferior. Usually, this is fine, as long as the economy is strong and people feel secure. But should there be any kind of threat from outside - economic downturn, climate events, international hostility, a change in the dynamics of alliances and trade - people become insecure, anxious: it is then easy for ideological extremists to manipulate public opinion. Scapegoating is almost as popular a human pastime as sloganeering.
Even then, democracy may prevail, if the constitution, election process and law-enforcement are sound to begin with and maintained conscientiously.

In short, if you live in a country where everyone might look strange or distant to you (you have neither bad feelings nor good feelings toward someone, since the only thing you were taught in your life is that insofar as you don't violate the state laws, you can assume that you are the center of the universe and you definitely do not need to take advise from anyone on what is good and desirable), how are you supposed to be a part of the same "demos" with these (distant to you) people? — Eros1982

People can't help but interact in transactions, in work situations, in public places. They don't stay distant or very long in the marketplace, the workplace, the public amenities and entertainments. Even if they begin by forming separate communities, curiosity will drive people to see what the other is like, look at the costumes, enjoy the music, sample the food. And then, of course, you can't keep the young from being attracted to one another, even if their parents are 'distant'.

How is democracy supposed to work in such a scenario — Eros1982

Exactly the same way it works in any other country: the people in a district choose a representative, and give that representative a mandate for the interest of that community. If the rights are already equal, the political interest is most likely to be about economic regulations, infrastructure, public and social services - things that don't vary by ethnicity or culture.

In my opinion, the best places to live, are the ones where the government simply does not have the means to micromanage people's lives. — Tarskian
What are some places in the world that fit this bill? — RogueAI

Wiki sez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_World_Liberty_Index

I agree we're in an oligarchy in practice, but that's what the voters want. — RogueAI

What the voters want is a fair and free election. With the rigid two-party system, the electoral college, campaign financing, voter suppression, disinformation and trolling, and much amplified lying, a great many voters have already given up on the system.

After all, when they honestly answer a poll on gun control, say, or health insurance , their opinion is overridden by a powerful lobby and nothing is done. Legislation originating in the public interest is loaded down with amendments that serve the opposite purpose. So, what's the point?

How could we be a failed democracy with free and fair elections every two years? — RogueAI

Fair and free...

Do you see that going away? — RogueAI

If T***p is fairly and freely elected, he'll declare himself emperor and have his name in huge neon letters affixed to the White house roof, have all the late-night talk show hosts shipped off to GTMO and shut down all news networks but his own and maybe FOX, if he's in a good mood.

Arguably, while we do elect our officials, the stream of information and who ultimately selects the candidates we vote on makes the USA more like an oligarchy. — Philosophim

It's 36th on the world democracy rating; a deficient democracy, though not yet a failed one. That might be next year.

I don't know what you mean by "middle class". Most people throw the term around with zero precision. — BC

There used to be three layers: the upper - burghers, bankers, owners of enterprise, traders; the middle - professionals, salaried executives, shopkeepers, civil servants; the lower middle class - skilled workers, tradesmen, crafters, office workers. Similarly, the upper class had at least two layers - high clergy and landed gentry below the aristocracy - in modern terms, the top richest 0.01%. At the bottom, labourers, peasants, then serfs or slaves.
If anything, today's complex societies are are even more stratified, but the lines are blurred and there is more vertical mobility, because the classification is by income alone, rather than education, occupation, manners and mores.

Politically, it's been expedient to call pretty much everybody middle class: it flatters the proletariat and shields the ruling classes from criticism. If the tradesmen, small shopkeepers and clerical secretaries are burdened by heavy taxation, the bankers and factory owners can howl that 'the middle class' is being squeezed, and demand relief, while teachers and factory foremen get neither the platform to complain nor the legal apparatus to wiggle out of paying their levy. But the main purpose of this obfuscation is to eliminate the working class as an identifiable and self-aware interest group. That way, trade unions and mutual support fraternities are nullified; even more importantly, working class pride and solidarity was eroded. The working class was powerful and potentially dangerous, so it had to be eliminated.

The army officers were the nobility. — Tarskian

Generals, yes.

The clergy was also quite privileged and the higher ranks were also part of the societal elite. — Tarskian

Yes, some of them became upper middle class, and a few were gentry.

That is not the "middle class". — Tarskian

What is?

Besides, you seem to be concerned only with Europe. The rising Muslim empires had a stratified class structure, as well, and of course China had a considerable civil service, police and and judiciary, as well as artisans, builders and traders.

The middle class became inexistent at the end of the Roman empire and it was mostly gone for almost a millennium. — Tarskian

No, it was doing fine, as clerics, crafters and army officers.

There was barely any international trade in the Middle Ages. — Tarskian

it declined for a short time. But local trade continued, and soon international commerce was back, mainly by water while the roads were in disrepair.

The Vikings were indeed arguable also traders but that is not what they became notorious for. — Tarskian

Doesn't matter what they were notorious for. They did trade, build boats, make beer and weapons, craft gold and silver ornaments. Those are middle-class occupations and every civilization has them.

One more point: many people say that currently the rich people become richer, the poor become poorer, and the middle class dissapears. — Linkey

It started long before Reagan. Try 4000BCE.
And, no, the middle does not disappear; it usually prospers. Gets bigger and smaller, mostly due to the volume of commerce and definition.

smart people are not allowed to participate in the elections, because a smart president can become a threat fot these 1% richest. — Linkey

Another little byproduct of capitalism: elections cost money.

We could say "How is it that it only rains when there are clouds" but it's unnatural. — bert1

That's because it's a rephrasing of the 'why' question. The 'how' question is more practical.
"How are rain and clouds related?" "How do clouds affect rain?"

NO
and it never can be, but we could be fair to one another is we wanted to.

The key, in this as elsewhere, is balance. Doing what is 'correct' (?) goes only so far to ensure a fulfilling life. Achieving goals has its reward. So does social status and approval. But the emotions also need to be nourished: we need security, affection, trust, amusement and physical pleasure.

Emotional thinking craves that standard for itself. It hates that it isn't at that level. — Philosophim

I think you're attributing a separate consciousness and thought process to feelings. There is no 'emotional thinking', but emotions do prompt thought and affect the thought process. And only one emotion can hate - and that one doesn't require a great deal of reasoning.

If you're reasoning to obtain the satisfaction of a certain emotional desire, you're going to reject anything that goes against that emotional desire as 'wrong'. — Philosophim

It's never that simple. The only time we have only a single desire in extremes of physical need or arousal, and those are also the occasions on which the reasoning mind is shouted down.
Most desires result from a mix of emotions, and most desires are tempered by counter-desires. For example, one might feel a strong urge to hit another person but also desire the respect of one's peers. Usually, it's more complicated than that. And in any of those situations, the reasoning mind keeps doing its work, instructing, directing, restraining and judging.

Emotions are snap judgements with what we perceive at the time, and nothing more. — Philosophim

They're not judgments at all; they're primitive mental responses to sensory input from the environment and the body. It takes reason to name and describe them.
Judgment is cerebral. Emotion is visceral. Both are necessary to do anything: a computer isn't motivated to act. To a degree we don't usually consider, we are motivated in everything we do by a desire. Desire is felt, but it takes thought to articulate it and formulate a strategy for its attainment.

Are either of you familiar with the affective turn in the social sciences and philosophy that took place a few decades ago — Joshs

No, I wasn't. But then, I'm not opposing emotion to reason on principle. In fact, that's more or less what I've been arguing: that someone can make a reasoned decision, one that appears rational to an impartial observer, without turning off their emotions. I'm perfectly aware that people can greatly fear what is about to happen to their body and mind (e.g. if they're about to be tortured - and, no, that isn't a far-fetched example ), and reasonably seek a way out. That people can be so bereft by the loss of their home, their sight and their spouse that they reasonably prefer to curtail their own descent into a lonely decrepitude.

My POV of that of elderly persons of sound mind, with debilitating, painful and progressive health issues - a short, miserable future. Most families are content to let their parents go without a fight, but oppose any form of assistance. (mainly on religious grounds) But I have witnessed situations in which much younger people were facing a long and very bleak future, were appalled by the prospect, and yet prevented by the spouse or family from making their own decision.
Both reason and emotion can be in conflict between two people, but only one of those people is condemned to live that life.

Ah, no worry! Numbers 2 and 3 are my reasons then. Feel free to comment further or end the conversation then. I don't think you had any issue with what I considered rationally viable, only in how to approach it. — Philosophim

I have no argument with your reasoning; I just don't see it applied in real-world situations.
Different perspectives here: I've worked in health care, seen and read many case studies. In not one instance did it go the way you prescribe.

The topic was how to rationally approach suicide. — Philosophim

No, actually. It was an unfortunate choice of the critical word in the OP: I failed to consider all the ways it might be interpreted. Entirely my fault.
What I asked was not how the potential suicide himself ought to consider the issue, but whether you consider anyreasons for suicide to be rational - as distinct from moral or legal.

Whether or not a person chooses to be rational is in their power. — Philosophim

I very much doubt that.

This is always a possibility when trust is involved. That is a risk you have to take, and once again, why you involve multiple people to handle if one goes rogue. — Philosophim

Not if that one has power of attorney. That's not a rational risk to take; you only get one shot at escape.

If there were a pure-reason explanation for the existence of the universe, why would anyone be interested in addressing the question by means of spiritual belief? — Tarskian

Conclusion: What you don't know can't exist.

If there is no reason for it, then the very existence of the universe is meaningless. — Tarskian

To one who demands that everything have a meaning that he can understand, and doesn't know the reason for the universe, the universe is meaningless. For everyone else, it's a futile question with no available answer.

If life is deemed meaningless, — Tarskian

by that same teeny little mannikin who expects to know everything, but can't,

then the absurdist philosophy predicts that the struggle with the absurd will culminate in suicide,

That's surely an issue only for the absurdist philosopher and his next of kin, not for sensible people.

In terms of pure reason, the very existence of the universe is irrational and meaningless. — Tarskian

How do you know? Where is the evidence?

Hence, I underwrite the main idea in the absurdist philosophy, which is that the pure rationalist will first fail to struggle with the absurd and then end up contemplating suicide. — Tarskian

Now, that's what I call a silly and frivolous reason!