I just hope that my comments here won't be ignored.

will is contrary to freedom. The will, therefore, cannot be the source of freedom. — Banno

Anything contrary to a concept could be the source of the manifestation of that concept, AS LONG AS IT IS NOT IN THE SAME RESPECT.

And thereby lies the absolute fault of Randt's reasoning. She says something that is contrary of freedom1 can't be the source of freedom2. In other words, she mixes up freedom with freedom.

I admit I don't know what she covers as the domain1 over which freedom1 presides, and what she covers as the domain2 over which freedom2 presides. I know one thing for sure: she does not mean that domain1 = domain2.

I hope this is clear.

In doing so she shows the tyranny of following one's will, and hence that will is contrary to freedom. The will, therefore, cannot be the source of freedom. — Banno

The freedom... of what? the freedom of the will? the freedom of action? the freedom of the person to whom these are components? The freedom of motivation, the freedom of needs, or the freedom of result of actions?

What the hey is freedom trying to achieve here, for what purpose, and in what way? I still say introducing freedom is not a good idea, for it does nothing to the mechanism of will-action, but convolutes it, and in doing so it only creates an illusion of a problem, which is actually non-existent.

Arendt's point here is that "it must appear strange indeed that the faculty of the will whose essential activity consists in dictate and command should be the harborer of freedom." In doing so she shows the tyranny of following one's will, and hence that will is contrary to freedom. The will, therefore, cannot be the source of freedom. — Banno

Tyranny in my faulty imagination is absolute rule. Rule that is self-serving. Making others do what they don't want to do in order to satisfy the tyrant's hunger for control. The tyrant is motivated to make others do what he wants them to do. It makes the tyrant happy to be successful at this.

Will makes man act in any which way. If there is no will, there is no action.

But the tyrant and the people s/he controls are all humans.

The will does not control other wills. When viewed within the perspective of an individual's will and actions. Will controls actions, that are not wills.

Now, when you say that the will can't be the source of freedom... that goes for actions. Is a person, with a will, defined FOR HIMSELF by his actions? And by his actions alone? No, he is not reduced to mere will-action sequences. He has motivation, and needs, and feelings. Feelings of happiness and feelings of sadness; feelings of elation and feelings of despondence; feelings of pleasure, feelings of pain.

The will is controlling the action to help the person attain happiness, elation and pleasure, and to avoid sadness, despondence and pain.

Where does freedom come into play here? Who is not free although we had thouth was free? This is very convoluted when one brings in the concept of freedom. I think it is absolutely unnecessary, superfluous and in essence a non-sequitur.

It is a causal chain, in which will is one part. Why worry about freedom? I really, but really, don't understand why it is important for Arndt to bring freedom into play in this mechanism of motivation, will, action, and result.

Are you free to act against your own will? — Banno

I am sorry, but I have to quote again my best friend, teacher and master: Paul A. S. He came to me one day, and asked, "Peter (not my real name) do you consider yourself your own intellectual superior?"

The absurdity was a vehicle to convey to me he thought I was a puffed-up, self-important, egomaniac, who had given himself to intellectual onanism.

And he was right.

But Paul's absurd humour also can be applied to the question of will.

"Is your will stronger than your will?" Is your will capable of conquering itself? Is your will free to overcome itself?

I hope to have conveyed the absurdity of Randt's propositional question.

--------------------------------------

You can't act against your own will if all your actions are a product (or are governed) by your will.

So the question becomes not freedom of will (we can safely dispense with that superfluous and aggrandizing qualifier), but whether you always act according to your will or not.

I am on the view that yes, you always act what you will. And I maintain that that functionality has nothing to do with freedom. It is not a question of what you are free to do or not free to do. It completely severs the "freedom" component of the functionality.

I think therefore that one always acts according to his or her own will. Whether his or her own will is free or not, is a totally different question. It is free in the sense that it can't conquer itself. It is not free in the sense that it will always seek out actions that provide the person with the best benefits.

I think the ensuing argumenting after where I left off reading the posts (which had to do with the drinking example), is hinging very much on an equivocation. The equivocation is that free will is a concept denied by determinism, and supported by Christian dogma; at the same time that will is a concept that may be free or not to make choices in action.

In the drinking example you provided, according to my point, you do what you will: you decide that the unpleasantness of denying yourself a pleasant intoxicated state is less unpleasant than the unpleasantness of the health consequences.

My point was just that everything someone does, that is not coerced or forced, can be defined as acting in accordance with will. — Janus

I agree with you to this point, Janus, but when you are forced, you are given a choice too, and you will follow the path of what you will. It coercion or forcing usually involves a threat of something more unpleasant happening to you (general "you") than the degree of unpleasantness of acting in a way you don't want to act.

I don't think I said anything new or original; I am just saying that forcing or coercing still allows one to act according to his will.

In fact a person never acts against his own will.

It's very disappointing. — Tom Storm

Yes. No doubt about that.

Who says abduction isn't powerful? — Tom Storm

I have to give it to you. You're right about that. It's just that you don't abduct criminals as an investigator for the law, you arrest them.

Holmes was capable of powerful, arresting reasoning. -

You had to mention Ayn Rand. When she's mentioned, I'm obliged to repeat that Ayn Rand is to philosophy what L. Ron Hubbard is to religion. — Ciceronianus

Amen. As well as what Hitler is to Just Society. Or what Nero is to Philosopher King. Or what I am to Frank Sinatra. Or what Satan is to Archangelsk. Or what Scott is to the South Pole. Or what Golda Meyr was to a raving beauty of raw animal magnetism. Or what Lajos Kassak was to poetry. What the Moon is to the Sun. What the Holy Ghost is to the Son. Or what Wagner was to Music. Or what Bela Tarr is to cinematography.

In the Apology Socrates claims that no one is wiser than him, and he is wiser than others because he knows he is ignorant. — Fooloso4

Except he fails to spell out WHAT precisely he is ignorant about. The topic of his ignorance is paramount to make his statement meaningful; yet he avoids that topic because he does not know what he is ignorant of. (This is a logical necessity.) Therefore he just added one more piece of putrid meaningless piece of crap to the pile of garbage he and Plato produced in their illogical, faulty, downright stupid ways.

A love of wisdom and a fascination for power: It'd be an odd brain that could wed the two. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Socrates in the Republic argues that true philosophers do not want to rule, which is partly why they should. — jamalrob

I oppose both of your views. (Hehe.) A philosopher king has the following potential qualities:
- wisdom
- high iq
- fascination for power

This mix of qualities has been found in many a tyrant. The tyrant lacks one thing, which is NOT a requirement for the philosopher or for the king: to be benevolent and kind and have good will toward all. No, kindness is NOT SPELLED OUT as a requirement by Plato/Socrates. Therefore the philosopher / king has existed many times over history, inasmuch as they were wise, clever, intelligent, knowledgeable and able to influence others; and they were also fascinated by power, and strived to achieve it.

What you guys are ASSUMING is that a philosopher king is a good thing. This is a suggestion by Socrates / Plato, and as in many other things, that couple of fools have again failed in establishing a thought properly.

I think, and I said it before, Socrates is the most over-rated philosopher of all times. That is the only conclusion one can draw after getting to know the innumerable piles of garbage of illogical thought he had inspired Plato two write.

Good point, but there’s no evidence to suggest that post-expiration existence is *not* a thing either. — Paul Michael

Absolutely. And that is why it is important to know the true meaning of "we don't know". Speculation without ANY evidence, prior or posterior, is futile. It is best to leave the topic alone, as neither party (pro-death and anti-death after death) can say anything of knowledge, or anything meaningful that makes sense.

Saying that "whatever exists is based on matter" is not a paraphrase of "nothing exists except matter". These are quite different things and carry different implications. (If this is the paraphrase you are referring to ...) — Alkis Piskas

Strawman, again. You attribute things to others that they never uttered.

Can you please be more specific? — Alkis Piskas

Can YOU be more specific? or less specific? Or more or less general? You are not arguing in the philosophical sense; you are drowning your opponents by overinundating them with questions. Some of them are relevant, some are not, and if you were a careful reader, you never would need to ask them. I am avoiding answering your questions because I feel you ask things already covered, and if you NEED more detailed explanation, then I am not in a position to satisfy this need; you need to ask someone who is willing to tell you what it is that you don't understand. I am not that person. I say things in ways I find appropriate, and I do assume others understand me. If a basic understanding is missing, then I don't hold myself responsible to be understood by those who do not understand me; they should seek outside help.

I am not my brother's keeper; if a person needs clarification, they should find their own resources to do so. This is not an educational platform; it is a social / cognitive platform, and as such, we can't cater to each other's every need, but only on a voluntary basis.

Where are you referring to? (What did I state exactly?) — Alkis Piskas

What you said exactly is precisely what you said.

It is an undecided question at this point.
— god must be atheist
What question are you referring to? (I can't see any question involved here.) — Alkis Piskas

Jesus. You are really lost in this aren't you.

What schools of philosophy? (Which school says what?) — Alkis Piskas

Now, in this you got me. I don't know any schools of philosophy, and I never attended one. I meant the different convictions we, as philosophers, subscribe to, when I said "different schools of philosophy". Thanks, finally this question of yours I could answer with a straight answer. Good question.

which is strictly positivist. — Wayfarer

And by force de tour, anything positivist has a negative twist.

Oh, Crap. The verifati. I forgottati. Remembretati ti verifatty!

Oops, and not to forget the Infinitati, and the finnugritati. I almost forgot them, or maybe totally forgot them. But we must remember not to forgatitati them.

Not to forget the qualiati, the apprehendati, the comprehendati, the offendati, the reprehendati, the crogantiotati, the KrugerMichaeliati, the Infinitati, the finnugritati, the ramitati.

informative is a thing that gives me knowledge of facts and events which I had no knowledge of previous to the giving of information. So to say that someone sits on the right of the Lord (in so many other words) is informative only for the time when one first encounters this passage in the Holy Books. After the first reading it is no longer informative.

In this sense, the Holiest of Books or the Most Exalted Holy Book is only informative to a point. After that it's trite repetition of knowledge one assumes to be true.

Why am I talking about this even in the first place? Because information that is given on something which something can't be CHECKED to be true is at best iffy. I mean, even at its best, is worse than iffy. It is complete nonsense. If you claim that X is true, then gimme some glimpse of evidence for it. Otherwise it's fantasy, not even fiction, but stream of consciousness-type wishful thinking, that some like to "own" because in their minds it gives them a special status... a status that has the french benefits of being in the "in-group", the literati, the initiati, the first causati, the dualati, the gelati, the assumotati.

Certainly, you're not a collection of physical components. — L'éléphant

You're right. Paul Michael is not. But I am.

It is a mistake to lump all humans into the same lump of existential qualia. Qualia is not Equalia. Some of us die forever, some of us die temporarily, some of us die indefinitely.

In fact, the ancient Maya culture is full of evidential anecdotes, in which they attribute the existence of death after death to Xouxtacluactan, the god of Snakes and Certified Public Accountants.

But we don't have to leave our own cultural bias to see that death is not permanent in every case it occurs. It can appear, reappear, disappear, and shakespeare at any given time in nonreality.

Materialists don't say nothing else exists beside matter. They say that whatever exists, is based on matter.
— god must be atheist
(Thanks for your response to the topic.)

Yes, there's this interpretation to. — Alkis Piskas

I just took a paraphrasing of your quoting Wikipedia. If you argue against that, you argue against something you have already accepted.

"Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds matter to be the fundamental substance in nature, and all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist." — Alkis Piskas

True enough, and in your credit, you did not argue against it... just stated that you think there is more to it.

I can't argue this. It is an undecided question at this point. All we can argue is what different schools of philosophy say; we can't argue whether this school is correct or the other or the third one. At this point, we can only decide which to believe, we can't decide which of them is true.

It's no straw man. How is saying 'whatever exists is based on matter' different from saying 'nothing exists beside matter'? If something is based on matter then it can be reduced to it, which is basically what all materialism says. — Wayfarer

I am not sure if that's right, but I can't argue against it.

After all, superstructures exist that are more than just the parts that make them up. But that's not a strong argument.

As an old friend of mine, Paul. A. S., asked once (he said everything just once, it is I who keep repeating his quotes), "Is the sum of a woman better than her whole?"

Have you considered this: all pain are induced by physical interaction. All pleasure are, too. And they consistently are produced the same, predictable way. Maybe joy, fear, and elation including religious ecstasy is a learned behaviour based on practiced physical reactions that produce pleasure or pain. This is a theory, not necessarily the truth. But it's just as plausible to say that "higher" order emotions are honed lower order feelings, as it is plausible that feelings, emotions and getting excited is impossible to explain with using materialism and its basic tenets alone.

Studies suggest that we are gradually becoming less intelligent — L'éléphant

please cite the studies. Otherwise please withdraw this statement.

Thanks, good debate.

Even as a subjective experience, how can a physical thing like the brain produce something non-physical? — Alkis Piskas

Nobody knows that, and that's the current state of knowledge.

It happens. That's all that the materialists can say.

All mass in the universe tends towards chaos globally. As we see ordered structure time cannot have existed forever. We would see a state nowadays that will only be seen in the far future. All mass will be evaporated into photons then. Maximum entropy. This state will be the trigger for a new bang at the singularity at the origin. Two new universes will come into being. A new dawn of time. A new life... — Cornwell1

This is nice. No denying that. But that is all that it is.

So, I have this question: "Is there any meaning talking about 'materialism' to materialists, since they can't see or think that there's anything else than matter, anyway?" — Alkis Piskas

Materialists don't say nothing else exists beside matter. They say that whatever exists, is based on matter. For instance, consciousness, feelings, emotions, beliefs.

If you keep on coming up with Strawman fallacies, you can win any argument -- until you are caught doing it.

Indeed. I can see no heat differential in your function. — Cornwell1

Thank you. I can't continue this argument until you learn what the 2nd Law of theromdynamics states, and until you learn how to read simple math equations.

I am sorry, I am not dissing you, and I am not trying to belittle you. I am just saying that if you can't understand my arguments, then there is no point in continuing.

In the menatime, we can continue on your claim "When all mass has accelerated away to infinity". What do you mean by this? a speed? an increase in mass? or a distance?

What's the heat differential? — Cornwell1

You quoted the 2nd Law of TD, and you ask that question?

When all mass has accelerated away to infinity — Cornwell1

What do you mean? They have become infinitely heavy (full of mass)? Or their speed has become inifinitely large? or they reached a point in a distance far away which you call infinity?

Your entire claim hinges on this statement "When all mass has accelerated away to infinity" but I see no reason this can happen. Please explain what you mean. More precisely, because to me it makes no sense.

Further to my previous post, if you are skeptical about the heat energy not dissipating at all:
Imagine that the heat energy follows a function of the sort of f(x)=1/(e^x), where x is the total heat energy differential. In this case it has never started, but has gone on forever since infinite past, and it will will never end. In this case, absolute entropy would be represented by f(x)=0, which never happens.

It's a physical impossibility. The 2nd law of TD requires a beginning in time. — Cornwell1

No, that is not true. The 2nd law states that thermal entropy can't decrease. But it allows it to stagnate. That's A. B. is that entropy possibly never reaches an end state... it will approach an end state, the amount of heat energy differential between a state and absolute depletion constantly decreasing, but decreasing slower and slower, and that lasting forever.

I'm speaking of steps in proofs that can be sketched out, knowing that experienced readers can fill in those steps. — jgill

Absolutely.

I hear being considered a sophist is the last thing a philosopher wants — Agent Smith

Philosophers get so pissed when they are called sophists, that they clench a fist.

They serve to explain patterns — Agent Smith

That true.

Well, here's a difference between a PhD math thesis and a publishable math paper: In the thesis the grad student is encouraged to spell most arguments out in at least some detail, but a math research paper frequently glosses over any details that have relatively brief proofs and experienced mathematicians can be expected to fill in the blanks. — jgill

I would venture to guess that in BOTH cases it is not necessary to spell out existing knowledge, as long as one properly references the source. I am talking "publishable math paper" in the academic sense. That is, ruled vertically and horizontally, with light blue printer ink, slightly slanted to the right, with parallelepipedons (or whatever the heck skewed rectangles are called) that can house one digit or character neatly within themselves each.

The distinction in philosophy writing is the same, except the paper does not have to be ruled: instead, it itself has to rule. Preside above and over other papers and boss them around.

Yes, ostensibly a clock that has always been ticking cannot exist. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I don't get it. Why can't it exist? What is it in its supposed eternal ticking that makes it impossible to exist?

I think this is the best contribution to this thread. Thank you, gmba. — jgill

Why, Thank you very much!! It feels like a little warm fuzzy-wuzzy to be complimented like that. Wow.