Yes but in human life there is not just one thing, going upwards. There are infinite degrees of variation in quality of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael T
Printable View
Yes but in human life there is not just one thing, going upwards. There are infinite degrees of variation in quality of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael T
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
There certainly are NikolaiI - but no Free-Will! :wink5:
Well we have to start over then because you distracted us by your analogy!
It's just a question of opinion... if there's not free will, then it's so convincing that we may choose one action or another that it isn't really a promising line, that is, in the results (practical or otherwise) that such pondering will produce..
I'm all for pondering abstract questions, and I do understand the basics of this one, but it doesn't interest me as much as others. And freedom I do see as existing because it is a relative thing. Actually it quite exists - just like everything we can possibly imagine does exist, somewhere under the sun, even if it is in our dreams while we while away the time in sleep in that sun...
There is freedom.. and bondage.. and freedom in bondage.. and bondage in freedom.. and an unlimited number of other combinations.. or so I have it.
Speaking as a woman, we certainly have more freedom than say my great grandmother for example who was not allowed to inherit her fathers estate, or own a bank account in her name, or allowed any property in her name. Today we are free to choose if we wish to marry or not, 50 years ago this was generally not the case. From the beginning of time women were property themselves until very recently. So I am free, and grateful for it.
In some countries the people are freer than others, sad but true.
That's a terrific point, and a strong one, bringing practicality to the issue rather than leaving it in the abstract.
You are right. Of course we are much freer than our predecessors, ancestors, and we can take decisions, do things of our choice. We can defy the institution our grandfathers were forced to abide by; we are freer than our grandmas to elope with our next door boy for honeymooning for a few days and break. We can openly and easily kiss, hug in schools, and walk on the street in see through clothes. Sunbathing on a shore with our private open is not tabooed now.
Of course freedom is there and an excess of it and yet loneliness and estrangement have swathed us more and of course our hearts are palpitating more now when our sweethearts betray us.
Yet I love freedom at these costs. Because I am intoxicated with it.
Doctor Faustus' freedom too engages me in reflection. He wanted freedom, the freedom to see the beauty of Helen, the freedom enjoy the things that were allowed for gods on high, the freedom to see the things no mortals could not see. But the condition was too much taxing
Explain to me how someone who believes in free will cannot by nature believe in cause an effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael T
Courtesy of google. Free will: the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies. If we make decisions unconstrained by external agencies (i.e. biases influencing the decision) then we have free will. If an effect stems from a free choice, can't the decision be the cause and the result the effect? Free will gives us the ability to make our own decisions: cause and effect summarizes what results when we make our decision.
God, according to the Bible, is beyond our dimensions. As such, our actions would have no ability to hint to His existence or not, as His existence is not affected by our realm of possibilities. This does not necessarily validate the contrary, however. Don't limit your judgment to assuming that humans affect a God's existence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael T
If nothing logical exists in human history, tell me how history itself began (i.e. how we came to be). Did the materials necessary for the Big Bang just *magically* appear? Did the atom, proton, neutron, nucleus, element(s) just magically create themselves?
I cannot resist saying this- Bien and Daniel:argue: are absolutely entertaining.:smilielol5:
I read the entire discussion beginning from the first thread. I found myself agreeing with some, not agreeing as much with some and completely disagreeing with others. But, I am not sure whether to trust my understanding of whatever I read.:confused5:
You see, the problem is that even after so many things having been said, there is hardly anything to be deduced. It's almost like people conversing in languages that have identical sounds to signify different meanings. Even the word 'free will' is being used by everyone in varying sense. But so is the case with other key words like 'freedom', 'liberty' or even 'we'.
There are so many different perspectives through which the question at hand is being discussed but no common language to communicate effectively:brickwall.
Two points on determinism vs. free will.
My observation about human beings is as follows. First, Arthur Schopenhauer said that as a person goes through life they inevitably think that all their actions are free; but when they look back on their life they find, to their astonishment, that there was a cause, of some sort, for everything they did. They went to Starbucks BECAUSE their tummy told them they wanted a vanilla latte. They took out a loan BECAUSE they were running out of money. They went to college BECAUSE they wanted to get a good job...
HOWEVER: in my view, if we actually consider all of these events we notice that there was a choice involved. For instance, the subject went to Starbucks, but had the choice of saving that money (and thus being able to use it for something else and have financial peace of mind) or spend it on coffee and thereby get some liquid happiness. The subject weighs each option and then comes down on one side or the other. EITHER WAY the action was caused (either by the desire for peace of mind or a craving for caffeine); but choice was still involved.
In other words, we choose what will cause us. So, in a sense our actions are determined. But in another sense, there is choice.
As rational beings we cannot but do things without a cause, without a reason. Only a madman does things for no reason. But this brings me to my second point. It is as follows:
Rationality requires human free-will. This is because reason involves making a choice between possible answers to a question, a choice based upon inductive or deductive logic. Determinism means that, regardless of the evidence, you will always choose X and never Y. Thus if I am determined to think, for example, that the universe was created by a flying spaghetti monster, it will not matter how much evidence against this idea is presented to me, for I am predestined to believe it. Thus if there is determinism, there is no reason. If there is no reason, there is no philosophic project. In a deterministic universe any reasoned decision is an illusion, because it was predetermined. Reason presupposes that one can reject the false and choose the true.
The psyche is like a law court; the mind is a group of lawyers; and the will is the judge. The mind considers its options, weighs the evidence; often there will be two or more "cases" in the mind, two or more options which put forth their best arguments. The will chooses the strongest case. A person who is "reasonable" is one who is open to allowing his will to be swayed by evidence in the court of the mind.
Thus, irrespective of whether determinism is true or not, it is fatal to philosophy.
Freedom is a relative term. What should I call freedom. When I love somebody I will have to give in to her some of my freedom
Some people say when you are alone you can be completely free. But this is wrong. For we will be still be the slave of loneliness or loneliness will reign over us
Freedom is a myth and we are never free in the real sense
I correct myself: in my previous post I said that "rationality requires free-will." I stand by the thought, but would like to emphasize that I do not mean "free will" in an absolute sense.
If, by freedom, you mean "not caused," than I do not believe we have freedom, nor is such a thing to be desired. Everything we do has a reason. But there is choice.
Thus, when I said "free will" in the above post, I meant a limited free will. Or, more accurately, a will free to choose within a causal framework.
As usual, threads about 'free will' end up in a huge mess. I can't resist, I gotta add a brief summary of my own views.
Up until recently, I was sure that determinism is flawed because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It states that position and velocity of a particle / wave cannot be measured both at the same time. And the principle is fundamental, meaning not even with the best methods imaginable could anyone do so.
However, it has been pointed out to me that determinism might still apply, because even if it is impossible to predict quantum effects, they might be determined, hence non-random.
Anyway, the point is, it doesn't really matter. Except, which I highly doubt, if Roger Penrose's theory about consciousness is true (brain uses quantum uncertainty to make free decisions, see 'The Emperor's New Mind'), then quantum effects don't matter for free will because they're random and can't represent 'what we want'.
I'm not sure whether Hoope said this for the same reasons I would, but I must say this is exactly how I see it. The important question is not whether actions are undetermined, other whether in fixed circumstances various different results may be possible (of course neither is true). What matters is 'whether human beings are responsible for their actions'.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoope
I think the answer is 'yes', because by holding people responsible for what they do, one creates a deterrent. A criminal thinks twice about committing a crime if he knows he's expected, by society, to follow the law, and if he gets caught, he'll get prison. So holding people responsible for their actions changes their actions for the greater good of society, and that is all that matters from a purely result-oriented point of view.
There are some restrictions, i.e. if addictions, drugs, or 'false' brain wiring (psychopaths) prevent the individual from 'following one's own interests rationally' then 'free will' (using the definition of 'being responsible') is severely restricted or non-existent.
I am in complete agreement with billyjack's statement. From an objective standpoint, I know that appearances are reality. No matter how much it is debated, you can deny reality until you're blue in the face, but you cannot deny the repercussions of reality. Therefore, in your beginning statement, when you state that, "The experience of free will is no more than an appearance", the base of your argument is not dealing in realistic terms.
I am eager to hear your response to this. Thank you!
Sincerely,
Kate
Though I agree with most everything I have read of you, Kate, I must disagree with you here. Appearances are but a reflection - or shadow type of reality, if you will. True: appearances often enough prove to be the whole reality, but they are quite often misrepresentation, half-truths, facades, et cetera, et cetera...and I am not even speaking of the human appearance; when one starts into that terrain, the individual's argument is built upon shaky ground to say the least.Quote:
Originally Posted by paperleaves
Is white america not freedom? Break your back for 60 years then get screwed out of your pension. Thats real modern freedom. Only real freedom comes in a noose or a snog with a gun.
God is good
Perfection can not be attained; for perfection is a process, a movement, progression, an evolutionary idea. Man has been perfecting since his unicellular stage and now man is a complex creature and his evolution through his primal stage, maybe from his animate and inanimate unicellular form to a multi-cellular form today and perfection goes on increasingQuote:
Originally Posted by N.W.Alexander
Evolution doesn't strive towards perfection (and man is not the goal of evolution). It's all about adaptation and which genes get pass on the most.Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
We don't want freedom. We want love. Glorious love...Triuamphant love...and little bit...
Yes you are right, and love is not a complete state of freedom and there is a series of compromises too in love and we cannot totally enjoy freedom or a sense of individuality when we are stung by love. There is a matter of renunciation, a union in love which cannot synchronize with freedomQuote:
Originally Posted by Lote-Tree
I recommend you consult the literature, your whole argument makes no sense so it is hard to counter it.
Updating my comments here to say that freedom from material needs will probably never be found, but freedom from sin can be found in Christ Jesus.