Printable View
I don’t think I’d like that but before you summon up some wrath for me, please note that I was using the word ‘gadfly’ because Sami had used it of XC. I don’t consider XC a gadfly (it’s far too Shakespearean a word for someone so humble) and was offering my support for the boy.Quote:
Originally Posted by rachel
As for ‘very telling’ ….you are still seeing those incredible sunsets, aren’t you, Mary? :D
To be honest, that didn’t help much. Perhaps I should say that the ‘chorus of disapproval’ did not refer to anyone of a religious disposition. I meant those who complain that certain views are challenged when they should be respected. ‘Liberal sentiment’ was used in a pejorative sense - from Goethe’s remark that liberals have no ideas, they only have sentiments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sami
They differ somewhat but my point was simply that it amounts to the same thing. If the future already exists in God’s perception then all I can do is act it out. I’m not bothered whether or not this can be termed ‘predestination’ – I’m not interested in the label, just the contradiction. Again, I ask you, how can we be said to be free agents if we can do nothing that will change what is already decided? I don’t even care who decided it (although, in the strictest sense, it must be God.)Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
None of those is present to me because I have no faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
Would anything exist without God? - No
Is God omnipotent and omniscient? - Yes
So everything that ever has been or ever shall be must have emanated from God. God created it all. He knows what will happen to me next week and nothing I do can change that. That limits my freedom.
4. Knowledge of the future and free will are irreconcilable because if the future already exists in God’s mind, no human subject can deviate from that path.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
According to your views, I have already made every decision of my entire life. It’s like a movie playing out frame by frame, a movie that God has directed or at least seen. Are movie characters endowed with free will?
I disagree. Not everything will. Besides, ‘regulated’ is a nice cuddly word and much nicer than the words that could be used legitimately to describe what happens in some countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
Of course it doesn’t. I was being facetious.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
Of course it does and I am in favour of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
Does Chomsky appear much on Al-Jazeera, then?Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
I can only speak for myself, sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
I believe it’s a matter of degree. I simply do not accept that Western democracy is no less repressive than the kind of ideologies you endorse. I know where I will be tolerated most and I’m not even female.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
I totally agree – and my solution to the problem is to live in a democracy. If I wanted to embrace other values, I would live in a country that promotes them. As a white, heterosexual, able-bodied male, I appear to belong to the only group who are not allowed to celebrate their culture in these wonderful times of rich cultural diversity. I was shocked to see that the Luge event at The Winter Olympics contained no members of the Tamil community, and that Aztecs were under-represented in The Grand National. Time for another Royal Commission.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
Actually, I am an ex-pat but I don’t expect my host country to change its culture to accommodate my values. If the country in which I am living implements shariah law, I will leave.
I did, which is why I said “I think you’ll find that it’s easier to redefine some activities as terrorism than others.”Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
To a degree, I can sympathise with your points (see the ‘Language as Power’ thread). However, I still choose western democracy with all its flaws over Islam and its (for me, far greater) flaws.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
I think I stirred something up here. It's just taken me the best part of an hour to read the new posts in this thread - and that's just in the last 18 hours. There's far too much to respond to all the points. I'll just nip back in and post when I think of something.
But if 'gadfly' is too Shakespearean, what of 'Puck'? ;)
I think I am causing more confusion than anything else here...
About the “gadfly” – I used this because XC mentioned the “Examined Life” from Plato’s “Apology”. In this text Socrates refers to himself as the “gadfly” on the noble horse of Athens. I wasn’t trying to insult anyone – honest!
Quote:
Originally Posted by amra
A lot of American universities in that list - he can't be that heavily censored.Quote:
Noam Chomsky has received many honorary degrees from the most prestigious universities around the world, including the following: University of London, University of Chicago, Loyola University of Chicago, Swarthmore College, Delhi University, Bard College, University of Massachusetts, University of Pennsylvania, Georgetown University, Amherst College, Cambridge University, University of Buenos Aires, McGill University, Universitat Rovira I Virgili, Tarragona, Columbia University, University of Connecticut, Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, University of Western Ontario, University of Toronto, Harvard University, University of Calcutta, and Universidad Nacional De Colombia. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the National Academy of Science. In addition, he is a member of other professional and learned societies in the United States and abroad, and is a recipient of the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award of the American Psychological Association, the Kyoto Prize in Basic Sciences, the Helmholtz Medal, the Dorothy Eldridge Peacemaker Award, the Ben Franklin Medal in Computer and Cognitive Science, and others. He is twice winner of The Orwell Award, granted by The National Council of Teachers of English for "Distinguished Contributions to Honesty and Clarity in Public Language."
I am extremely humbled to be compared to Socrates. I took it as a complement anyway; I will take it as a far greater one now. (bows)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sami
Dear oh dear…I wasn’t actually drawing the comparison myself. I was asking whether you were aiming to perform a Socratic role in the forum. I take it that you do? Do you really feel flattered to be thought of as a Socrates character? He was a pretty annoying bloke really – I’m sure you’re far nicer than he was. Plus, he came to a bad end you know.
Amra: My point was that every society will regulate things that it perceives as a threat in one way or the other.
Unnamable: Of course it does and I am in favour of that.
Sami: he (Socrates) came to a bad end you know.
Hmmm
They either differ, or they are the same thing. You keep contradicting yourself.Quote:
They differ somewhat but my point was simply that it amounts to the same thing.
If future exists already in God's perception, it doesn't mean that it is predestined, but you imply that everything is predestined, and that the existence of it in God's perception(knowledge) is the same as predestination. I mean, you have to decide what your argument is based on. Is the future predestined or not? Are we influenced by God or not. You keep evading to make a logical argument although I have challenged you to do so, and to use your own premises and conclusions. You say it is not the same, but then you go on and give an example that implies it is the same. :confused:Quote:
If the future already exists in God’s perception then all I can do is act it out. I’m not bothered whether or not this can be termed ‘predestination’ – I’m not interested in the label, just the contradiction. Again, I ask you, how can we be said to be free agents if we can do nothing that will change what is already decided? I don’t even care who decided it (although, in the strictest sense, it must be God.)
here is an argument...
1. God knows the future.
2. Our free will is future.
3. God knows our free will.
another..
1. God knows everything.
2. Our thoughts are something.
3. God knows our thoughts.
Can you tell me a logical argument that will prove your point without saying that we are influenced by God, or that future is predestined, because you claim that is not the case? God knows about the future because He sees it. He didn't influence it. It has happened. Imagine that you look back into the history and narrate to people what has happened in the history. Does that mean that you changed the free will of the people whose stories you are narrating? I hope not. :) Well, for God, future is history, because He knows it. We are limited by time, and we only know the past, and the present. He knows everything. However, knowledge of something doesn't mean influence nor predestination. Or it does? You decide.
Quote:
.He knows what will happen to me next week and nothing I do can change that. That limits my freedom.
So, knowledge of future equals predestination?
I agree. "Sentencing to prison" for three years for expressing a historical opinion would do it more justice.Quote:
Besides, ‘regulated’ is a nice cuddly word and much nicer than the words that could be used legitimately to describe what happens in some countries.
and then...Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
I stated that preaching to the public openly about a belief that is fundamentally different from the constitution of the country would be regulated, as it is in every society.
I disagree. Not everything will
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
My point was that every society will regulate things that it perceives as a threat in one way or the other.
Of course it does and I am in favour of that.
You agree or you disagree?
How would I know? Democracy in the USA decided that Al-Jazeera is not promoting its values, I suppose. ;)Quote:
Does Chomsky appear much on Al-Jazeera, then?
Again, a personal choice and a statement that agrees with what I have been saying all along. You prefer democracy, I prefer shariah law. However, isn't it funny that democratic societies want to impose their values on everyone else, and don't let people decide themselves how they want to be ruled? Contradiction? Surely so. I guess, you would be much more bothered if muslim countries were all over the world trying to impose shariah to everyone else, but since the case is reversed, and democratic values are imposed on others, no one is complaining. As long as democracy is portrayed in the cuddly :) terms of tolerance, love, and peace and every other idea "dehumanized" and equated to evil, there is no need to follow any principle, and it will be easy to justify any action that the West coins as necessary. The only choice we have is to merely allow oneself to be ruled by the superior, as it has been in the most barbarian times....When you think about it, taken away the technological advances, we have not changed one bit from the primitive cave man fighting his competition in the eternal game of survival of the fittest.Quote:
However, I still choose western democracy with all its flaws over Islam and its (for me, far greater) flaws.
Heavily or not, that is for each one of us to decide, but the point is that he is being censored by the mainstream public/media. Most of the awards that you named come from universities that are considered liberal, and as far as I can tell, all of the awards are based on his conbritubions to the study of language, not for his political thoughts and critisism.Quote:
A lot of American universities in that list - he can't be that heavily censored.
There are a lot of people that don't figure heavily in the mainstream media - usually because they are considered too 'highbrow' for the average reader or are not 'newsworthy' enough (whatever that means!) This doesn't imply censorship, just editorial bias. I have certainly heard of, and have easy access to, Chomsky's political views; even in my poor, benighted, democratic country. They are also freely available on the internet, where there is no censorship whatsoever - except in certain countries, none of which happen to be democratic and several of which are muslim (Tunisia, for example).Quote:
Originally Posted by Amra
I take it you have decided that you cannot answer the argument and will therefore take issue with semantics and focus on the appropriate form for philosophical enquiry. A king and an emperor are not the same things. They differ. However, for the purposes of a discussion about say, power, they amount to the same thing. I do not believe in God. I do not believe in predestination. Where is the contradiction?Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
No, I don’t. I am saying that if the future is known, I cannot change it. I don’t care whether you call that ‘predestination’ or ‘cosmic toffee theory’. My point still stands. If I cannot change things, I have no free will.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
I don’t care. That is not my point – you are merely using it to avoid answering the question I have asked a number of times. How can I believe that a non-existent being influences us?Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
No, I gave an argument that stated (not ‘implied’) that “it amounts to the same thing”. You even quoted this yourself, above.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
What does 2 mean? If you wish to teach me how to argue, perhaps you should give an example that makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
I can’t follow you here. Also, you want me to reduce my argument to a 1-2-3 structure because it suits you?Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
1. The future has already happened.
2. What has already happened cannot be changed.
3. The future cannot be changed.
I thought you had already conceded that it is unfair to compare things that are unalike. History is the past. Knowing the past is not the same as knowing the future. My narrating history is not the same as God narrating the future. The analogy is worthless.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
And I must simply accept this fact, I assume. If He knows it, then he knows which shoe I will put on first tomorrow. I cannot change that.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
As I pointed out earlier, you introduced the word ‘influence’ and I am unconcerned with the label you apply. By deciding that these two alternatives are the only ones possible, you are simply attempting to define the issue as you wish it to be. I don’t accept this. Also, again, I don’t care. The existence of a knowledge of the future (whatever you call it) means that I can do nothing to deviate from that future. That’s what matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
What does it matter? Deal with the issue. If I cannot change the future, how can I be a free agent?Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
With which point? They are different, if you hadn’t realised. In the first one I say that I disagree with your claim that “a belief that is fundamentally different from the constitution of the country would be regulated, as it is in every society.” I disagreed because there are beliefs that will simply be ignored, hence my saying, “Not everything will”. Notice also that I do not support or oppose the idea of regulation. In the second I say that I am in favour of regulation. There is no contradiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
If it means that much to you, you could always live in a country that does not deny you your freedoms. Or you could use the Internet, something you would not be able to do in many of the countries served by Al-Jazeera.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
There is no argument to answer. That is my problem. You are merely repeating your opinion, without stating what it is based on, without giving premises on which the argument is based. What is there to answer? I wish you would make a logical argument so I can reply to it. This way it is pointless to discuss anything, because I have to guess what your argument is, and then assume your premises, and then try to make sense of it.Quote:
No, I gave an argument that stated (not ‘implied’) that “it amounts to the same thing”. You even quoted this yourself, above.
You believe the future is known without believing in God and predestination. :confused: You are confusing me more and more. If you don't believe in these concepts, why are we even discussing this? You should have just stated this in the beginning and saved us all three pages of repetition. Even if you don't believe in them in reality, because you are an atheist, if you decided to engage in an argument, then we can assume that you believe in these concepts, but then we have to assume you believe in all of them, or none of them. I mean, you can't pick and chose what suits you and ignore other things.Quote:
I do not believe in God. I do not believe in predestination. Where is the contradiction?
I don't really think that you are reading what I am writing to you. That is very unfortunate, because it seems like you are leading a monologe and repeating the same thing, without making an argument, ignoring important concepts, and showing a great inability to actually defend what you are stating. This is your argument.Quote:
No, I don’t. I am saying that if the future is known, I cannot change it. I don’t care whether you call that ‘predestination’ or ‘cosmic toffee theory’. My point still stands. If I cannot change things, I have no free will.
1. Future is known.
2. Known means predestined.
2. Future is predestined.
But then you claim that it is not predestined, and when I ask you what you mean, you say you don't believe in any of this. :goof: :confused: What you are doing is basically stating one premise, and making a conclusion. It doesn't work like that. I am not calling it predestined just to give it a name, but to explain what it means. It is a verb, not a simple noun needed to give a name to something. I am not giving it a name, but using it to explain what you are stating. There is a huge difference.
LOL. This is actually your belief. :D You are the one who believes that God doesn't exist, and at the same time believe that He influences your free will. You actually stated exactly what I have a problem with the whole time. :DQuote:
I don’t care. That is not my point – you are merely using it to avoid answering the question I have asked a number of times. How can I believe that a non-existent being influences us?
I am the one who believes that an EXISTING being DOESN'T influence our free will. :nod:
The problem with it is that you CLAIMED it is NOT the same thing, but then gave an argument that stated/implied it is the same thing. The problem is that you didn't believe it is the same, but then you argue it is. :confused: That is why I reacted, and as far as I can see you still haven't figured out whether it is the same or not.Quote:
No, I gave an argument that stated (not ‘implied’) that “it amounts to the same thing”. You even quoted this yourself, above.
2. Free will is part of future.Quote:
What does 2 mean? If you wish to teach me how to argue, perhaps you should give an example that makes sense.
I thought it was clear in the first argument...well, there is the clarification.
This is a faulty premise. Future has not already happened. It is merely known to an All-Knowing being that is not limited by time. Knowledge and influence are not one and the same.Quote:
1. The future has already happened.
LOL. You make an argument above this statement that says:Quote:
I thought you had already conceded that it is unfair to compare things that are unalike. History is the past. Knowing the past is not the same as knowing the future. My narrating history is not the same as God narrating the future. The analogy is worthless.
1. The future has already happened.
..which means it is in the past, but then you claim here that history and future are not the same. :confused: another contradiction....
Anyways, you didn't answer why your narrating of history is not the same as God's narrating the future. ? Simply stating that the analogy is worthless is again your opinion that is not supported by anything else. If we are limited by time, God is not. If we only know the past, He knows the future as well. For the lack of better explaining it, to Him everything is history, or everything is the present, whichever you like. But, wouldn't be ridiculus to think that God was waiting for future to happen without knowing it? :D To imagine a being that created EVERYTHING to be limited by time and space?
Knowledge and influence are not one and the same.Quote:
And I must simply accept this fact, I assume. If He knows it, then he knows which shoe I will put on first tomorrow. I cannot change that
YOu haven't intruduced any other concept, so I had to resort to the only thing that makes sense in this, which is influence. There is either influence or there isn't one. If there is influence, then there is not free will, if there is no influence, then there is no free will. You cannot make an argument stating that there is no influence, BUT there is no free will. However, I haven't said that you can't intruduce another concpet that would make your argument logical, but so far you have failed to do so.Quote:
As I pointed out earlier, you introduced the word ‘influence’ and I am unconcerned with the label you apply. By deciding that these two alternatives are the only ones possible, you are simply attempting to define the issue as you wish it to be. I don’t accept this. Also, again, I don’t care. The existence of a knowledge of the future (whatever you call it) means that I can do nothing to deviate from that future. That’s what matters.
You look at it incorrectly. There is nothing to change, because for human beings, future HAS NOT happened.Quote:
What does it matter? Deal with the issue. If I cannot change the future, how can I be a free agent
I never stated that EVERYTHING will be regulated, so your statement didn't make sense. I simply stated that things that are perceived as threat will be regulated. I didn't say all things, so there was no reason to even make a statement like that.Quote:
With which point? They are different, if you hadn’t realised. In the first one I say that I disagree with your claim that “a belief that is fundamentally different from the constitution of the country would be regulated, as it is in every society.” I disagreed because there are beliefs that will simply be ignored, hence my saying, “Not everything will”. Notice also that I do not support or oppose the idea of regulation. In the second I say that I am in favour of regulation. There is no contradiction
I could if the western countries would let people decide for themselves how they want to be ruled without imposing their values on them.Quote:
If it means that much to you, you could always live in a country that does not deny you your freedoms. Or you could use the Internet, something you would not be able to do in many of the countries served by Al-Jazeera
This is nonsense. You are trying to suggest that an argument must consist of premises, inferences and conclusions. If we were in a seminar comprising part of an undergraduate philosophy course, I would agree. But we are not.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
No, I don’t believe the future is known. Read my posts attentively and you will see why.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
This is more nonsense – you imply that we can only discuss concepts we believe in! Then you had better not discuss atheism or western democracy. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
Above you said “There is no argument to answer”, now you outline what that argument is. Which is it? Am I offering an argument or not? It’s you who appear to be contradicting yourself. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
Besides, that isn’t my argument. It’s a bastardisation of what you want to be seen as my argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
Of course I do – I’m an extremely stupid person. No, it isn’t my belief. I think your imperfect command of English is letting you down. Most of what I said was with the assumption IF I believed X, then I would find Y problematic. I didn’t realise that you don’t believe in adopting a hypothetical stance. The odd thing is though, this is an approach you yourself have used:Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
“If you had the ability to look into the future and you saw everything that will happen …” Here you are asking me to assume X so that I can consider Y. More confusion?
First of all, I offered no premise, inference and conclusion, so by your own definitions you cannot call what I said an argument. Please make up your mind. Have I offered an argument or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
Do you understand the concept that two things can be very similar but not the same? Take the following two questions:
“Do you have any money on you?”
“Do you have any cash on you?”
‘Money’ and ‘Cash’ are not identical. However, in this case, they are sufficiently similar as to amount to the same thing.
Yes, the problem is my own lack of understanding. I can’t figure it out. It’s not that, as I said earlier, I am not interested in the label itself, it’s because I’m stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
Perhaps the reason it isn’t clear is that it’s not even correct English usage. For someone who is such a stickler for the appropriate forms of logical enquiry, I am surprised you aren’t more careful. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
:brickwall – I don’t believe it has already happened. I was again making the assumption if X, then Y.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
I think I’ve found where the problem lies. I assume you’ve had a google and found this:Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
http://www.comereason.org/phil_qstn/phi038.asp
A lot of what you have written is a kind of garbled version of that article. It explains why you used a child in your analogy.
Anyway, the problem lies in what is understood by ‘know’. Do you remember the following?
“let's say you have a child who says "you are welcome" every time someone says "thank you" to him/her. Does you child not have a free will simply because you know the child will say "you are welcome" after you thank him/her? Of course not.”
The flaw in this is that the parent cannot ‘know’ in absolute terms that the child will do what is expected. He or she might assume and be correct in that assumption the vast majority of the time. However, even if that is how the child responds most of the time, it is not an absolute certainty. One time he might simply cough instead. God’s knowledge, on the other hand, is absolute. What He ‘knows’ cannot be altered. An omniscient God would know absolutely; we can’t.
The only reason that you can say they are not the same is because you support the existence of a supernatural being that is not bound by any laws. All you are telling me is that you do not know how to reconcile the two but you are sure your God does and there’s an end to the matter. What happened to the rigour of philosophical enquiry?
Really? I thought I did. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
No more ridiculous than any belief in a God.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
I’m sorry, now I’m getting confused. Is this an argument or an opinion? :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
The only thing that makes sense to you, you mean. So I must be constrained by the definitions you choose? That’s handy – for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
:brickwallQuote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
:brickwallQuote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
You said, “a belief that is fundamentally different”. I believe that there are views that are “fundamentally different” that would not be regulated. You did not use the words ‘perceived as a threat’ in the sentence I quoted above.
I don’t understand. Are you saying that if countries like America allowed other countries to decide their own systems of government, then you would like to live in those countries? Yet you live in America. Is living in America for some reason less objectionable than living in countries where you feel it exerts an unwelcome influence? It strikes me that this is similar to saying, “I would like to live in Cuba but the Russians exert a negative influence there and promote an ideology of which I disapprove, so I’ll live in Moscow instead.”Quote:
Originally Posted by “Amra”
I did post more than this, including the website addresses of four articles from The Daily Telegraph (the UK’s top-selling broadsheet newspaper). They have been removed. So now, even providing links to a major British newspaper is banned. The Daily Telegraph banned on a Literature Forum! They will be pleased.