Determinism

[peacegirl]

I was here many moons ago, but my thread was deleted. Doesn't anyone remember the book, Decline and Fall of All Evil? I just want you all to know that in another forum (a very well respected university forum), it has reached 17,000 hits without my involvement. IlovePhilosophy forum did teach me a lot. It taught me that in spite of all our knowledge, people can still judge a book by its cover without understanding the true nature of the content. At the time I was here, there was another thread going on which gained a lot of popularity. It had reached almost 100,000 hits and had to do with the philospher Nietzsche regarding feminism. This was what took center stage and what left this thread out entirely, which is no one's fault. I do understand the problem in that it is not only due to other threads, but more to do with the question: Why would new knowledge be posted on a relatively small website? According to those reading this, if it was anything that important, why wouldn't it already be known to the world? To put it more bluntly, why would a discovery of this magnitude land on one small philosophy website, which is a legitimate question? Unfortunately, the reasoning here is faulty. What makes me heartbroken in all of this is that all of the people who would have loved this book would never have a chance to read it. I put it online for free except for Chapter Ten, his discovery on death, Our Posterity. I felt it was too much knowledge coming at one time. If anyone wants to read the book online, please go to: northern colorado philosophy forum. Click on the link which says go to the discussion. Then to: The Agora. Go the page 2 and click on New Discovery. I hope I have piqued your interest. I have no desire to get anyone frustrated. Maybe we all can actually carry on a conversation based on the book without any premature judgment. That would be very refreshing indeed. Peacegirl

[Oughtist]

Hi peacegirl,

What's a central thesis of the book? Perhaps we could start discussing that here?

It's hard to start a thread on a whole book in an anonymous forum (I assume the Norhtern Colorado forum services a more intimate core community?). And it's easier to pick out a particular issue and build things on that...

[Only_Humean]

Hi peacegirl,

What's a central thesis of the book? Perhaps we could start discussing that here?

It's hard to start a thread on a whole book in an anonymous forum (I assume the Norhtern Colorado forum services a more intimate core community?). And it's easier to pick out a particular issue and build things on that...

A quick search gives this:
viewtopic.php?t=157029#p1879016

Looking at how the last discussion went, I'm not tempted to offer any criticisms of the book.

[peacegirl]

Hi peacegirl,

What's a central thesis of the book? Perhaps we could start discussing that here?

It's hard to start a thread on a whole book in an anonymous forum (I assume the Norhtern Colorado forum services a more intimate core community?). And it's easier to pick out a particular issue and build things on that...

The subject line does give you some idea of what the book is about. You are right in that it is almost impossible to start a thread on a book that has not even been read. As far as the Northern Colorado philosophy forum goes, it is not an intimate community except for those who are students there. The good news is that the book was not excluded from the forum that allowed for new ideas. So, to reiterate, the book deals with determinism as its main theme, but it leads into how a world of peace is not only possible, but inevitable, once we understand our true nature.

[Wonderer]

do you assume that we will eventually be able to understand our nature to the extent that we can rid ourselves of the need or cause for violence?

[peacegirl]

do you assume that we will eventually be able to understand our nature to the extent that we can rid ourselves of the need or cause for violence?

Yes.

[Oughtist]

Do you assume that we will inevitably rid ourselves of the need or cause for violence?

If yes to the above, then is the inevitability something we can control in terms of temporal extent, i.e. can we do it more quickly? Or is this, too, a matter of determinism (and if so, then why worry about it?) But if it is something about which we can control the temporal context, what is it about human nature that most allows us to do so?

If no to the above, how does this affect the nature of determinism?

[peacegirl]

Do you assume that we will inevitably rid ourselves of the need or cause for violence?

If yes to the above, then is the inevitability something we can control in terms of temporal extent, i.e. can we do it more quickly? Or is this, too, a matter of determinism (and if so, then why worry about it?) But if it is something about which we can control the temporal context, what is it about human nature that most allows us to do so?

If no to the above, how does this affect the nature of determinism?

The time it will take will depend on how quickly this knowledge is confirmed valid and put into practice. To that extent, there is an element of control because it will be man himself who will be creating the conditions that will compel this change to come about. What is this nature I am referring to? The fact that man's will is not free and what this means for all mankind. Just because man has the ability to cause movement in the direction he wants to go, does not mean he has free will. As you read the the first two chapters, you will understand why it is not contradictory to be able to make a choice, and still have no free will.

[Oughtist]

Do you assume that we will inevitably rid ourselves of the need or cause for violence?

If yes to the above, then is the inevitability something we can control in terms of temporal extent, i.e. can we do it more quickly? Or is this, too, a matter of determinism (and if so, then why worry about it?) But if it is something about which we can control the temporal context, what is it about human nature that most allows us to do so?

If no to the above, how does this affect the nature of determinism?

The time it will take will depend on how quickly this knowledge is confirmed valid and put into practice.

Ok, good, so you're not claiming this is Truth. It's a Theory. Good to know you aren't preaching.

To that extent, there is an element of control because it will be man himself who will be creating the conditions that will compel this change to come about.

So, technically, this isn't a matter of predetermination... it may be the case that "man himself" willfully creates counter-conditions (for whatever reason, let's say a long string of short-term financial ones) which forever resist such change.

What is this nature I am referring to? The fact that man's will is not free and what this means for all mankind. Just because man has the ability to cause movement in the direction he wants to go, does not mean he has free will.

But you would admit he has "free direction", then?

As you read the the first two chapters, you will understand why it is not contradictory to be able to make a choice, and still have no free will.

Hold your horses there, peacegirl, you need to blow my mind a fair bit more first before I commit to any formal reading...

I've read a lot and forgot a lot, and have lots of reading still on a waiting list, never mind a job and family. And I'm the precise opposite of a speed reader, so such activities do not come cheap for me. We'll have to dance a while before I think about letting you skip ahead of the queue!!

[Sauwelios]

It was nice to read my old posts again. This is where I definitely refute the entire thesis:

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=1879342#p1879342

[peacegirl]

Do you assume that we will inevitably rid ourselves of the need or cause for violence?

If yes to the above, then is the inevitability something we can control in terms of temporal extent, i.e. can we do it more quickly? Or is this, too, a matter of determinism (and if so, then why worry about it?) But if it is something about which we can control the temporal context, what is it about human nature that most allows us to do so?

If no to the above, how does this affect the nature of determinism?

The time it will take will depend on how quickly this knowledge is confirmed valid and put into practice.

Ok, good, so you're not claiming this is Truth. It's a Theory. Good to know you aren't preaching.

Oh, so you are saying that if someone claims something is true, it automatically turns into preaching?

To that extent, there is an element of control because it will be man himself who will be creating the conditions that will compel this change to come about.

So, technically, this isn't a matter of predetermination... it may be the case that "man himself" willfully creates counter-conditions (for whatever reason, let's say a long string of short-term financial ones) which forever resist such change.

You are on the right track. The counter conditions are willfully made, not predestined in the sense that these counter conditions will come about without man's intervention.

What is this nature I am referring to? The fact that man's will is not free and what this means for all mankind. Just because man has the ability to cause movement in the direction he wants to go, does not mean he has free will.

But you would admit he has "free direction", then?

No, not at all. That is where the confusion lies regarding free will.

As you read the the first two chapters, you will understand why it is not contradictory to be able to make a choice, and still have no free will.

Hold your horses there, peacegirl, you need to blow my mind a fair bit more first before I commit to any formal reading...

I've read a lot and forgot a lot, and have lots of reading still on a waiting list, never mind a job and family. And I'm the precise opposite of a speed reader, so such activities do not come cheap for me. We'll have to dance a while before I think about letting you skip ahead of the queue!!

No problem.

[peacegirl]

It was nice to read my old posts again. This is where I definitely refute the entire thesis:

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=1879342#p1879342

I don't see where you accurately refuted the thesis. Sorry.

[Silhouette]

do you assume that we will eventually be able to understand our nature to the extent that we can rid ourselves of the need or cause for violence?

The better question is does peacegirl assume that we would want to understand our nature to the extent that we can rid ourselves of the need or cause for violence?

Undoubtedly the reply would likewise be a yes without hesitation, along with the assumption that our true nature is peaceful and that there is a true nature at all.

I find the idea absolutely abhorrent that one day I would inevitably become peaceful with others and within myself. I thrive only on my warlike nature and it is only the cruelty of the inner beast again once it turns on itself - towards 'peace'. The struggle for peace reeks of the oppressed weak who cannot deal or compete with the strong on their own grounds, because the weak can only contemplate a better world insofar as they are consumed by the necessity towards equally cruel bypaths for the overthrowing of strengths that overwhelm and overpower them.

Motivating affirmative urges are disruptive towards motion and action. Peaceful negative urges are ordinal towards neutralisation and death.

[Oughtist]

The time it will take will depend on how quickly this knowledge is confirmed valid and put into practice.

Ok, good, so you're not claiming this is Truth. It's a Theory. Good to know you aren't preaching.

Oh, so you are saying that if someone claims something is true, it automatically turns into preaching?

Well, if someone is claiming that the grand position they are arguing for is the Truth, I do tend to sigh a bit and say something to the effect of, "Ya, ok, go on..." Don't get me wrong, it takes all kinds and all that, and I myself have donned the mask of Truth Purveyor in my weaker moments, though even then only mostly just rhetorically. Personnally, insofar as I get the sense that someone is fervently convinced they are the harbinger of Truth (with a capital tee, mind you, which rhymes with Tree, and infers Bee, and that means bubble... pop!), I subsequently reach for the salt shaker and season whatever they go on to say accordingly, so as to maintain for myself a palatability for the discussion. Not, of course, that I don't conceed the possibility that the person actually has whatever mystic connection is required to access Truth (though I don't believe in Truth myself, as an operant matter), but then again there's a universe of possibilities that I don't outright dogmatically deny...

To that extent, there is an element of control because it will be man himself who will be creating the conditions that will compel this change to come about.

So, technically, this isn't a matter of predetermination... it may be the case that "man himself" willfully creates counter-conditions (for whatever reason, let's say a long string of short-term financial ones) which forever resist such change.

You are on the right track. The counter conditions are willfully made, not predestined in the sense that these counter conditions will come about without man's intervention.

So, man's intervention is prerequisite, and it is not determined that Man's will will will conditions which ultimately are congruent with perpetual peace. So, man's will is ultimately free of the determination that peace is inevitable, no? (ya, I loved the triple will moment there, too )

What is this nature I am referring to? The fact that man's will is not free and what this means for all mankind. Just because man has the ability to cause movement in the direction he wants to go, does not mean he has free will.

But you would admit he has "free direction", then?

No, not at all. That is where the confusion lies regarding free will.

So there is indeed confusion regarding free will. I thoroughly agree, and have no deep investment in the issue (other, of course, than my whole life and the lives of my loved ones).

As you read the the first two chapters, you will understand why it is not contradictory to be able to make a choice, and still have no free will.

Hold your horses there, peacegirl, you need to blow my mind a fair bit more first before I commit to any formal reading...

I've read a lot and forgot a lot, and have lots of reading still on a waiting list, never mind a job and family. And I'm the precise opposite of a speed reader, so such activities do not come cheap for me. We'll have to dance a while before I think about letting you skip ahead of the queue!!

No problem.

Just warnin' ya, I like to think that I can cut a mean rug when I get into the groove... don't mistake my non-chalant nice-guy demeanor for a lack of dance lessons...

[peacegirl]

do you assume that we will eventually be able to understand our nature to the extent that we can rid ourselves of the need or cause for violence?

The better question is does peacegirl assume that we would want to understand our nature to the extent that we can rid ourselves of the need or cause for violence?

Undoubtedly the reply would likewise be a yes without hesitation, along with the assumption that our true nature is peaceful and that there is a true nature at all.

I find the idea absolutely abhorrent that one day I would inevitably become peaceful with others and within myself. I thrive only on my warlike nature and it is only the cruelty of the inner beast again once it turns on itself - towards 'peace'. The struggle for peace reeks of the oppressed weak who cannot deal or compete with the strong on their own grounds, because the weak can only contemplate a better world insofar as they are consumed by the necessity towards equally cruel bypaths for the overthrowing of strengths that overwhelm and overpower them.

Motivating affirmative urges are disruptive towards motion and action. Peaceful negative urges are ordinal towards neutralisation and death.

This peaceful world of which I speak has nothing to do with overthrowing strengths. But it does have to do with the relinquishing (of one's own free will so-to-speak) of those things that are cruel for cruelty's sake.

[peacegirl]

The time it will take will depend on how quickly this knowledge is confirmed valid and put into practice.

Ok, good, so you're not claiming this is Truth. It's a Theory. Good to know you aren't preaching.

Oh, so you are saying that if someone claims something is true, it automatically turns into preaching?

Well, if someone is claiming that the grand position they are arguing for is the Truth, I do tend to sigh a bit and say something to the effect of, "Ya, ok, go on..." Don't get me wrong, it takes all kinds and all that, and I myself have donned the mask of Truth Purveyor in my weaker moments, though even then only mostly just rhetorically. Personnally, insofar as I get the sense that someone is fervently convinced they are the harbinger of Truth (with a capital tee, mind you, which rhymes with Tree, and infers Bee, and that means bubble... pop!), I subsequently reach for the salt shaker and season whatever they go on to say accordingly, so as to maintain for myself a palatability for the discussion. Not, of course, that I don't conceed the possibility that the person actually has whatever mystic connection is required to access Truth (though I don't believe in Truth myself, as an operant matter), but then again there's a universe of possibilities that I don't outright dogmatically deny...

I am glad you are not dogmatically denying the possibility of a more peaceful world, even though you are skeptical. I happen to use the salt shaker quite a bit myself.

To that extent, there is an element of control because it will be man himself who will be creating the conditions that will compel this change to come about.

So, technically, this isn't a matter of predetermination... it may be the case that "man himself" willfully creates counter-conditions (for whatever reason, let's say a long string of short-term financial ones) which forever resist such change.

You are on the right track. The counter conditions are willfully made, not predestined in the sense that these counter conditions will come about without man's intervention.

So, man's intervention is prerequisite, and it is not determined that Man's will will will conditions which ultimately are congruent with perpetual peace. So, man's will is ultimately free of the determination that peace is inevitable, no? (ya, I loved the triple will moment there, too )

That is incorrect. Philosophers have always equated the ability to choose between two or more things with having free will, but this is not the case. You are correct in that I am not talking about a world being determined by something external, without man's intentional input. This is not a contradiction in terms.

What is this nature I am referring to? The fact that man's will is not free and what this means for all mankind. Just because man has the ability to cause movement in the direction he wants to go, does not mean he has free will.

But you would admit he has "free direction", then?

Once again, the word 'free' is misleading. Yes, man has the ability to make choices in a particular direction, but you will soon see that this does not make his will free.

So there is indeed confusion regarding free will. I thoroughly agree, and have no deep investment in the issue (other, of course, than my whole life and the lives of my loved ones).

Most of our decisions are [consciously or unconsciously] based on the idea that man has free will, so it is not surprising that arguing against this belief would upset those who don't like the implications of determinism.

Just warnin' ya, I like to think that I can cut a mean rug when I get into the groove... don't mistake my non-chalant nice-guy demeanor for a lack of dance lessons...

Don't worry, I won't.

[Sauwelios]

It was nice to read my old posts again. This is where I definitely refute the entire thesis:

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=1879342#p1879342

I don't see where you accurately refuted the thesis. Sorry. [-X

Back then you didn't see it either---for over 21 pages of discussion (and counting)! A couple of hints:

1. If determinism is true, it's true before, during, and after each event.
2. If my conscience tells me it's wrong to do a certain deed, a part of me is telling another part of me that---that is, I am telling myself that. And if I'm telling myself that, it's not true that nobody is telling me that.

Your thesis stands and falls with a fixed conscience. I however contend that, without the belief in free will (or the belief in good-and-evil, or either), the conscience will atrophy.

This is judging from the perspective that conscience is internalised blame (as were all my comments in that old thread). A more Nietzschean perspective, perhaps, is that the bad conscience follows from one's not doing one's will. As the will cannot disappear, it turns back on the person in whom it arose---against itself (i.e., against the fact that it arose at all), or against that which prevents the person from doing it. In the latter case, the will and conscience coincide. Your thesis depends on the former case, however. And as, in the situation you sketch, there is nothing that obstructs one from doing one's will, the bad conscience, if any, is not revitalised, and will therefore atrophy.

[peacegirl]

It was nice to read my old posts again. This is where I definitely refute the entire thesis:

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=1879342#p1879342

I don't see where you accurately refuted the thesis. Sorry.

Back then you didn't see it either---for over 21 pages of discussion (and counting)! A couple of hints:

1. If determinism is true, it's true before, during, and after each event.
2. If my conscience tells me it's wrong to do a certain deed, a part of me is telling another part of me that---that is, I am telling myself that. And if I'm telling myself that, it's not true that nobody is telling me that.

Okay so far.

Your thesis stands and falls with a fixed conscience. I however contend that, without the belief in free will (or the belief in good-and-evil, or either), the conscience will atrophy.

I am not sure what you mean exactly.

This is judging from the perspective that conscience is internalised blame (as were all my comments in that old thread). A more Nietzschean perspective, perhaps, is that the bad conscience follows from one's not doing one's will. As the will cannot disappear, it turns back on the person in whom it arose---against itself (i.e., against the fact that it arose at all), or against that which prevents the person from doing it. In the latter case, the will and conscience coincide. Your thesis depends on the former case, however. And as, in the situation you sketch, there is nothing that obstructs one from doing one's will, the bad conscience, if any, is not revitalised, and will therefore atrophy.

Not at all, in fact there is much congruence with the Nietszche philosophy and the knowledge I am sharing. I hope you are patient.

[Oughtist]

So, man's intervention is prerequisite, and it is not determined that Man's will will will conditions which ultimately are congruent with perpetual peace. So, man's will is ultimately free of the determination that peace is inevitable, no? (ya, I loved the triple will moment there, too )

That is incorrect. Philosophers have always equated the ability to choose between two or more things with having free will, but this is not the case. You are correct in that I am not talking about a world being determined by something external, without man's intentional input. This is not a contradiction in terms.

I don't think anything I said above hangs on that, does it? I'm just saying that peace is not inevitable, insofar as Man's will is " " free " " of any predestined (e.g. teleological) terminus, even if an individual's will is for all practical purposes in fact "determined".

Can I guess that you argue there's a pleasure-based selection process that "determines" which of x-numbered "choices" gets chosen, such that we are "determined" by a pleasure principle, and peace is more pleasurable than violence?

Also, would you be arguing that humans can transcend such issues as mental illness? Do you see mental illness as arising from any one particular source (genetic, environmental, person-relational, epistemic dysfunction not-otherwise-specified, etc.?), or that it has a multitude of origins? I suggest how one answers the problem of mental illness is central to any larger claim about human motivations.

[Sauwelios]

Not at all, in fact there is much congruence with the Nietszche philosophy and the knowledge I am sharing. I hope you are patient.

We are well beyond that point already. I spent too much time replying in that old thread; I even spent too much time rereading my old posts last night.

If you still cannot back up your claims, or counter my---rational!---objections, rationally (i.e., with logic); if we still have to wait for your utopia to come about, as in Communism or Christianity: then I'll pass.

[peacegirl]

So, man's intervention is prerequisite, and it is not determined that Man's will will will conditions which ultimately are congruent with perpetual peace. So, man's will is ultimately free of the determination that peace is inevitable, no? (ya, I loved the triple will moment there, too )

That is incorrect. Philosophers have always equated the ability to choose between two or more things with having free will, but this is not the case. You are correct in that I am not talking about a world being determined by something external, without man's intentional input. This is not a contradiction in terms.

I don't think anything I said above hangs on that, does it? I'm just saying that peace is not inevitable, insofar as Man's will is " " free " " of any predestined (e.g. teleological) terminus, even if an individual's will is for all practical purposes in fact "determined".

Yes, everything hangs on the idea of whether man's will is free, thus determining whether peace is even possible. So you actually do agree that there is still a possibility that man's will is determined but not predestined. I'm just trying to get this straight, that's all.

Can I guess that you argue there's a pleasure-based selection process that "determines" which of x-numbered "choices" gets chosen, such that we are "determined" by a pleasure principle, and peace is more pleasurable than violence?

It's in that category but it goes a lot deeper. It's more about whether your pleasure is causing someone to be in pain.

Also, would you be arguing that humans can transcend such issues as mental illness? Do you see mental illness as arising from any one particular source (genetic, environmental, person-relational, epistemic dysfunction not-otherwise-specified, etc.?), or that it has a multitude of origins? I suggest how one answers the problem of mental illness is central to any larger claim about human motivations.

Mental illness is a product of the environment in which we live. For all intense and purposes, it is not genetic. When the triggers are eliminated, virtually ALL mental illness will be a thing of the past.

[Only_Humean]

Mental illness is a product of the environment in which we live. For all intense and purposes, it is not genetic. When the triggers are eliminated, virtually ALL mental illness will be a thing of the past.

That's quite the statement. Is it backed up by empirical facts, or abstract reasoning?

[Oughtist]

Mental illness is a product of the environment in which we live. For all intense and purposes, it is not genetic. When the triggers are eliminated, virtually ALL mental illness will be a thing of the past.

Does this apply to conditions such as Autism and Down's Syndrome? FYI: I'm a special ed. teacher...

[peacegirl]

Mental illness is a product of the environment in which we live. For all intense and purposes, it is not genetic. When the triggers are eliminated, virtually ALL mental illness will be a thing of the past.

That's quite the statement. Is it backed up by empirical facts, or abstract reasoning?

[peacegirl]

Mental illness is a product of the environment in which we live. For all intense and purposes, it is not genetic. When the triggers are eliminated, virtually ALL mental illness will be a thing of the past.

Does this apply to conditions such as Autism and Down's Syndrome? FYI: I'm a special ed. teacher...

I am also a Special Ed graduate. This knowledge prevents those things that are caused by man's ignorance. If Down's syndrome is a genetic problem, then no, we need to continue to search for answers. But if Autism is caused by mercury in the vaccinations (which is an unknown at this point), then yes, it could have an effect. Once we are given free reign to do anything we want, we suddenly won't want to do anything that could lead to a situation that we would be responsible for.