compatibilism

[promethean75]

Somebody's been reading Spinoooozaa.

coughbelindacough.

[Belinda]

Somebody's been reading Spinoooozaa.

coughbelindacough.

That's right. Spinoza is the philosopher to go to for the ultimate and rational meaning of freedom.

[promethean75]

"Further conceive Belinda, I beg, that an attofishpi, while continuing in motion, should be capable of thinking and knowing, that it is endeavoring, as far as it can, to continue to move. Such an attofishpi, being conscious merely of its own endeavor and not at all indifferent, would believe itself to be completely free, and would think that it continued in motion solely because of its own wish. This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." - B. Spinz

[attofishpi]

Somebody's been reading Spinoooozaa.

coughbelindacough.

That's right. Spinoza is the philosopher to go to for the ultimate and rational meaning of freedom.

I am not sure why you are bringing the term 'freedom' to me. As far as Spinoza goes I have read bits and bobs, mainly to do with his concept of God, and I was rather concerned at how poorly he assessed God, from memory - he stated something to the effect of...which is nowise in God, who is all good.

To be honest, I don't need to read anything from anyone that has no direct experience of God, since they are usually wrong. Spinoza for example doesn't recognise the other side to this entity, it (God) is not ALL good.

[Belinda]

Somebody's been reading Spinoooozaa.

coughbelindacough.

That's right. Spinoza is the philosopher to go to for the ultimate and rational meaning of freedom.

I am not sure why you are bringing the term 'freedom' to me. As far as Spinoza goes I have read bits and bobs, mainly to do with his concept of God, and I was rather concerned at how poorly he assessed God, from memory - he stated something to the effect of...which is nowise in God, who is all good.

To be honest, I don't need to read anything from anyone that has no direct experience of God, since they are usually wrong. Spinoza for example doesn't recognise the other side to this entity, it (God) is not ALL good.

Spinoza's ethics go beyond all traditional notions of good, and deal with sheer logic.

Spinoza believed Nature is the same as God. In Nature all that happens necessarily happens, including what we traditionally think of as bad. People who know most about others' behaviour are the most likely to be merciful and forgiving. Mercy and forgiveness are staples of traditional good, and knowledge of others' and self, all else being equal, makes for health and goodness in men and women.

Truth is closely aligned with good. Spinoza sought truth and sacrificed his academic career for the sake of truth. In his private life as a man Spinoza impulsively tried to help his friends the De Witt brothers, while ignoring his own safety . Freedom is freedom to work towards the good and to be the wisest a man can be.

[iambiguous]

Determinism is bollocks when it gets to the point of conscious life.

Again, beyond having this intuitive, visceral "I just know this is true" about determinism reaction, how exactly would you go about demonstrating that, given the laws of nature, you were able to freely opt not to react as you do?

In other words, how, in some detail, would you describe the chemical and neurological interactions that evolved into human autonomy in your own particular brain.

I could be akin to "God" - create a computer, and code it. Within that code could be a random number generator. I could never determine the precise result of the generated number. Now, one could say, you could if you knew ALL the sub-atomic conditions present at the determining of the random number generation. But then, I will say that determining the conditions results in affecting the result as per the wave function collapse.

Let's bring this intellectual assessment to Mary, agonizing over whether to abort her unborn fetus. How would you demonstrate to her that determinism is bollocks. She is not only free to abort or not to abort her fetus but some will even insist that, if she chooses to shred it into oblivion, they can tell her if she freely acted morally or immorally.

Or, sure, I am simply not understanding the point that you are making here.

[attofishpi]

Determinism is bollocks when it gets to the point of conscious life.

Again, beyond having this intuitive, visceral "I just know this is true" about determinism reaction, how exactly would you go about demonstrating that, given the laws of nature, you were able to freely opt not to react as you do?

In other words, how, in some detail, would you describe the chemical and neurological interactions that evolved into human autonomy in your own particular brain.

I could be akin to "God" - create a computer, and code it. Within that code could be a random number generator. I could never determine the precise result of the generated number. Now, one could say, you could if you knew ALL the sub-atomic conditions present at the determining of the random number generation. But then, I will say that determining the conditions results in affecting the result as per the wave function collapse.

Let's bring this intellectual assessment to Mary, agonizing over whether to abort her unborn fetus. How would you demonstrate to her that determinism is bollocks. She is not only free to abort or not to abort her fetus but some will even insist that, if she chooses to shred it into oblivion, they can tell her if she freely acted morally or immorally.

Or, sure, I am simply not understanding the point that you are making here.

Nor I you.

Let me ask you a question, should ones morality become affected by ones knowledge that God exists in this situation?

[iambiguous]

Determinism is bollocks when it gets to the point of conscious life.

Again, beyond having this intuitive, visceral "I just know this is true" about determinism reaction, how exactly would you go about demonstrating that, given the laws of nature, you were able to freely opt not to react as you do?

In other words, how, in some detail, would you describe the chemical and neurological interactions that evolved into human autonomy in your own particular brain.

I could be akin to "God" - create a computer, and code it. Within that code could be a random number generator. I could never determine the precise result of the generated number. Now, one could say, you could if you knew ALL the sub-atomic conditions present at the determining of the random number generation. But then, I will say that determining the conditions results in affecting the result as per the wave function collapse.

Let's bring this intellectual assessment to Mary, agonizing over whether to abort her unborn fetus. How would you demonstrate to her that determinism is bollocks. She is not only free to abort or not to abort her fetus but some will even insist that, if she chooses to shred it into oblivion, they can tell her if she freely acted morally or immorally.

Or, sure, I am simply not understanding the point that you are making here.

Nor I you.

Yeah, that happens over and over and over again when the discussions here get around to morality or metaphysics. We do the best we can.

So, given that, take a crack at responding to the questions I ask.

Let me ask you a question, should ones morality become affected by ones knowledge that God exists in this situation?

For me, it's the only factor. In a No God world what on earth do mere mortals turn to resolve conflicting moral conflagrations like abortion? Ideology? Deontology? Nature?

Okay, if so, then, given a specific conflict like abortion, let's hear the No God argument. And let's note the manner in which it is demonstrated that all rational and virtuous folks are obligated to share it.

Only again we would have to first assume that human beings do possess free will.

[Belinda]

"Further conceive Belinda, I beg, that an attofishpi, while continuing in motion, should be capable of thinking and knowing, that it is endeavoring, as far as it can, to continue to move. Such an attofishpi, being conscious merely of its own endeavor and not at all indifferent, would believe itself to be completely free, and would think that it continued in motion solely because of its own wish. This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." - B. Spinz

Here is a better response from me to you. Dear Bento knows psychology centuries ahead of his times, and this is now mainstream. The ethic to be plucked from your 'quotation' is that in public, family, and private life the less ignorant you are of what causes what , the more free you are to be wise and good in your decisions.

[attofishpi]

Again, beyond having this intuitive, visceral "I just know this is true" about determinism reaction, how exactly would you go about demonstrating that, given the laws of nature, you were able to freely opt not to react as you do?

In other words, how, in some detail, would you describe the chemical and neurological interactions that evolved into human autonomy in your own particular brain.



Let's bring this intellectual assessment to Mary, agonizing over whether to abort her unborn fetus. How would you demonstrate to her that determinism is bollocks. She is not only free to abort or not to abort her fetus but some will even insist that, if she chooses to shred it into oblivion, they can tell her if she freely acted morally or immorally.

Or, sure, I am simply not understanding the point that you are making here.

Nor I you.

Yeah, that happens over and over and over again when the discussions here get around to morality or metaphysics. We do the best we can.

So, given that, take a crack at responding to the questions I ask.

Let me ask you a question, should ones morality become affected by ones knowledge that God exists in this situation?

For me, it's the only factor. In a No God world what on earth do mere mortals turn to resolve conflicting moral conflagrations like abortion? Ideology? Deontology? Nature?

Okay, if so, then, given a specific conflict like abortion, let's hear the No God argument. And let's note the manner in which it is demonstrated that all rational and virtuous folks are obligated to share it.

Only again we would have to first assume that human beings do possess free will.

Whether God exists or not, regarding any physical pain the foetus might experience in the abortion procedure one would consider the SAME. (however, in my experience of God - it is capable of 'erasing' pain - I can explain the circumstances where this occurred after having my arm broken after I was assaulted by someone wielding a baseball bat it you feel interested)

So, moving on to any further considerations..

If there is NO God, morally I suppose one might consider that you have the chance to provide life to a human, and aborting will clearly deny that.

If there is a Christian God, morally one could consider that you have the chance to provide life to a human, and aborting will clearly quite possibly deny that, OR, that since humans are not the sole judge of souls, in that if this foetus has a soul, you would not be terminating its soul you could consider that you are indeed returning that soul to God, to perhaps replant it into the womb of someone more willing and perhaps capable of providing the pending child with much more love.

So, in the above two scenarios, I feel there is an irony in that if there IS a God, then morally it is more acceptable to have an abortion, allow that soul to rekindle in the love that all humans deserve.

[promethean75]

"Dear Bento knows psychology centuries ahead of his times, and this is now mainstream. The ethic to be plucked from your 'quotation' is that in public, family, and private life the less ignorant you are of what causes what , the more free you are to be wise and good in your decisions."

Yes, Spinz was like a regular Dr. Phil. Way ahead of his time. I'd like to insert nietzsche here and give precedence to one of his opinions of spinoza. He called him a marvelous predecessor, but also a sickly recluse. Not sure about the 'sickly' part, but certainly somewhat reclusive. And this is due to the influence the classical stoics had on him. Nietzsche's approach was more active and engaged in the visceral improvement of the conatus, striving for power more than 'understanding', giving more attention to the passions than the rationale... but even he became reclusive despite his extroverted philosophy of power. Lol at the irony. With nietzsche Dionysus became sick. With spinoza, Apollo never felt better.

We can tally both cases up as instances of the schopenhauer pomp effect (or the 'pompenhauer' effect); when extraordinary intellectuals can't get along comfortably enough with regular folks on the street. These types either have a small knit group of friends or none at all.

[Belinda]

"Dear Bento knows psychology centuries ahead of his times, and this is now mainstream. The ethic to be plucked from your 'quotation' is that in public, family, and private life the less ignorant you are of what causes what , the more free you are to be wise and good in your decisions."

Yes, Spinz was like a regular Dr. Phil. Way ahead of his time. I'd like to insert nietzsche here and give precedence to one of his opinions of spinoza. He called him a marvelous predecessor, but also a sickly recluse. Not sure about the 'sickly' part, but certainly somewhat reclusive. And this is due to the influence the classical stoics had on him. Nietzsche's approach was more active and engaged in the visceral improvement of the conatus, striving for power more than 'understanding', giving more attention to the passions than the rationale... but even he became reclusive despite his extroverted philosophy of power. Lol at the irony. With nietzsche Dionysus became sick. With spinoza, Apollo never felt better.

We can tally both cases up as instances of the schopenhauer pomp effect (or the 'pompenhauer' effect); when extraordinary intellectuals can't get along comfortably enough with regular folks on the street. These types either have a small knit group of friends or none at all.

Power is good when subject to reason and ordinary human kindness. What do you think of Samson's riddle?

What is stronger than a lion? Out of the strong, something sweet. What is sweeter than honey? Out of the eater, something to eat.

I think good depends on power to change events. I hope I am not unbalanced try not to be. Jesus was Apollonian. Jesus' mother was biological mother therefore Dionysian, so Jesus' psyche included Dionysian sweetener. I think power to steer history towards good needs a balance between Dionysus and Apollo.

Socrates too was conspicuous in the market place talking to all sorts of people.

https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/20 ... lace-ideas
Extract:

Aristotle, for instance, found fault in Plato’s account of the good life in which reason dominates our unruly passions, and Aristotle’s criticisms paved the way for the Epicurean claim that our passions have a positive role to play in our well-being.

[iambiguous]

Compatibilism: Can free will and determinism co-exist?
Stanford philosophy professor takes the side of a beleaguered theory – that predetermination and free will are not mutually exclusive.
BY MAX MCCLURE at Stanford News

William James said it was "a quagmire of evasion." Immanuel Kant called it "wretched subterfuge" and "petty word-jugglery."

Compatibilism – the belief that free will is compatible with a world where every action is determined by the events preceding it – has never been an easy sell.

Click.

I've struggled for the longest time myself trying at least to imagine an argument that might be made that isn't completely nonsensical. And the closest I've come is in suggesting that given determinism as "here and now" "I" "think" I understand it, compatibilists are themselves unable to not make it.

And then, as with all the rest of us, regarding anything at all, they are ever and always off the hook.

"I started noticing that I teach students about compatibilism every year," said John Perry, professor emeritus of philosophy at Stanford. "But every year more of them become incompatibilists instead."

Nature's way? Or if we really do have something to say about it instead does it just become increasingly obvious that the more you think about compatibilism in a determined universe the less defensible it becomes. Let alone attempt to argue for moral responsibility when you could never have not done something.

Again, however, assuming I am in possession of the free will necessary to understand of my own volition the compatibilist's position at all.

He's looking to change that. Perry is a host of the nationally syndicated radio show Philosophy Talk and the author of an upcoming book in defense of the controversial theory.

More to the point -- his? -- how does he encompass a universe where he is never able to not attempt to explain something -- anything -- with whatever the explanation he was never able to not make is?

[iambiguous]

Whether God exists or not, regarding any physical pain the foetus might experience in the abortion procedure one would consider the SAME. (however, in my experience of God - it is capable of 'erasing' pain - I can explain the circumstances where this occurred after having my arm broken after I was assaulted by someone wielding a baseball bat it you feel interested)

Well, if an omniscient and omnipotent God does exist, He is aware of the abortion. He is aware of any pain associated with it. And He has the power to stop the abortion, to end the pain. He does neither.

Just as He has the power to squash Vladimir Putin like a bug. He does not.

Same with you and your broken arm.

How to explain that? Of course: His "mysterious ways". Unless someone here has another definitive, demonstrable explanation for why in a free will world we choose the things we do. Given an omniscient, omnipotent God. Or given that no Gods exist at all.

So, moving on to any further considerations..

If there is NO God, morally I suppose one might consider that you have the chance to provide life to a human, and aborting will clearly deny that.

Again, it always comes down to the particular set of circumstances in which the pregnancy unfolds. And what can any of us really know about it as the pregnant woman herself does? She could have any number of reasons to not want to be pregnant. She was raped. The pregnancy occurred as a result of a defective birth control device. It will damage a relationship she is in. It will cause her to lose her job or drop out of school. It will result in her own possible mental, emotional of physical affliction...even death.

Or she rationalizes it as not the killing of a human being at all but just of a "clump of cells".

If there is a Christian God, morally one could consider that you have the chance to provide life to a human, and aborting will clearly quite possibly deny that, OR, that since humans are not the sole judge of souls, in that if this foetus has a soul, you would not be terminating its soul you could consider that you are indeed returning that soul to God, to perhaps replant it into the womb of someone more willing and perhaps capable of providing the pending child with much more love.

So, in the above two scenarios, I feel there is an irony in that if there IS a God, then morally it is more acceptable to have an abortion, allow that soul to rekindle in the love that all humans deserve.

If, if, if. But "if" to you, in my view, given a No God world, is the embodiment of dasein. As, in turn, are someone's own moral convictions regarding abortion.

Your own understanding of a particular "scenario" still comes down to how you are able to demonstrate to others that they should understand it as you do too.

And for at least half the human population -- men -- what can they possibly know about agonizing over an unwanted pregnancy.

In a No God world.

Then the part where all of this is pertinent to compatibilism.

[attofishpi]

Whether God exists or not, regarding any physical pain the foetus might experience in the abortion procedure one would consider the SAME. (however, in my experience of God - it is capable of 'erasing' pain - I can explain the circumstances where this occurred after having my arm broken after I was assaulted by someone wielding a baseball bat it you feel interested)

Well, if an omniscient and omnipotent God does exist, He is aware of the abortion. He is aware of any pain associated with it. And He has the power to stop the abortion, to end the pain. He does neither.

Just as He has the power to squash Vladimir Putin like a bug. He does not.

Same with you and your broken arm.

"He" caused the broken arm - that morning as I climbed out of bed a voice stated very clearly "Tonight, bad luck." There is of course more to that story and the circumstances that made it "justified" to this entity.

Atheists (not sure what u r still, perhaps I am a bit slow on the uptake) seem to think that we should all be is some sort of "perfection" if there is a God, that we should already have heaven. The question then beckons, Y R we not?

How to explain that? Of course: His "mysterious ways". Unless someone here has another definitive, demonstrable explanation for why in a free will world we choose the things we do. Given an omniscient, omnipotent God. Or given that no Gods exist at all.

You truly are ambiguous...you appear to be blaming God and its lack of interference and in the same move blaming free will and us, since 'we' choose the things we do. You really need to be direct with me, waffle tires me.

So, moving on to any further considerations..

If there is NO God, morally I suppose one might consider that you have the chance to provide life to a human, and aborting will clearly deny that.

Again, it always comes down to the particular set of circumstances in which the pregnancy unfolds. And what can any of us really know about it as the pregnant woman herself does? She could have any number of reasons to not want to be pregnant. She was raped. The pregnancy occurred as a result of a defective birth control device. It will damage a relationship she is in. It will cause her to lose her job or drop out of school. It will result in her own possible mental, emotional of physical affliction...even death. Or she rationalizes it as not the killing of a human being at all but just of a "clump of cells".

Rape etc.. now you are throwing more circumstances into the equation not aforementioned in our brief exchange. Sure kill, what's the problem?

If there is a Christian God, morally one could consider that you have the chance to provide life to a human, and aborting will clearly quite possibly deny that, OR, that since humans are not the sole judge of souls, in that if this foetus has a soul, you would not be terminating its soul you could consider that you are indeed returning that soul to God, to perhaps replant it into the womb of someone more willing and perhaps capable of providing the pending child with much more love.

So, in the above two scenarios, I feel there is an irony in that if there IS a God, then morally it is more acceptable to have an abortion, allow that soul to rekindle in the love that all humans deserve.

If, if, if. But "if" to you, in my view, given a No God world, is the embodiment of dasein. As, in turn, are someone's own moral convictions regarding abortion.

Your own understanding of a particular "scenario" still comes down to how you are able to demonstrate to others that they should understand it as you do too.

And for at least half the human population -- men -- what can they possibly know about agonizing over an unwanted pregnancy.

I did it, I agreed to ABORT.

In a No God world.

Then the part where all of this is pertinent to compatibilism.

Compatibilism is yet another word invented by "deep" thinkers that appear to like to waffle, drivel shit, instead of just nailing things down.

Still, I wonder what your actual opinion is regarding the binary proposition of abortion, if there IS a God, and if there ISN'T:- which position permits abortion to be more morally acceptable?