compatibilism

[iambiguous]

You're not saying anything. You're not even trying to make progress, in any direction. You're not trying to learn something, you're not trying to convince me of something, you're not getting to be convinced of something, you're just saying silliness.

For pages and pages, you have had absolutely no direction in any of your interactions on this thread. You're just marking time saying nothing.

Where do you want to go in this conversation? Figure that out, and start going there.

Stooge stuff? The part where I'm saying something only when I say the same things that you do?

Thanks, but no thanks.

On the other hand, what if where we both want this exchange to go is entirely predicated on our brains taking it where it can only possibly go? Besides, in my view, where it must go is to the grave. You and I obliterated for all time to come...not ever even knowing if down the road all this actually does get settled once and for all.

Or does God and religion factor into your own future?

[iambiguous]

Now, if you know someone convinced that they are wholly in sync with the "real me" and come in here disdainful of those who do not share their own conclusions regarding either moral, political and spiritual value judgments or explanations regarding the Big Questions -- "my way or you're wrong" -- what would you call them?

That's called a belief.

Right. Ayn Rand believed in capitalism. Karl Marx believed in Communism. Adolph Hitler believed in the Final Solution. The Taliban believe in Allah. The Pope believes in Catholicism.

So, historically, what has often happened when those who believe in something gained power and had the capacity to insist that others must believe the same thing...or else? Again, I call them objectivists and, subjectively, I suggest that they are dangerous to those who believe instead in, say, democracy and the rule of law.

Call them something else if you must.

People who allow themselves to think things usually come to have beliefs. Beliefs can be discussed, they can be corrected, they can be at different levels of certainty, they can be justifiable rationally or unjustifiable, but you seem disdainful of all belief all together.

Right.

Actually, what I believe "here and now" is that in regard to morality and politics and religion and the Big Questions, I am fractured and fragmented, drawn and quartered, pulled and tugged ambivalently in conflicting directions. And that the objectivists among us obviate this precarious and perturbing frame of mind by embracing one or another God or No God "Ism".

Some then insist that others are then either "one of us" [the good guys] or "one of them" [the bad guys].

Then back to the Stooge stuff:

If you allowed yourself to start thinking, instead of saying things like "well I don't know how consciousness evolved so I guess I can stop thinking now", you might come to have some beliefs yourself

Again, what on earth persuades you to read any of my posts...if not the fact that your own brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matter, compels you to?

[iambiguous]

I commented on this above. If Jane's life is a good life then she owes it all to the fact that her mother's friend of her own free will discussed the pregnancy with her mother. And while Mary of her own free will had opted to abort Jane, now she opts to give birth as a result of this exchange between two autonomous minds. Whereas in a wholly determined world where Mary aborts her, she was never able to opt not to. I merely interject here with my own assessment of the role that dasein and the Benjamin Button Syndrome play here.

But if Jane's life has become a miserable hellhole, she might curse her mother for freely choosing to bring her into this stinking world. So, of her own free will, she might choose to commit suicide.

If there is no free will, as I assert, it would significantly change the meaning of your statement above. In a deterministic world, Mary's decision to abort or give birth to Jane would not be a matter of her free will, but rather a result of prior causes and conditions that led her to make that decision.

Okay, but given the "now" when you asserted it, you asserted it because you were never able to opt not to assert it. Why? Because as a "result of prior causes and conditions" you were determined to assert it.

The only difference between you and I here is that I am compelled by my own brain to argue that neither one of us have the capacity to actually demostrate empirically, experientially, scientifically, etc., whether what we assert here is in fact determined.

Therefore, if there is no free will, Jane's existence and subsequent experience of a good or miserable life would not be a matter of her mother's free choice. It would be the result of a chain of cause and effect that led to her birth and subsequent experiences. In this case, Jane could not blame or praise her mother for her circumstances since both her mother's decision and Jane's experiences were determined by prior causes and conditions.

The part where -- click -- we both seem to agree because we are both compelled by the laws of matter to agree.

But then...

In this case, Jane could not blame or praise her mother for her circumstances since both her mother's decision and Jane's experiences were determined by prior causes and conditions.

Of course Jane could blame or paise her mother. It's just not her praise or blame is no less embedded in the only possible reality.

Moreover, the concepts of dasein and the Benjamin Button Syndrome, which suggest that an individual's experiences and choices shape their life, would not hold in a deterministic world. Instead, an individual's life would be determined by external factors beyond their control.

No, you want to make them concepts. I want to explore them existentially given the assumption that we do live in a free will world. But, if we do not, then I bring them up only because I was never able not to.

As you've described it above, your problem or dilemma (I'm not sure which it is) doesn't make any sense to me.

Right, as though given the manner in which you yourself seem to encompass a no free will determined universe, it ever could have made sense to you.

[Flannel Jesus]

Right. Ayn Rand believed in capitalism. Karl Marx believed in Communism. Adolph Hitler believed in the Final Solution. The Taliban believe in Allah. The Pope believes in Catholicism.

So, historically, what has often happened when those who believe in something gained power and had the capacity to insist that others must believe the same thing...or else? Again, I call them objectivists and, subjectively, I suggest that they are dangerous to those who believe instead in, say, democracy and the rule of law.

Absolutely, you're right, people who have any belief at all are always comparable to people like Hitler. Having any belief of any sort means you want to use politics and violence to force other people to believe that. People who believe that 2+2 equals 4 are Nazis basically. That is a completely rational thing for you to believe.

WAIT, BELIEVE? You believe that? That means you believe something. You fucking Nazi.

Do you see how absurd this line of reasoning is?

[BigMike]

Right. Ayn Rand believed in capitalism. Karl Marx believed in Communism. Adolph Hitler believed in the Final Solution. The Taliban believe in Allah. The Pope believes in Catholicism.

So, historically, what has often happened when those who believe in something gained power and had the capacity to insist that others must believe the same thing...or else? Again, I call them objectivists and, subjectively, I suggest that they are dangerous to those who believe instead in, say, democracy and the rule of law.

Absolutely, you're right, people who have any belief at all are always comparable to people like Hitler. Having any belief of any sort means you want to use politics and violence to force other people to believe that. People who believe that 2+2 equals 4 are Nazis basically. That is a completely rational thing for you to believe.

WAIT, BELIEVE? You believe that? That means you believe something. You fucking Nazi.

Do you see how absurd this line of reasoning is?

I can see where you both are coming from. Iambiguous seems to be pointing out that when people with strong beliefs gain power and use that power to force others to adopt their beliefs, it can lead to dangerous and oppressive situations. On the other hand, Flannel Jesus is highlighting the absurdity of equating any belief with the extremist and violent beliefs of Hitler and the Taliban.

It's important to distinguish between beliefs that are benign and those that are harmful. Believing in democracy, for example, is not comparable to believing in the Final Solution. While it's true that having any belief at all means you believe in something, not all beliefs are created equal in terms of their potential to harm others.

So, while it's important to be wary of those who would use their beliefs to justify oppression and violence, we also shouldn't dismiss all beliefs as inherently dangerous. Instead, we should evaluate each belief on its own merits and assess the potential consequences of putting that belief into action.

[Flannel Jesus]

None of that is even relevant here though. There isn't anybody in here promoting anything like forcing their beliefs onto other people. Which is why I've called it a red herring - it's entirely out of context. There is nothing happening here which makes any of that conversation remotely relevant. It's pure nonsense.

He's equating arguing for a certain position with forcing people to believe something, which is... obviously beyond absurd.

So in his mind, just believing something and making an argument that it's true is enough to compare you to a nazi. Somehow. But he can't make that argument without arguing that he himself is a Nazi, ironically. Again, absurd.

[BigMike]

None of that is even relevant here though. There isn't anybody in here promoting anything like forcing their beliefs onto other people. Which is why I've called it a red herring - it's entirely out of context. There is nothing happening here which makes any of that conversation remotely relevant. It's pure nonsense.

He's equating arguing for a certain position with forcing people to believe something, which is... obviously beyond absurd.

So in his mind, just believing something and making an argument that it's true is enough to compare you to a nazi. Somehow. But he can't make that argument without arguing that he himself is a Nazi, ironically. Again, absurd.

I understand your point, Flannel Jesus. It's important to distinguish between people who argue for a certain position and those who use their beliefs to justify oppression and violence. However, I think Iambiguous was trying to raise a broader point about the potential dangers of any belief system that seeks to impose its beliefs on others. While it's true that no one in this conversation is advocating for such behavior, I think it's worth considering the potential implications of certain beliefs when they are taken to their extreme.

I agree that comparing anyone who believes in something to a Nazi is a false equivalency and an extreme comparison. However, I think it's important to recognize that some beliefs have historically been used to justify terrible acts of violence and oppression, and it's worth considering how we can prevent those beliefs from being used in harmful ways in the future.

So, while we can acknowledge that not all beliefs are created equal and that arguing for a position is not the same as using violence to force others to adopt that position, it's still important to be aware of the potential dangers of certain beliefs and to work towards creating a world where everyone's beliefs are respected without the use of violence or oppression.

[Flannel Jesus]

How is any of that shit relevant here at all? Why is it important to make those points in the context of this conversation, at all? It's completely out of place.

[Iwannaplato]

However, I think Iambiguous was trying to raise a broader point about the potential dangers of any belief system that seeks to impose its beliefs on others.

It seems to me that your response to FJ here is you arguing in favor of a position you believe in. That it's important to stop people who want to impose their beliefs on others. You made an argument in favor of that. You've made arguments in favor of deteminism being the case. This means you qualify as an objectivist in Iambigious's eyes. I don't mean potentially. I mean he already thinks that.

What qualifies as 'imposing'?

Do you think you are an objectivist? And if so, is this something you shouldn't be?

[Flannel Jesus]

Are we all Nazis on this blessed day?

[BigMike]

How is any of that shit relevant here at all? Why is it important to make those points in the context of this conversation, at all? It's completely out of place.

I understand your frustration. However, as someone who is reading this conversation, I think it's important to consider the broader implications of the discussion. While it may not be directly relevant to the specific points being made in this thread, the issue of how beliefs can be used to justify oppression and violence is a topic that is relevant to many conversations and debates.

That being said, I can see how this may not be the best place to have this particular conversation. If you and Iambiguous would like to continue discussing this issue further, perhaps it would be more appropriate to do so through private messages or in a separate thread. That way, other readers on this forum can engage with the topic at hand without getting bogged down in our disagreement.

[BigMike]

However, I think Iambiguous was trying to raise a broader point about the potential dangers of any belief system that seeks to impose its beliefs on others.

It seems to me that your response to FJ here is you arguing in favor of a position you believe in. That it's important to stop people who want to impose their beliefs on others. You made an argument in favor of that. You've made arguments in favor of deteminism being the case. This means you qualify as an objectivist in Iambigious's eyes. I don't mean potentially. I mean he already thinks that.

What qualifies as 'imposing'?

Do you think you are an objectivist? And if so, is this something you shouldn't be?

I can understand why you might view me as an objectivist, given that I have made arguments in favor of certain positions. However, I would argue that there is a difference between arguing for a position and seeking to impose that position on others through force or coercion. In my view, it's important to respect other people's beliefs and to work towards creating a society where everyone has the freedom to hold and express their beliefs without fear of persecution.

As for what qualifies as "imposing," I think it's any attempt to force someone else to adopt your beliefs against their will. This can take many forms, from physical violence to more subtle forms of coercion, such as social pressure or economic sanctions.

Regarding whether or not I consider myself an objectivist, I would say that it depends on how you define the term. If objectivism is simply the belief in the existence of objective reality and the ability of human reason to comprehend it, then I suppose I could be considered an objectivist. However, if objectivism is taken to mean a rigid adherence to a particular philosophical system or ideology, then I would say that I am not an objectivist.

Ultimately, I believe that it's important to approach questions of philosophy and politics with an open mind and a willingness to consider multiple perspectives. While I have my own beliefs and convictions, I also recognize that others may hold different views, and I think it's important to engage with those views in a respectful and thoughtful way.

[BigMike]

Are we all Nazis on this blessed day?

Well, I don't know about you, Flannel Jesus, but I certainly didn't wake up this morning and think to myself, "Gee, how can I be more like a Nazi today?" But now that you mention it, I've got some spare time this afternoon, so maybe I'll dust off my copy of Mein Kampf and see if I can pick up some pointers.

All joking aside, I think we can agree that throwing around the label of Nazi without any real justification is not particularly helpful or productive. So let's leave the hyperbole aside and focus on having a real conversation about the topics at hand.

[Flannel Jesus]

How is any of that shit relevant here at all? Why is it important to make those points in the context of this conversation, at all? It's completely out of place.

I understand your frustration. However, as someone who is reading this conversation, I think it's important to consider the broader implications of the discussion. While it may not be directly relevant to the specific points being made in this thread, the issue of how beliefs can be used to justify oppression and violence is a topic that is relevant to many conversations and debates.

That being said, I can see how this may not be the best place to have this particular conversation. If you and Iambiguous would like to continue discussing this issue further, perhaps it would be more appropriate to do so through private messages or in a separate thread. That way, other readers on this forum can engage with the topic at hand without getting bogged down in our disagreement.

You're telling the wrong person. I didn't drag this into the conversation in the first place. Iambiguous has done that, numerous times. I'm not the one who can stop it - if you've read my recent posts, you'll see quite clearly that I'd like it to stop more than you do.

[Iwannaplato]

I can understand why you might view me as an objectivist

I don't view you as an objectivist. I don't use that term except in reference to Iambiguous who does or in relation to the followers of Ayn Rand, with quite another meaning.

given that I have made arguments in favor of certain positions. However, I would argue that there is a difference between arguing for a position and seeking to impose that position on others through force or coercion.

That doesn't seem to matter in relation to Iambiguous.

As for what qualifies as "imposing," I think it's any attempt to force someone else to adopt your beliefs against their will. This can take many forms, from physical violence to more subtle forms of coercion, such as social pressure or economic sanctions.

OK, so that seems to be the problem, not the believing strongly in a position.