compatibilism

[Flannel Jesus]

So, does anyone here believe that historically there have never been any moral, political and spiritual objectivists who gained power in particular communities or nations and demanded of others that they "toe the line" or else?

Nobody cares, because it's not relevant. It's just some random nonsense you brought into the thread that nobody else cares about. The conversation was not about objectivists, Nazis or Taliban until you brought them up. Nobody cares about your nonsense.

Stop crying about objectivists. If you're so scared of other people believing different stuff from you then you're better off without an account on any philosophy forum or social media. You're much too fragile to be on the internet.

Get your parents to install parental controls or something

[iambiguous]

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.

I'm just curious what you mean by "objectivist" and whether you think I'm an "objectivist" for trying to find answers to questions concerning religion and related matters that are 'true' and universal to all?

Again...

From my own subjective, rooted existentially in dasein point of view, if you believe it is possible to be in sync with the real you and, further, the real you is able to grasp the most rational and virtuous manner in which to resolve a moral conflict like abortion, then, "in my own personal opinion", you are an objectivist.

But, so much more to the point, if you find yourself in a position of power in any given community, you then make it your business to insist that others must share the same point of view. And to behave accordingly.

Or else.

[iambiguous]

Is this the latest freewill thread? Kay.

if u say 'determined behavior is goal oriented' (that's your criteria like dennett) then yes, humans are determiners. but if us say 'the universe has no teleology and humans are part of the universe', then your humans have no teleology and are not determined becuz the phenomena that makes conscious, self-aware deliberating behavior - what we wanna call immanent and not transitive cause, 'agency' - is just part of that non teleological process the universe is going through. anything by defintion that is eternal can have no ends, and where there are no ends there are no designs, no plans, no final state, no terminus. so unless u got an agency that transcends space/time, u don't, can't, have a freewill; an immanent cause that is not dependent on substance to exist. that is, a thing that is its own cause and must exist, rather than being a temporary form or mode of existence as a particular thing with properties... something that could only be a transitive cause. an effect or effected first, and then having the power to be a cause once coming into existence.

and if you've got this transcendental agency with freewill, u gotta explain how a non-corporeal entity can make causal contact with corporeal things... and u can't tell me it's in the pineal gland mmkay?

Amazing. I have to say that I was almost turned off by the way you write. But after "translating" your post sentence by sentence, I have to say that I agree with you completely. My approval, though, depends on that my "translation" is correct. I translated your term "determiner" to mean "first mover" or "primus motor". If I got that right, then "Yeah, thumbs up!"

Note to Mary:

Are you morally responsible for killing Jane in a determined universe as they understand it?

Click.

They'll explain it.

[iambiguous]

Would anyone else care to demonstrate to me why I ought to think that winning/losing is irrelevant?

Two nights ago, you had a dream where you won an event and got all that comes from winning it.

Last night you had the same dream where you lost the event and got none of it.

So, here, what's the difference between winning and losing?

Though, sure, some will insist when the wide-awake brain makes you a winner or a loser that is...different.

Let me up the ante. A child is sexually assaulted. Since it's "predetermined", it's irrelevant whether the child was assaulted or not.

Again, that's the argument that does up the ante. Or you can ask, "if the Holocaust could never have not happened are the Nazis really morally responsible for pursuing it, for acting on it, for killing millions and millions? And if you say they are, is that just one more example of the only possible world unfolding in the only possible way?"

[Gary Childress]

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.

I'm just curious what you mean by "objectivist" and whether you think I'm an "objectivist" for trying to find answers to questions concerning religion and related matters that are 'true' and universal to all?

Again...

From my own subjective, rooted existentially in dasein point of view, if you believe it is possible to be in sync with the real you and, further, the real you is able to grasp the most rational and virtuous manner in which to resolve a moral conflict like abortion, then, "in my own personal opinion", you are an objectivist.

But, so much more to the point, if you find yourself in a position of power in any given community, you then make it your business to insist that others must share the same point of view. And to behave accordingly.

Or else.

So if someone believes that abortion is not murder but OK under certain circumstances and someone else believes abortion is murder and not ok under any circumstances, which one of those is the "objectivist"? Can people who believe such diametrically opposed things live in the same society without constantly coming to odds with each other? Would one of those two people be more 'right' than the other? If not, then how does a community, society or whatever decide which stance is the one they are going to go with? Do they roll dice to see which one the dice gods favor? Do they vote on it and the view with the least number of votes loses? Or how would that conflict be resolved?

[Agent Smith]

1890.8748 ...
8572.9136 ...
3863.1838 ...
9376.8345 ...
----------
2719.3413 ...

[Flannel Jesus]

I'm just curious what you mean by "objectivist" and whether you think I'm an "objectivist" for trying to find answers to questions concerning religion and related matters that are 'true' and universal to all?

Again...

From my own subjective, rooted existentially in dasein point of view, if you believe it is possible to be in sync with the real you and, further, the real you is able to grasp the most rational and virtuous manner in which to resolve a moral conflict like abortion, then, "in my own personal opinion", you are an objectivist.

But, so much more to the point, if you find yourself in a position of power in any given community, you then make it your business to insist that others must share the same point of view. And to behave accordingly.

Or else.

So if someone believes that abortion is not murder but OK under certain circumstances and someone else believes abortion is murder and not ok under any circumstances, which one of those is the "objectivist"? Can people who believe such diametrically opposed things live in the same society without constantly coming to odds with each other? Would one of those two people be more 'right' than the other? If not, then how does a community, society or whatever decide which stance is the one they are going to go with? Do they roll dice to see which one the dice gods favor? Do they vote on it and the view with the least number of votes loses? Or how would that conflict be resolved?

It's worth noting, I think, that up to now he absolutely has not used the word "objectivist" to refer to people who are moral objectivists. If that were the criteria, he wouldn't be referring to me as an objectivist, since I have made no claim about any moral facts in this thread, and elsewhere in the forum I have explicitly said I think exactly the opposite, that there probably aren't objective moral facts.

He's misrepresenting his own definition of objectivist now. It was established prior, by him, that an objectivist is merely someone who believes something.

So probably just about everyone who has posted anything on this forum at all is an objectivist by the standards he's used here

[Flannel Jesus]

That's not how anyone else uses the term. Just someone thinking they're correct isn't enough to qualify someone as an "objectivist", and criticizing them for being an "objectivist" just because they think they are correct about something is inherently hypocritical, because in the act of criticizing you show that you yourself think YOU are correct about something - that you are correct to disprove of them thinking they are correct, and they are incorrect in being an "objectivist".

Well, given free will, that's why over and over and over again I suggest that we take what we believe particular words mean philosophically "in our heads" out into the world of actual human interactions and explore the meaning given particular sets of circumstances.

Here on this thread [for me] Mary aborting Jane. If some do believe that their own argument regarding either the morality of abortion or their own take on free will, determinism and compatibilism reflects the most rational manner in which to think about the existential relationship between Mary choosing an abortion and her moral responsibility, well, if not an objectivist, what would you call them?

So, I mean, if that's what you want the word "objectivist" to mean, you can't criticise someone for being an objectivist without yourself becoming an objectivist.

I don't agree. I am fractured and fragmented in regard to both the morality of abortion and in regard to free will. Given both "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule"...pertaining to those things here that we don't even know that we don't know about regarding this...

Here's a post, for example, where I tell him straight up that an objectivist isn't just anyone who believes something, and he chooses not to correct me, not to say "I'm not saying an objectivist is someone who believes something" - instead, what he does is presents an argument that he's not an objectivist because he's "fractured and fragmented", meaning he doesn't have strong beliefs. So he's not correcting me in how I think he's using the word, despite having the explicit opportunity to, and in fact he's reinforcing that that is in fact how he's using the word "objectivist" - using it to refer to people who believe things.

[Flannel Jesus]

Again, being a moral objectivist as I understand it revolves around someone who is convinced that they are in sync with their "true self" -- their soul -- in sync further with the "right thing to do".

And few things in this world are more dangerous, in my view, than those like this who acquire any significant political power in a community. Almost any community.

"My way or the highway". "One of us or one of them", And, for some, that means the gulags and the death camps.

On the other hand, neck and neck with them are the moral nihilists...those who own and operate the global economy and the sociopaths.

Well, click, of course.

Who are you talking about though? Who are these objectivists you bring up so frequently? Phyllo? Iwannaplato? Me?

Again:

...being a moral objectivist as I understand it revolves around someone who is convinced that they are in sync with their "true self" -- their soul -- in sync further with the "right thing to do".

Or the right way to understand something.

Does that describe you or anyone else here in regard to either their moral, political and spiritual value judgments or in grappling with the Big Questions?

And here he says it himself explicitly. An objectivist can take two forms:

A. A moral objectivist, who believes in moral facts.

B. Someone who is convinced that they have the right way to understand something.

Now, I'm clearly not an objectivist by standard a, as I've made clear, (he hasn't and most likely cannot find an example of me meeting standard a) so he must be using standard b.

(For a data point on why I'm clearly not an objectivist by standard a, viewtopic.php?p=628318#p628318 )

Standard b can be reworded as "someone who believes something". If I think I understand something correctly, that's called a belief. He thinks he understands things correctly. So by criteria b of his own words, he is an objectivist, and so is everyone else.

[Iwannaplato]

And here he says it himself explicitly. An objectivist can take two forms:

A. A moral objectivist, who believes in moral facts.

B. Someone who is convinced that they have the right way to understand something.

Now, I'm clearly not an objectivist by standard a, as I've made clear, (he hasn't and most likely cannot find an example of me meeting standard a) so he must be using standard b.

(For a data point on why I'm clearly not an objectivist by standard a, viewtopic.php?p=628318#p628318 )

Standard b can be reworded as "someone who believes something". If I think I understand something correctly, that's called a belief. He thinks he understands things correctly. So by criteria b of his own words, he is an objectivist, and so is everyone else.

Yes, LOL, as if isn't convinced he has the right way to understand objectivists.

[Flannel Jesus]

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.

This gives a bit more context. Again, the conversation about objectivists is clearly and unambiguously centered around people who believe things. Apparently, if you believe something, biggy can use historical knowledge to surmise that you want to take political power and force your beliefs onto other people.

"Again, I call them objectivists and, subjectively, I suggest that they are dangerous."

I mean, he's spelled it out pretty clearly. Objectivists are people who have beliefs. You know who else had beliefs? Nazis and the Taliban. People with beliefs are dangerous.

It's not unclear at all what biggy was saying here.

[Iwannaplato]

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.

This gives a bit more context. Again, the conversation about objectivists is clearly and unambiguously centered around people who believe things. Apparently, if you believe something, biggy can use historical knowledge to surmise that you want to take political power and force your beliefs onto other people.

"Again, I call them objectivists and, subjectively, I suggest that they are dangerous."

I mean, he's spelled it out pretty clearly. Objectivists are people who have beliefs. You know who else had beliefs? Nazis and the Taliban. People with beliefs are dangerous.

It's not unclear at all what biggy was saying here.

Note the irony I bolded in what you quoted of his.

[Iwannaplato]

It's not unclear at all what biggy was saying here.

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.

Jefferson believed in democracy and the rule of law. Iambiguous believes objectivism is bad. Iambiguous believes that if you are convinced there is free will or convinced determinism is the case, you are similar, morally, to the makers of gulags, the Nazis and the Taliban.

Thus Jefferson and Imbiguous with their beliefs (that they both act on) are objectivists and are a threat to the rule of law and democracy.

[Flannel Jesus]

I'm trembling. When I came to a philosophy forum, the last thing I expected to see was people who believe different things than me!

[Iwannaplato]

I'm trembling. When I came to a philosophy forum, the last thing I expected to see was people who believe different things than me!

You're almost there.
Actually what shocks you is that they believe what they believe and you don't believe what you believe. And this is shocking because you believe they are closer to Hitler than you are and don't hesitate to say or imply this.