Does the "Free Will" point of view affect morals and character?

[Flannel Jesus]

Regarding

It's for your own benefit that I ask you to talk to people who disagree with you as individuals and not as monoliths. Doing so will improve YOUR persuasive abilities, give you more fruitful conversations, and make you sound less ignorant.

Is it bad and monolithic to confound an argument that supports Free Will, but not confound the person who argues on behalf of it?

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you give an example?

[popeye1945]

There is only one kind of meaning and that is experience, one cannot stop experiencing as long as one is alive. Where is the free will there unless one chooses to commit suicide in order not to experience? This is where the saying comes in there is always a choice, meaning one can choose death rather than experience anything in general or particular.

[Wizard22]

There is only one kind of meaning and that is experience, one cannot stop experiencing as long as one is alive. Where is the free will there unless one chooses to commit suicide in order not to experience? This is where the saying comes in there is always a choice, meaning one can choose death rather than experience anything in general or particular.

Why is 'suicide' an act of Free-Will, to you? Does it have to be all-or-nothing? Do you have to put your life on the line, to demonstrate and prove Free-Will exists??

[popeye1945]

There is only one kind of meaning and that is experience, one cannot stop experiencing as long as one is alive. Where is the free will there unless one chooses to commit suicide in order not to experience? This is where the saying comes in there is always a choice, meaning one can choose death rather than experience anything in general or particular.

Why is 'suicide' an act of Free-Will, to you? Does it have to be all-or-nothing? Do you have to put your life on the line, to demonstrate and prove Free-Will exists??

I am saying it is a choice of lesser evils, it is quite impossible to prove something to be of free will. The historical complexity of the organism's subjective experience/conditionings/and adaptations through its evolution as species makes free will absolutely incomprehensible. Behaviors are more understandable when recognized for what they are, reactions to outer stimulus, and even instincts are but hardwired reactions to outer causes as the conditioning of species in its present manifestation as individual.

[Wizard22]

But you did use suicide as an example of what free-will might be, in action...

For example, when people are willing to put their lives on the line for certain ideals, no matter how foolish or wise those ideals might be.

[popeye1945]

But you did use suicide as an example of what free-will might be, in action...

For example, when people are willing to put their lives on the line for certain ideals, no matter how foolish or wise those ideals might be.

No, everything is a reaction, if you fear something more than death, then death is an alternative, the fear of that something else is the cause of one's reaction.

No, people putting their lives on the line sometimes can mean they have identified with another self, which gives rise to compassion. It is what Schopenhauer called, a metaphysical realization, that you and the other are one. As I have stated before there is no such thing as an unmotivated movement, and motivation spells reaction, not action. Programming and peer pressure can also feed into people behaving against the first principle of life, that of survival. Again, there is no such thing as an unmotivated movement, unless one is considering an epileptic movement, and then even that is a reaction to a short circuit in the brain. Suicide is always a desperate measure of avoidance of a greater fear---a reaction.

[Belinda]

Regarding

It's for your own benefit that I ask you to talk to people who disagree with you as individuals and not as monoliths. Doing so will improve YOUR persuasive abilities, give you more fruitful conversations, and make you sound less ignorant.

Is it bad and monolithic to confound an argument that supports Free Will, but not confound the person who argues on behalf of it?

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you give an example?

I mean that people who, with every intention of being good and benefitting others, sometimes get a bad idea.
For instance people such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Nazis, fascists, political imperialists, who think tribally not universally are possessed of the bad idea that they are entitled to be right and powerful. These are not bad people, they are people who are enchanted by a bad idea.

Similarly absolute Free Will is a bad idea because it can and does stop people seeking the causes of bad behaviour. The causes of bad behaviour should be discovered if we are to sort it. Free will is simplistic as the causes of bad behaviour are more complex than individual choice. People who believe in absolute Free Will are not bad people; they are people who are enchanted with a bad idea.

[Flannel Jesus]

I mean that people who, with every intention of being good and benefitting others, sometimes get a bad idea.
For instance people such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Nazis, fascists, political imperialists, who think tribally not universally are possessed of the bad idea that they are entitled to be right and powerful. These are not bad people, they are people who are enchanted by a bad idea.

Similarly absolute Free Will is a bad idea because it can and does stop people seeking the causes of bad behaviour. The causes of bad behaviour should be discovered if we are to sort it. Free will is simplistic as the causes of bad behaviour are more complex than individual choice. People who believe in absolute Free Will are not bad people; they are people who are enchanted with a bad idea.

I don't think most people who believe in free will would disagree with you that it's a bad idea to look for the causes of bad behaviour.

[Wizard22]

I mean that people who, with every intention of being good and benefitting others, sometimes get a bad idea.
For instance people such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Nazis, fascists, political imperialists, who think tribally not universally are possessed of the bad idea that they are entitled to be right and powerful. These are not bad people, they are people who are enchanted by a bad idea.

Similarly absolute Free Will is a bad idea because it can and does stop people seeking the causes of bad behaviour. The causes of bad behaviour should be discovered if we are to sort it. Free will is simplistic as the causes of bad behaviour are more complex than individual choice. People who believe in absolute Free Will are not bad people; they are people who are enchanted with a bad idea.

See FJ, I told you so.

"Free-Will is bad because people will do Evil".

And you keep telling me "Not all Determininsts are alike!"

Then why do all Determinists reason the same way, when it comes to Free-Will? Why only look at the bad and evil outcomes of Free-Will? Why not look at the Good?

[Belinda]

I mean that people who, with every intention of being good and benefitting others, sometimes get a bad idea.
For instance people such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Nazis, fascists, political imperialists, who think tribally not universally are possessed of the bad idea that they are entitled to be right and powerful. These are not bad people, they are people who are enchanted by a bad idea.

Similarly absolute Free Will is a bad idea because it can and does stop people seeking the causes of bad behaviour. The causes of bad behaviour should be discovered if we are to sort it. Free will is simplistic as the causes of bad behaviour are more complex than individual choice. People who believe in absolute Free Will are not bad people; they are people who are enchanted with a bad idea.

I don't think most people who believe in free will would disagree with you that it's a bad idea to look for the causes of bad behaviour.

I agree. Those people simply have not explored absolute Free Will to its logical conclusion.The logical conclusion of absolute Free Will is that a man originates sans cause what he believes.
There is no such thing as an originator sans cause except for God or Nature take your pick.

[Wizard22]

No, everything is a reaction, if you fear something more than death, then death is an alternative, the fear of that something else is the cause of one's reaction.

No, people putting their lives on the line sometimes can mean they have identified with another self, which gives rise to compassion. It is what Schopenhauer called, a metaphysical realization, that you and the other are one. As I have stated before there is no such thing as an unmotivated movement, and motivation spells reaction, not action. Programming and peer pressure can also feed into people behaving against the first principle of life, that of survival. Again, there is no such thing as an unmotivated movement, unless one is considering an epileptic movement, and then even that is a reaction to a short circuit in the brain. Suicide is always a desperate measure of avoidance of a greater fear---a reaction.

So somebody driven to risk their life, is reacting to fear of death???

That doesn't make any sense. They're not "reacting" to anything. When people put their lives on the line for something, an ideal, a goal, that is pro-active, not re-active.

[Wizard22]

The logical conclusion of Free-Will is Good, not Evil.

[Belinda]

No, everything is a reaction, if you fear something more than death, then death is an alternative, the fear of that something else is the cause of one's reaction.

No, people putting their lives on the line sometimes can mean they have identified with another self, which gives rise to compassion. It is what Schopenhauer called, a metaphysical realization, that you and the other are one. As I have stated before there is no such thing as an unmotivated movement, and motivation spells reaction, not action. Programming and peer pressure can also feed into people behaving against the first principle of life, that of survival. Again, there is no such thing as an unmotivated movement, unless one is considering an epileptic movement, and then even that is a reaction to a short circuit in the brain. Suicide is always a desperate measure of avoidance of a greater fear---a reaction.

So somebody driven to risk their life, is reacting to fear of death???

That doesn't make any sense. They're not "reacting" to anything. When people put their lives on the line for something, an ideal, a goal, that is pro-active, not re-active.

Yes, I think "reaction " needs some parsing and elucidation in our context.

[Wizard22]

Reaction implies that your mind is pointed firmly in "The Past". Not the Present. Not the Future.

Reactive = Past
Active = Present
Proactive = Future

Popeye's mind is firmly entranced by The Past. Why? I don't know, but he's an interesting case study... Popeye, care to explain?

[Belinda]

I have every faith in Popeye to elucidate and explain.