compatibilism

[Immanuel Can]

And that, my friends, is why they gotta teach about emergence in philosophy courses.

They do.

"Emergence" is a non-explanation. It just implies that when something reaches a certain level of development, new properties "just emerge" from it. In other words, that the speaker has absolutely no idea at all what makes it "emerge," or even any proof that it "emerges" at all. It's a raw speculation. One may as well just say, "magically appears."

[Flannel Jesus]

case in point

[Immanuel Can]

case in point

Oh, good. You can explain to me what "emergence" means. Go ahead.

[Flannel Jesus]

case in point

Oh, good. You can explain to me what "emergence" means. Go ahead.

I can't explain it to you, it's complicated. I never said it was simple, I said they should teach it - because it's not simple. But it's vital for philosophy like this.

[Immanuel Can]

case in point

Oh, good. You can explain to me what "emergence" means. Go ahead.

I can't explain it to you, it's complicated. I never said it was simple, I said they should teach it - because it's not simple. But it's vital for philosophy like this.

So...you don't know what it is -- but you're sure it's reeeeeeaaallly important.

Well, good for you.

[Flannel Jesus]

My inability to teach it to snarky shits on the internet is not proof that i don't know what it is

[phyllo]

It seems fairly obvious that the brain is more than the properties and characteristics of individual atoms.

So the brain must be an example of emergence.

[iambiguous]

The above that I highlighted is already in the clouds. The clouds were never abandoned.

Well, sure, if some insist that Marx and Engels assessment of capitalism is far, far, far too abstract -- abstruse? -- to have any relevancy regarding human interactions, well, I won't attempt to dissuade them.

I was talking about the text you created. Marx and Engels both used a lot of concrete examples in their texts, especially Engels, but there was nothing to quote from them in that post.

The text I created suggested that the text they created is far, far more applicable to the evolution of political economy than, say, Ayn Rand's metaphyscial capitalism.

She even advocated a metaphysical morality!

On the other hand, some hard determinists might argue that both Marx and Rand are interchangeable in the sense that neither one was ever able not to think as they did, or not to publish as they did.

Since we accept that we must maintain a moral attitude to life, we must consider the following principles. Any moral judgment has a practical character. In essence, it guides us on how we should act in our lives.

Cue the pragmatists?

Meaning?

Well -- click -- given my own rooted existentially in dasein personal opinion, this does revolve around democracy and the rule of law. Around moderation, negotiation and compromise.

Stll not sure what 'Cue the pragmatics' means. What were we to understand from that phrase?

That if the moderates and pragmatists fail to keep the center from collapsing, either the autocratic thugs or the theocratic thugs might prevail.

Indeed, I remember a time when that would have been thought of as, well, unthinkable. Here in America. Now even the mainstream media will occaasionally come flat out and equate MAGA with the latest rendition of fascism.

Moral judgments are universal by nature. The same principles apply in similar circumstances, and to people with similar characteristics. In making and acting on moral judgments we must consider the rights and interests of other people, as our behavior always affects them too. We must understand certain values as essential components of justice; for example, the common good, impartiality, equal treatment, and respect for basic individual rights and freedoms. Finally, we must cultivate the virtues which will allow us to act correctly in situations of moral dilemmas.

See what I mean? All up and down the moral and political and spiritual and philosophical spectrum there are those who will embrace this frame of mind. Only to tack on a proviso:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

Chances are your own frame of mind is among them.

The difference can hardly be greater in that in regard to meaning and morality and metaphysics, I'm not here arguing "my way or the highway". On the contrary, given all of the many different assessments of compatibilism I have encountered over the years, I'm really not any less fractured and fragmented at all.

Was the guy you quoted saying 'my way or the highway'?

More to the point [mine here and now] if he did mean it or if he didn't mean it, how is that not interchangeable in a world where what we mean is that which we could never opt freely not to mean.

Yeah, sure you admitted this came from dasein, your own. But you pressed for these values for years while judging other values. There are many objectivists who consider their positions potentially fallible.

Yet again...

The chances that my own understanding of compatibilism "here and now" is correct going back to [you tell me] almost certainly remains just a more or less wild ass guess.

Then you could explain what you think compatibilism is, in some detail, and then why you think it is impossible. As it is now you express incredulity, which implies you think - though, yes, are unsure - it is impossible, without ever explaining why you think this.

Please. What compatibilism "is" to each and everyone one of us as individuals is either embedded in an objective reality we do have access to or it's not. Then the part here where I intertwine assessments like this in dasein. Different experiences, different relationships, different sources of information and knowledge, etc., lead to -- gasp! -- different conclusions.

And I challenge anyone to actually demonstrate how and why their own set of assumptions here really do reflect an objective -- the objective? -- reality.

As for the part where I'm not explaining this to your own satisfaction, I'm still inclined to translate that into this: "but that's not how I explain it though!!"

Hell, for all I know [in not being you], you might not even be fully aware that you do this.

You didn't really address whether a common morals might lead to societal cohesion, might not be so different from suggesting for example that we be moderate, compromising and negotiate, at least for many people. Do you think he was wrong in his assertion that morals can lead to societal cohesion?

Yet the gist of this thread revolves instead around my attempt to understand how someone who does argue for or against moderation, negotiation and compromise, can be held responsible for doing so in a world where they were never, ever able to argue otherwise.

You can't see how you hold people who have different values and a different meta-ethical position responsible for their positions despite the possibility, even liklihood, that determinism is the case? You don't notice that you do hold people responsible? Do you miss when you level moral judgments at other people, both groups and individuals? Do you not notice this?

Again -- click -- if this is something you need to believe about me in order to sustain what you need to believe about yourself, sure, you may or may not possess the necessary autonomy to do so of your own volition.

As for my judgments of others here, I'm either unable not to judge them other than as my brain/mind compels me to or -- click -- my judgments are no less rooted existentially in dasein. And therefore ever and always subject to change themselves given new experiences, relationships, new information and knowledge.

[iambiguous]

And here I find you asking PHyllo to give the gist of my argument, like you'e a CEO or Baron, who can't really be bothered to read something he asked someone to write.

Posting in three different philosophy forums now, there's no way I'm going to wade through all that. At least not until my brain compels me to.

So, let's cut to the chase. This guy with the hammer...?

Two forums.

Sorry, almost forgot. I really did think I posted in three forums. But now I know that it must be only two. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

Why not wade through either of the first posts (in this forum two in a row) or the first that you refused to respond to in ILP? The rest are just me pointing out how you evaded and then asked me and others to repeat what you never responded to. And how precisely confirming my concern shifted the topic from responsbility and determinism to conflicting goods.

Again: This guy with the hammer...?

So, instead of actually reading and responding, you now want me to repeat my arguments with examples.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

On the other hand, what the fuck is wrong with you? You've been "exposing" me now for over 10 years. Why not just declare victory and move on to the actual serious philosophers here. I mean, it's not like they are ever likely to run out of clouds.

Why not just say that you come here to show what texts and people's post trigger you to say? That your not very interested in what other people have to say unless they are young and attractive women who you can manage to actually read with some care and not throw just the same Iamb cliches at. That you really don't care what people are actually saying since you are sure it can't change your mind about anything.

Click:

Note to others:

Tell me I'm not on to something here when I suggest a more realistic explanation is that I am starting to chip away at his own precious philosophical assumptions in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics.

Note to all of the young and attractive women here:

He found out!

Maybe I missed that post, that example, but from my frame of mind “here and now”, any example you provide about any human interactions is no less but one more inherent component of the only reality there could ever possibly have been.

You complain when people are up in the clouds and say no one has responded to your request. A number of people respond to your request and you continue going on about people being up in the clouds and how you want them to do something as if they haven't done it.

Over and over and over again the same set of assumptions from you about me. And, of course, I have absolutely no way in which to determine if they are in fact true. Instead, all I can continue to do is to roll the dice, consider the arguments of others, and admit to myself that they too are no less but more of Nature's automatons.



Now, back to guy with the hammer...?

[Flannel Jesus]

Click:

Note to others:

Tell me I'm not on to something here when I suggest a more realistic explanation is that I am starting to chip away at his own precious philosophical assumptions in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics.

You're not on to something here. I'm not even convinced you're literate enough to possibly chip away at anything - you still haven't figured out what compatibilists think. After all these pages, I would be surprised if you can paraphrase what compatibilists think in your own words. So no, you're not on to something here.

[Iwannaplato]

Now, back to guy with the hammer...?

I wrote a lot about the guy with the hammer. If you did also, please link me to the post where you did. If not, feel free to write about him and what I said and argued. To find the post it's in that post with the links I presented when you were asking Phyllo, for some reason, to do your work for you.

[Iwannaplato]

On the other hand, what the fuck is wrong with you? You've been "exposing" me now for over 10 years. Why not just declare victory and move on to the actual serious philosophers here. I mean, it's not like they are ever likely to run out of clouds.

So, many flaws in such a small space. 1) declaring victory is an empty gesture to me. It's empty when you and Satyr and VA do it. It's like adding to an argument 'and I am correct.' The silliness of which doesn't seem to stop people from doing it. Your version, the 'they are scared of becoming like me and I am chipping away at their.....' is just as silly as Satyr's and VA's constantly saying he proved or demonstrated something, often instead of even trying to. 2) I do interact with other people here, so I don't understand why you present these as hinged to each other. 3) Again, you just assume that all I want is to be up in the clouds when that isn't the case.

So, you can't seem to even imagine any other possible motives on my part, despite my having told you those motives more than once. It's one thing to decide you don't believe them, but you can't even seem to manage to be aware of them.

Tell me I'm not on to something here when I suggest a more realistic explanation is that I am starting to chip away at his own precious philosophical assumptions in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics.

Well, take a shot at demonstrating this to reasonable people.

[Iwannaplato]

You complain when people are up in the clouds and say no one has responded to your request. A number of people respond to your request and you continue going on about people being up in the clouds and how you want them to do something as if they haven't done it.

Over and over and over again the same set of assumptions from you about me. And, of course, I have absolutely no way in which to determine if they are in fact true.

Well, you could follow the links to where I said I gave a concrete example regarding the compatibility of determinsm and free will. If you find that it was in fact not in the theoretical clouds in those posts, then you'd learn something. If you can point to how those posts were just in the theoretical clouds and explain what was missing, then I'll learn something.

Pretty simple.

And if you have absolutely no way to determine if this is true then why do you keep repeating that we're all in the theoretical cloud

Now as to your frame that I am exposing you. You were exposed long before I met you. People had the same reactions in forums that passed away before we met. I don't know who you think I am yearning to convince. Belinda? My general impression of the way you post seems close to consensus, regardless of whether people are objectivists or moral antirealists, determinists or free willers or compatibilists.

And they all managed this on their own.

So, see if you can think of some other motives, perhaps ones, I've even mentioned, more than a few times.

[Belinda]

You complain when people are up in the clouds and say no one has responded to your request. A number of people respond to your request and you continue going on about people being up in the clouds and how you want them to do something as if they haven't done it.

Over and over and over again the same set of assumptions from you about me. And, of course, I have absolutely no way in which to determine if they are in fact true.

Well, you could follow the links to where I said I gave a concrete example regarding the compatibility of determinsm and free will. If you find that it was in fact not in the theoretical clouds in those posts, then you'd learn something. If you can point to how those posts were just in the theoretical clouds and explain what was missing, then I'll learn something.

Pretty simple.

And if you have absolutely no way to determine if this is true then why do you keep repeating that we're all in the theoretical cloud

Now as to your frame that I am exposing you. You were exposed long before I met you. People had the same reactions in forums that passed away before we met. I don't know who you think I am yearning to convince. Belinda? My general impression of the way you post seems close to consensus, regardless of whether people are objectivists or moral antirealists, determinists or free willers or compatibilists.

And they all managed this on their own.

So, see if you can think of some other motives, perhaps ones, I've even mentioned, more than a few times.

How free are you?

[Iwannaplato]

How free are you?

Depends on what level you're asking, and then on some ultimate metaphysical level, I don't know.

I'm not quite sure what this had to do with my post.