compatibilism

[Pistolero]

Miss Land's objective is to undermine all trust in our own judgments, so that we will become more willing, more able to choose to surrender to a collective, she hopes will bring about her Utopia.
So, she's a postmodern Marxist.
She offers no arguments, only a stream of mocking, dismissive, critiques, because she has no arguments.
Her strategy is classic Marxist opportunism. Undermine the system from within, until it collapses.
Her fractured fragmentation - schizophrenia - must be transmitted to everyone. Then, they will submit to her collective, without argument or reason.

Objectivist = anyone who has a perspective that resists.
Objecitvity is her enemy. Her collectivist utopia is inter-subjective.

Mary automatically assumes that whomever contradicts or inhibits the realization of her utopian objectives, is imposing his will upon her.
She considers all threatening perspectives attempts to impose a perspective upon her - rape.
Straight out of Marxism.
In her mind, there is no objective reality, so everything is subjective, therefore, whomever resists or tries to convince her to change her mind, is imposing his perspective upon her.
Her Utopia will be created by all those who have been humbled, losing trust in their own judgments, able to abandon all their beliefs and give themselves to creating an all-inclusive, reality, where nobody will ever feel excluded, or wrong, or inferior.

[phyllo]

So... he was the "objectivist" all along?

Biggus certainly posts like an objectivist : 'this stuff I say is true for everyone'.

Iwp has not replied to my pms for maybe a couple months now, not sure what he's up to. Hope he's good.

IWP hasn't been posting for a while. Have you talked to him since he stopped?

[iambiguous]

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 15, 2025 7:46 am
Well, you have Biggus' standard answer :
They have no choice but to accuse, blame, punish, ...

No, Biggus is no less drawn and quartered here, as well. "Here and now" I've taken an existential leap to determinism. But in no way, shape or form, am I arguing for determinism as the "my way or you're a fucking idiot" objectivists here do. Of course we may have free will.

You're given that same answer ... "they could never have not written/done that" ... hundreds of times on this site and at ILP.

No, I point out there are some hard determinsts who argue that. In other words, that everything we think, feel, intuit, say and do reflects but the only possible reality. Is this true? How the hell would I know? In other words, given The Gap and Rummy's Rule. Unlike others here, I don't sweep that part under the rug as, what, a "trivial pursuit"?

Grow some balls and own what you write.

Again, I "own what I write" by acknowledging that, in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics, what I post here is no less rooted existentially in dasein.

And I suspect your reaction to me still revolves around the fact that at least a part of you is able to recognize that my frame of mind here may well be applicable to you as well.

In my view, it's a fractured and fragmented frame of mind that most perturbs the moral, political and philosophical objectivists among us. God or No God. What if one day, it begins to sink in? After all, what are the odds that your own assessment of compatibilism here is more reasonable than the assessments of any number of these folks:

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_philosophies

Click of course.

Next up: in one ear and out the other.

[phyllo]

No, I point out there are some hard determinsts who argue that.

You hide behind what other people argue.

[Pistolero]

Miss Land's objective is to undermine all trust in our own judgments, so that we will become more willing, more able to choose to surrender to a collective, she hopes will bring about her Utopia.
So, she's a postmodern Marxist.
She offers no arguments, only a stream of mocking, dismissive, critiques, because she has no arguments.
Her strategy is classic Marxist opportunism. Undermine the system from within, until it collapses.
Her fractured fragmentation - schizophrenia - must be transmitted to everyone. Then, they will submit to her collective, without argument or reason.

Objectivist = anyone who has a perspective that resists.
Objecitvity is her enemy. Her collectivist utopia is inter-subjective.

Mary automatically assumes that whoever contradicts or inhibits the realization of her utopian objectives, is imposing his will upon her.
She considers all threatening perspectives attempts to impose a perspective upon her - rape.
Straight out of Marxism.
In her mind, there is no objective reality, so everything is subjective, therefore, whoever resists or tries to convince her to change her mind, is imposing his perspective upon her.
Her Utopia will be created by all those who have been humbled, losing trust in their own judgements, able to abandon all their beliefs and give themselves to creating an all-inclusive, reality, where nobody will ever feel excluded, or wrong, or inferior.

[Pistolero]

Miss Land's objective is to undermine all trust in our own judgments, so that we will become more willing, more able to choose to surrender to a collective, she hopes will bring about her Utopia.
So, she's a postmodern Marxist.
She offers no arguments, only a stream of mocking, dismissive, critiques, because she has no arguments.
Her strategy is classic Marxist opportunism. Undermine the system from within, until it collapses.
Her fractured fragmentation - schizophrenia - must be transmitted to everyone. Then, they will submit to her collective, without argument or reason.

Objectivist = anyone who has a perspective that resists.
Objecitvity is her enemy. Her collectivist utopia is inter-subjective.

Mary automatically assumes that whoever contradicts or inhibits the realization of her utopian objectives, is imposing his will upon her.
She considers all threatening perspectives attempts to impose a perspective upon her - rape.
Straight out of Marxism.
In her mind, there is no objective reality, so everything is subjective, therefore, whoever resists or tries to convince her to change her mind, is imposing his perspective upon her.
Her Utopia will be created by all those who have been humbled, losing trust in their own judgements, able to abandon all their beliefs and give themselves to creating an all-inclusive, reality, where nobody will ever feel excluded, or wrong, or inferior.

Ask Miss Land, to define the words she uses over and over...like Dasein.

Being there...how does this prove anything she's said about anything?
Does Dasien mean, from nothing and nowhere, we are thrown into existence?

Heidegger said that?
Was it Sartre and
Simone de Beauvoir that corrupted Being and Time, in Being and Nothingness?
Was Sartre a Marxist?
What was Heidegger?

[iambiguous]

No, I point out there are some hard determinsts who argue that.

You hide behind what other people argue.

Pick two [and only two]:

1] Mr. Snip, Snip, Snip
2] Mr. Wggle, Wiggle Wiggle

[phyllo]

3) FO

[iambiguous]

3) FO

Click, of course.

[Flannel Jesus]

3) FO

Click, of course.

You're too old for this man, speak English

[phyllo]

He's too old to have a discussion.

[Pistolero]

1- They accuse me of “magical thinking”, when thye are the ones claiming an “illusion” is at work.
Who creates illusions?
A magician.
So, it is they who are using magical thinking.


2 – They ask me for definitions, so I give them my definitions of ‘free’ and ‘will’ which they, predictably, dismiss and mock or interrogate. They offer no definitions of their own, because it would expose their motives and the quality of their minds.
The method used to define and apply words exposes motives, and their motives are not clarity, but obscurity. They chose definitions that nullify the concept they are defining, because they need all men to be equally duped.
I start my definitions with the act, all can subjectively perceive and evaluate independently.
I defined ‘will’ as an act, and then ‘free’ as a qualifier of said act, like the term ‘strong,’ or ‘good,’ or power.’
All qualifiers say something about the concept they refer to.
I do not define them supernaturally because I seek clarity, not a reason to dismiss them as illusory.
If I has issues with power and wanted to convince myself that power is an illusion, and that all men are equally powerless, I would define power in a way that would make it impossible for any man to apply it to anything.
If I was afraid of horse, and I wished they did not exist, then I would define horses as I would unicorns, and then declare them illusions that do not exists, because they do not match the criteria of my definitions.
They do not begin with the perceived phenomenon, they begin with their objective, adjusting their definitions to justify their objectives.

Then they begin interrogating me definitions, asking me to explain how will works or how it emerges etc.
I offer my speculations which do not satisfy them, because they are arguing in bad faith. They don’t care about the truth they care about their postmodern agenda; they care about equalizing all men, even fi it is by reducing them to slaves.
But here’s the thing…I don’t need to know how anything works to know it exists.
Do I need to know how life emerges or how it works to know that it exists and that it is not an illusion?
Do I need to explain how the sun works, to persuade a moron that it I not an illusion, but that it exists?
Do I need to know the inner workings of a combustion engine to know a car exists and that it is different from a block of metal, and that it moves intentionally if it is driven, to convince an imbecile that a car is not an illusion.

The other freak, from ILP, used the analogy of the flat earth to show me how choice is an illusion. Choice is an illusion, like the flat earth, he told me.
But his analogy does not work, because he’s not debating the angle of a perceived earth, he’s saying there’s no earth at all. The earth is an illusion.
He’s not saying choice is not as free, as I think, he’s saying there’s no choice AT ALL. No flat or round earth…no earth at all. A magical illusion.


3- I ask them to explain how big brains evolved if choice is an illusion and the will is not free.
They agree that intelligence offers an advantage, not wanting to expose their creationism, but then they do not explain how this advantage manifests.
For example…I create a judgment, using multiple sources…how do I apply this judgment?
Through a willful act, through my choices, through speech, which is also a willful act.
But, according to these fuckers, choice is an illusion and will is not free…so how then does this advantage become advantageous?
Their descriptions imply that being alive and intelligent is a disadvantage, because at least a stone does not suffer the embarrassment of being fooled by an illusion. A lifeless stone does not suffer the experience of being entirely and completely unable to effect its fate.
A stone is as free as a man, according to these deranged minds, and it has the same choices…only it is not tricked by some mysterious magician into believing that it has a choice.
We're back to creationism and an absolute totalitarian perception of existence.
Commandments have become Natural Laws, that somehow create life to make it suffer the indignity of realizing how impotent it truly is.


4- Life and choice and will, are another way of saying causality. Life is what is participating in what is being determined, intentionally, differing from non-life which simply surrenders to the forces of nature, and has no intent
Free-will is causality with a motive - causality given an objective.
Will is what differentiates the living from the non-living. But id life is as un-free as life, then how did life evolve?
Free is determined by power - power to overcome resistance. An organism's aggregate energies = power.
Energy = power.
Life need not be omnipotent to have some degree of power.
Life need not be omniscient to have some degree of knowledge and understanding.
Those that declare will to be unfree are really describing a Biblical existence. An existence governed by some Satanic trickster, to make man suffer.
Did not the snake convince Adam to bite from the tree of knowledge?
Well, no such device is required for these postmodern degenerate. Adam is already tricked into believing he is free to beak god's laws.
In their updated, secular version, there is no way anyone can ever go against divine laws. the attempt itself is an illusion.
Totalitariansim is compete and absolute.
Nobody can ever be ashamed or guilty or anything, because there are no bad judgements....it's all determined....all fated....all is inevitable.
we are all equally fooled into believing we have a better choice.


5-Notice that these determinists say nothing about race.
Their positions support the idea that, as men are determined to do as they do, so too are populations determined to have a lower, on average iQ, and to be enslaved and exploited.
Then they contradict themselves by claiming that all human disparities are the result of societal factors, meaning humans do have agency and that choice is not an illusion, because ti is men who determined inequalities between men.
In their desperation to equate all men, they have not thought all the implications through.
Their objective drives them to linguistically justify any problems that arise.
As Neo said to the architect...
"Choice is the problem."
A problem for collectivists.

[Belinda]

Causal determinism can be demonstrated by reference to anatomy and physiology.

There is no anatomical or physiological correlate for free will.

If you claim free will has such a correlate you don't know what the concept of free will is.

[Pistolero]

Mutations, dear, are integrated into anatomy.
The frontal lobes, the brain itself, is useless if it cannot apply its judgements.
If choice is an illusion, how can judgement become effective?
The brain's effect would be illusory.
What other way, can you imagine, a judgment offering an advantage?
Through what means?
Magic?
In what way, dear, your a superior judgement manifest itself in reality?
Choice is an "illusion.
Wilful action is unfree and absolutely determiend.
How then, dearest?


If your brain cannot comprehend, move on. believe what you will.
I don't care.
How you cope with your own culpability is your problem.

[Belinda]

Mutations, dear, are integrated into anatomy.
The frontal lobes, the brain itself, is useless if it cannot apply its judgements.
If choice is an illusion, how can judgement become effective?
The brain's effect would be illusory.
What other way, can you imagine, a judgment offering an advantage?
Through what means?
Magic?
In what way, dear, your a superior judgement manifest itself in reality?
Choice is an "illusion.
Wilful action is unfree and absolutely determiend.
How then, dearest?


If your brain cannot comprehend, move on. believe what you will.
I don't care.
How you cope with your own culpability is your problem.

Choice is not an illusion. Each living system chooses between alternatives until it dies.