New Discovery

[peacegirl]

Boring. Just tell us plainly what is the "knowledge that lies hidden behind this door".

If you're that bored, then leave. I cannot cater to you like that. There will be too many gaps and you will then say, "See, I knew she had nothing to offer." I don't want to take that risk. All I can tell you is that the standard definition of determinism is not the definition the author is using. Determinism cannot force a person do anything against his will, which is what is implied. This is causing a major problem in this debate and why these two opposing schools of thought (doing of one's own accord and having no free will) cannot be reconciled.

You've been pushing this book for decades. Surely any question I might have about it is easy for you to answer.

The problem is that forums like this are not the best place to start explaining a discovery of this magnitude that has not been recognized, because most philosophy books that are dissected have been read and gone over many times in philosophy classes. That is why I asked people to read the first three chapters. What's so hard about that? You obviously didn't read these chapters carefully. You pulled out one sentence you didn't like and in your sarcasm you then called him a loser. That's crazy.

What is the second discovery? It's not a difficult question.

There are two more. One has to do with the eyes, and the other has to do with death.

[peacegirl]

I'm not sure what you mean by "linear." Could you explain?



I thought it meant not just randomness but the ability to choose A or B equally without compulsion.



Evil in this context means hurting others (i.e., doing to others what they don't want done to themselves) whether it is through narcissism, hedonism, or the plain old taking advantage to gain at someone else's expense.

One assertion leads to the next, arguments are generally linear.

Got it.

Without a determining force the will is effectively non-deterministic, random.

That is true but by using the phrase "determining force", it is causing a lot of confusion because of the implications. Nothing can force us to do anything against our will or without our consent.

Define hurt. Discipline hurts, does it mean it is evil?

It is not evil if disciplining someone because they have hurt someone else is necessary. For example, a child may need to be reprimanded for something he did that hurt another so that the child can understand why his behavior needs to change. Other than that, discipline could be used as power play (usually by adults) that leads to rebellion.

Reality hurts...is this evil as well? You are equating suffering with evil and there is no standard by which this can be conceived other than subjective value placement.

The standard definition of evil (hurt) used here is anything that a person does to another that they don't want done to themselves. For example, if I don't want you to shoot me, I am placing a value on you not shooting me. If I don't care if I'm shot, then not shooting me holds no value for me. But most people value their life and don't want to be shot, which is why certain standards of "right and wrong" exist. There are always exceptions.

Pinpoint where the will is specifically.

You can't pinpoint the will as if it has a physical location.

Discipline is not always a power play by outside conditions. sometimes it is self applied. Pushing past ones limits hurts...is that evil?

Of course. We discipline ourselves all the time. Pushing past one's limits is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the hurt of theft, poverty, murder, and hatred.

If evil is determined by inflicting pain on others that they do not want inflicted on themselves...then does that mean a suicidal person is justified in hurting others?

It isn't about being justified. Committing suicide is dissatisfaction with life to such an extent that the person sees no other way out of the pain. Sadly, leaving behind pain for his family could not be helped because life was too miserable, in his eyes, to continue on. It is man's nature to move in the direction of greater satisfaction from moment to moment, and in this case, it was more satisfying to die rather than to live, for whatever reason. This discovery prevents suicidal behavior because of the immense change in environmental conditions.

[Age]

I'm not sure what you mean by "linear." Could you explain?



I thought it meant not just randomness but the ability to choose A or B equally without compulsion.



Evil in this context means hurting others (i.e., doing to others what they don't want done to themselves) whether it is through narcissism, hedonism, or the plain old taking advantage to gain at someone else's expense.

One assertion leads to the next, arguments are generally linear.

Got it.

Without a determining force the will is effectively non-deterministic, random.

That is true but by using the phrase "determining force", it is causing a lot of confusion because of the implications. Nothing can force us to do anything against our will or without our consent.

Define hurt. Discipline hurts, does it mean it is evil?

It is not evil if disciplining someone because they have hurt someone else is necessary. For example, a child may need to be reprimanded for something he did that hurt another so that the child can understand why his behavior needs to change. Other than that, discipline could be used as power play (usually by adults) that leads to rebellion.

Reality hurts...is this evil as well? You are equating suffering with evil and there is no standard by which this can be conceived other than subjective value placement.

The standard definition of evil (hurt) used here is anything that a person does to another that they don't want done to themselves. For example, if I don't want you to shoot me, I am placing a value on you not shooting me. If I don't care if I'm shot, then not shooting me holds no value for me. But most people value their life and don't want to be shot, which is why certain standards of "right and wrong" exist. There are always exceptions.

Pinpoint where the will is specifically.

You can't pinpoint the will as if it has a physical location.

Discipline is not always a power play by outside conditions. sometimes it is self applied. Pushing past ones limits hurts...is that evil?

Of course. We discipline ourselves all the time. Pushing past one's limits is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the hurt of theft, poverty, murder, and hatred.

If evil is determined by inflicting pain on others that they do not want inflicted on themselves...then does that mean a suicidal person is justified in hurting others?

It isn't about being justified. Committing suicide is dissatisfaction with life to such an extent that the person sees no other way out of the pain.

How do you know this?

And, could you be wrong?

Also, what pain are you even talking about, exactly?

Sadly, leaving behind pain for his family could not be helped because life was too miserable, in his eyes, to continue on.

What is 'the family' so insecure that they then are 'in pain'?

It is man's nature to move in the direction of greater satisfaction from moment to moment, and in this case, it was more satisfying to die rather than to live, for whatever reason.

Why do you 'now' say, 'for whatever reason', when just above, here, you said, they committed suicide because of so-called 'dissatisfaction' and 'no other way out of the pain'?

This discovery prevents suicidal behavior because of the immense change in environmental conditions.

Are you sure? And, what even is the 'actual discovery', exactly?

[FlashDangerpants]

If you're that bored, then leave. I cannot cater to you like that. There will be too many gaps and you will then say, "See, I knew she had nothing to offer." I don't want to take that risk. All I can tell you is that the standard definition of determinism is not the definition the author is using. Determinism cannot force a person do anything against his will, which is what is implied. This is causing a major problem in this debate and why these two opposing schools of thought (doing of one's own accord and having no free will) cannot be reconciled.

You've been pushing this book for decades. Surely any question I might have about it is easy for you to answer.

The problem is that forums like this are not the best place to start explaining a discovery of this magnitude that has not been recognized, because most philosophy books that are dissected have been read and gone over many times in philosophy classes. That is why I asked people to read the first three chapters. What's so hard about that? You obviously didn't read these chapters carefully. You pulled out one sentence you didn't like and in your sarcasm you then called him a loser. That's crazy.

I've read your first three chapters. It's nothing but a bunch of stuff about how, at some unspecified point, some unimaginably important new thing is going to be revealed. Some complaining that the reason nobody takes the guy seriously is that he isn't credentialled and didn't get past 7th grade. A massive amount of comparing himself to previous geniuses who didn't gain accolades while alive...

I've also read lots of real works of philosophy and there's a problem here. Late in Chapter 3, your dude is still vaguely boasting that he offers "The answer to the world’s problems will satisfy communism and capitalism, the Blacks and the Whites, the Jews and the Christians, the Catholics and the Protestants, the rich and the poor, the cops and the robbers"...

Compare this bluster with any serious book on the subject. Take the one on my desk now, Knowledge and its Limits by Timothy Williamson.By Chapter three we are past the Intro, we've blown through 'Factive attitudes' and knowing v believing, and we are discussing the causal efficacy of knowledge. Not rambling about how important the whole thing would be if everyone in the world believed it and sent me money.

What is the second discovery? It's not a difficult question.

There are two more. One has to do with the eyes, and the other has to do with death.

Start with one. Then perhaps do the other.

[peacegirl]

I'm not sure what you mean by "linear." Could you explain?



I thought it meant not just randomness but the ability to choose A or B equally without compulsion.



Evil in this context means hurting others (i.e., doing to others what they don't want done to themselves) whether it is through narcissism, hedonism, or the plain old taking advantage to gain at someone else's expense.

One assertion leads to the next, arguments are generally linear.

Got it.

Without a determining force the will is effectively non-deterministic, random.

That is true but by using the phrase "determining force", it is causing a lot of confusion because of the implications. Nothing can force us to do anything against our will or without our consent.

Define hurt. Discipline hurts, does it mean it is evil?

It is not evil if disciplining someone because they have hurt someone else is necessary. For example, a child may need to be reprimanded for something he did that hurt another so that the child can understand why his behavior needs to change. Other than that, discipline could be used as power play (usually by adults) that leads to rebellion.

Reality hurts...is this evil as well? You are equating suffering with evil and there is no standard by which this can be conceived other than subjective value placement.

The standard definition of evil (hurt) used here is anything that a person does to another that they don't want done to themselves. For example, if I don't want you to shoot me, I am placing a value on you not shooting me. If I don't care if I'm shot, then not shooting me holds no value for me. But most people value their life and don't want to be shot, which is why certain standards of "right and wrong" exist. There are always exceptions.

Pinpoint where the will is specifically.

You can't pinpoint the will as if it has a physical location.

Discipline is not always a power play by outside conditions. sometimes it is self applied. Pushing past ones limits hurts...is that evil?

Of course. We discipline ourselves all the time. Pushing past one's limits is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the hurt of theft, poverty, murder, and hatred.

If evil is determined by inflicting pain on others that they do not want inflicted on themselves...then does that mean a suicidal person is justified in hurting others?

It isn't about being justified. Committing suicide is dissatisfaction with life to such an extent that the person sees no other way out of the pain. [/quote]

How do you know this?

Because we are always moving in the direction of what is most satisfying when comparing options. This fact explains why some people are find greater satisfaction in killing themselves because the option of living is too painful.

And, could you be wrong?

Wrong about what?

Also, what pain are you even talking about, exactly?

If you steal from me, I am being hurt by you. It is something I don't want done to me.

Sadly, leaving behind pain for his family could not be helped because life was too miserable, in his eyes, to continue on.

What is 'the family' so insecure that they then are 'in pain'?

Huh? What does insecurity have to do with the pain of losing a loved one?

It is man's nature to move in the direction of greater satisfaction from moment to moment, and in this case, it was more satisfying to die rather than to live, for whatever reason.

Why do you 'now' say, 'for whatever reason', when just above, here, you said, they committed suicide because of so-called 'dissatisfaction' and 'no other way out of the pain'?

This discovery prevents suicidal behavior because of the immense change in environmental conditions.

Are you sure? And, what even is the 'actual discovery', exactly?

Yes, I'm sure. The discovery proves that man's will is not free and what occurs when the impasse of blame is overcome. IOW, a great change in the environment takes place once the basic principle is put into effect, which forces a complete change in human conduct.

[Atla]

Once it is established, beyond a shadow of doubt, that will is not free (and here is why my discovery was never found; no one could ever get beyond this impasse because of the implications), it becomes absolutely impossible to hold man responsible for anything he does.

And I'm a determinist who thinks that not holding people responsible because determinism is true, is just another form of "evil". Of course you have to hold people responsible. Responsibility doesn't have to be based on libertarian free will. We held people responsible throughout history, and societies will collapse if we stop doing so.

I just did the absolutely impossible. Now what.

Isn’t it true that politicians, statesmen, the leaders of the world in general would much rather see an end to all war and crime than to retaliate “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth"?

How clueless are you? Are you another solipsist? We already have like 5 on the forum. (Maybe we should lock them in a room so they can work out which one of them is really there.)

I shall reveal something about death in a mathematical, undeniable manner that will make every reader very happy. Don’t you think it strange that of all the millions of years Earth has been in existence (and what is a million years when the words through which you see this relation are clarified), you, of all people, should have been born to see the universe now; why weren’t you born 5000 years ago, or why shouldn’t you be born in the future? My friends, you are in for quite a pleasant surprise,

Now I will admit that this issue is rarely brought up even on a philosophy forum, it's refreshing to see it. But I also happen to know that whatever you think you've figured out about death based on the above issue, you're just speculating.

[peacegirl]

Once it is established, beyond a shadow of doubt, that will is not free (and here is why my discovery was never found; no one could ever get beyond this impasse because of the implications), it becomes absolutely impossible to hold man responsible for anything he does.

And I'm a determinist who thinks that not holding people responsible because determinism is true, is just another form of "evil". Of course you have to hold people responsible. Responsibility doesn't have to be based on libertarian free will. We held people responsible throughout history, and societies will collapse if we stop doing so.

I just did the absolutely impossible. Now what.

Yes, the system holds people accountable when they do something that is considered wrong by others as a deterrent, but it is only a partial deterrent. He was just taking it a step further by saying that if we knew for a fact that this person could not have done otherwise, can we blame him? Just desert is different than rehabilitation. A person who is a determinist would be much more compassionate in how he would view the perpetrator. This discovery takes it further and actually prevents the desire to hurt others, so there would be no need for punishment or rehabilitation.

Isn’t it true that politicians, statesmen, the leaders of the world in general would much rather see an end to all war and crime than to retaliate “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth"?

How clueless are you? Are you another solipsist? We already have like 5 on the forum. (Maybe we should lock them in a room so they can work out which one of them is really there.)

Please don't be sarcastic. Why do you respond that way? It was a rhetorical question, and a fair one.

I shall reveal something about death in a mathematical, undeniable manner that will make every reader very happy. Don’t you think it strange that of all the millions of years Earth has been in existence (and what is a million years when the words through which you see this relation are clarified), you, of all people, should have been born to see the universe now; why weren’t you born 5000 years ago, or why shouldn’t you be born in the future? My friends, you are in for quite a pleasant surprise,

Now I will admit that this issue is rarely brought up even on a philosophy forum, it's refreshing to see it. But I also happen to know that whatever you think you've figured out about death based on the above issue, you're just speculating.

I'm not the author. I'm the compiler and you are wrong. Why are you coming to so many premature conclusions when this is what he urged people not to do? We won't get very far at the rate we're going. Why can't you contain your skepticism enough to really try to understand what this man has written instead of dismissing his 30 year work so quickly?

[Age]

How do you know this?

Because we are always moving in the direction of what is most satisfying when comparing options. This fact explains why some people are find greater satisfaction in killing themselves because the option of living is too painful.

What?

you claimed, 'Committing suicide is dissatisfaction with life to such an extent that the person sees no other way out of the pain.'

I asked you how do you know this?

Even if you human beings are always moving in the direction of what is most satisfying when comparing options, this has absolutely nothing at all to do with human beings, supposedly and allegedly, 'killing' "themselves" because living is so-called 'too painful'.

Look "peacegirl" if you know, for sure, that when a human being 'takes their life' that it is always because of 'too much pain', then you must have proof for this. So, if you want to come, here, and claim that you know that every human being who has committed suicide did this because of 'too much pain', then show 'us' what proof you have for knowing this.

Until you do I will remain with what I have learned and discovered in regards to the reason/s why some human beings wanted to and have commit suicide.

And, could you be wrong?

Wrong about what?

The very thing that I just asked you about in regards to, 'How do you know this?'

If you could answer the question, 'How do you know this?' then surely you can also know what the 'Could you be wrong?' was in relation to.

So, let 'us' start again,

you claim that 'Committing suicide is done because 'the person' sees no other way out of 'the pain'.

1. you are making the claim, here, that every 'person' who commits suicide is because 'every person' sees no other way out of some claimed 'pain'.

2. I asked you, 'How do you know this?'

3. you provided a response, although without answering the actual question.

4. I just asked you, 'Could you be wrong?' in relation to you claim that every person who commits suicide does so because they can not see another way out of pain.

5. Could you be wrong in that actually not every person who commits suicide, or who wants to commit suicide, is just because of pain, only?

Also, what pain are you even talking about, exactly?

If you steal from me, I am being hurt by you. It is something I don't want done to me.

LOL If you want to give me 'control over you', then okay. But, if you want to, and/or do, then 'you' have a great deal more to learn about 'life', and living.

Also, if you are 'being hurt' by what could be the most insignificant and trivial thing as 'stealing', then 'you' really need a lot more 'growing up' and maturing.

Sadly, leaving behind pain for his family could not be helped because life was too miserable, in his eyes, to continue on.

What is 'the family' so insecure that they then are 'in pain'?

Huh? What does insecurity have to do with the pain of losing a loved one?

Only a Truly insecure person would be in so-called 'pain' when another commits suicide. you appear to have not yet learned and recognized 'the difference' between an emotion and internal feeling, from, being some thing.

And, if you really, still, want to claim that people commit suicide because 'they are in pain', then, by 'your logic', here, these people, 'now in pain', would also be thinking about suicide, right?

Also, and noted is that in 'this sentence' you are 'trying to' claim that people commit suicide because, 'life was too miserable', and not because of 'pain', itself.

I will now suggest that if you want to come, here in this forum, and make claims, that you, at least, remain consistent.

It is man's nature to move in the direction of greater satisfaction from moment to moment, and in this case, it was more satisfying to die rather than to live, for whatever reason.

Why do you 'now' say, 'for whatever reason', when just above, here, you said, they committed suicide because of so-called 'dissatisfaction' and 'no other way out of the pain'?

Why did you quote 'my question' but not answer 'my question'?

This discovery prevents suicidal behavior because of the immense change in environmental conditions.

Are you sure? And, what even is the 'actual discovery', exactly?

Yes, I'm sure. The discovery proves that man's will is not free and what occurs when the impasse of blame is overcome.

I did not want to know what 'the alleged discovery' proves. I will decide if, and what, 'the allege discovery' proves, okay?

I asked what even is 'the actual alleged discovery', exactly?

Just inform 'me', and 'the readers', here, what even is this so-called 'discovery', exactly?

When, and if, you ever do that, then 'we' can move on and progress, further.

IOW, a great change in the environment takes place once the basic principle is put into effect, which forces a complete change in human conduct.

Are you purposely only 'alluding to things', here?

Why not just say straight out, instead, what 'it' is that you are alluding to, here?

Do you want people to buy some thing, here?

Why not just say what the so-claimed 'great change in the environment will just actually be?

Why not just say what the so-claimed 'basic principle' is, exactly?

Why not just explain how the so-called 'basic principle' will be put into effect, exactly?

Why not just explain how the 'basic principle', which, when 'put into effect', creates a 'great change in the environment', will 'force' a complete change in 'human conduct', exactly?

Oh, and by the way, I would suggest that the 'basic principle' of 'a change in human thinking', would first be needed in order for a 'change in human conduct' to take place, which, in turn, then would 'put into effect' a 'change in the human created environment'.

And, not the 'other way around' as you have 'alluded to' above, here.

[Age]

Once it is established, beyond a shadow of doubt, that will is not free (and here is why my discovery was never found; no one could ever get beyond this impasse because of the implications), it becomes absolutely impossible to hold man responsible for anything he does.

And I'm a determinist who thinks that not holding people responsible because determinism is true, is just another form of "evil". Of course you have to hold people responsible. Responsibility doesn't have to be based on libertarian free will. We held people responsible throughout history, and societies will collapse if we stop doing so.

LOL 'Societies will collapse'.

Once people are stopped from 'being held' responsible, then this is actually when societies thrive and prosper. But, please do not let the actual and irrefutable Facts, in Life, get in the way of your own already obtained beliefs, "atla".

Now, as always, if any one would like to have a discussion about 'my claim', here, then let 'us' continue.

[peacegirl]

How do you know this?

Because we are always moving in the direction of what is most satisfying when comparing options. This fact explains why some people are find greater satisfaction in killing themselves because the option of living is too painful.

What?

you claimed, 'Committing suicide is dissatisfaction with life to such an extent that the person sees no other way out of the pain.'

I asked you how do you know this?

Even if you human beings are always moving in the direction of what is most satisfying when comparing options, this has absolutely nothing at all to do with human beings, supposedly and allegedly, 'killing' "themselves" because living is so-called 'too painful'.

Look "peacegirl" if you know, for sure, that when a human being 'takes their life' that it is always because of 'too much pain', then you must have proof for this. So, if you want to come, here, and claim that you know that every human being who has committed suicide did this because of 'too much pain', then show 'us' what proof you have for knowing this.

I have proof that will is not free, which is the movement away from a dissatisfying position to a more satisfying position every moment of our lives. This is an immutable law. When a person commits suicide, his choice to die rather than to continue living is in the direction of greater satisfaction, for whatever reason. It is human nature to want to live, but sometimes life becomes unbearable, especially when a person sees no hope. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand.

Until you do I will remain with what I have learned and discovered in regards to the reason/s why some human beings wanted to and have commit suicide.

That's fine.

And, could you be wrong?

Wrong about what?

The very thing that I just asked you about in regards to, 'How do you know this?'

If you could answer the question, 'How do you know this?' then surely you can also know what the 'Could you be wrong?' was in relation to.

So, let 'us' start again,

you claim that 'Committing suicide is done because 'the person' sees no other way out of 'the pain'.

1. you are making the claim, here, that every 'person' who commits suicide is because 'every person' sees no other way out of some claimed 'pain'.

2. I asked you, 'How do you know this?'

3. you provided a response, although without answering the actual question.

4. I just asked you, 'Could you be wrong?' in relation to you claim that every person who commits suicide does so because they can not see another way out of pain.

I don't remember why I said, "You could be wrong" probably in regard to you arguing over why someone would commit suicide other than the answer I gave.

5. Could you be wrong in that actually not every person who commits suicide, or who wants to commit suicide, is just because of pain, only?

I know one thing only. Whatever the reason, they would find greater satisfaction in committing suicide. There could be other reasons such as thinking that one is a burden to his family, but that goes back to pain. It could be wanting to leave an insurance policy where his family gets a lot of money. It could be that this person dies so another person can live. What are you getting at Age?

Also, what pain are you even talking about, exactly?

The pain of hopelessness. The pain of not being able to get ahead. The pain of a chronic illness. The pain of feeling unworthy. There are many reasons people feel pain but usually suicide is only considered when the pain gets overwhelming with no end in sight.

If you steal from me, I am being hurt by you. It is something I don't want done to me.

LOL If you want to give me 'control over you', then okay. But, if you want to, and/or do, then 'you' have a great deal more to learn about 'life', and living.

You asked me a question and I answered it. You can learn to be stoic when somebody hurts you, but that does make you more mature and it does not change the definition of what a hurt is. If someone would hold a gun to your head threatening you to give them your money, that would be considered a hurt to you because it is something you wouldn't want.

Also, if you are 'being hurt' by what could be the most insignificant and trivial thing as 'stealing', then 'you' really need a lot more 'growing up' and maturing.

I'm as mature as they come. Stealing is not a trivial thing. What if someone stole your life savings? Would you call that trivial?

What does insecurity have to do with the pain of losing a loved one?

Only a Truly insecure person would be in so-called 'pain' when another commits suicide. you appear to have not yet learned and recognized 'the difference' between an emotion and internal feeling, from, being some thing.

I disagree wholeheartedly. The saying: "It is better to have loved and lost than not to have loved at all" is true for many people, even though the risk of loss is ever present. When you love something and lose it, pain is involved. I have no idea what you mean by "an emotion" and an "internal feeling, from, being some thing."

And, if you really, still, want to claim that people commit suicide because 'they are in pain', then, by 'your logic', here, these people, 'now in pain', would also be thinking about suicide, right?

No, because pain is subjective. Someone may not feel the same degree of pain given the same circumstances because we are all different.

You're splitting hairs. If life is miserable, life is painful.

I am being consistent.

[Eodnhoj7]

I'm not sure what you mean by "linear." Could you explain?



I thought it meant not just randomness but the ability to choose A or B equally without compulsion.



Evil in this context means hurting others (i.e., doing to others what they don't want done to themselves) whether it is through narcissism, hedonism, or the plain old taking advantage to gain at someone else's expense.

One assertion leads to the next, arguments are generally linear.

Got it.

Without a determining force the will is effectively non-deterministic, random.

That is true but by using the phrase "determining force", it is causing a lot of confusion because of the implications. Nothing can force us to do anything against our will or without our consent.

Define hurt. Discipline hurts, does it mean it is evil?

It is not evil if disciplining someone because they have hurt someone else is necessary. For example, a child may need to be reprimanded for something he did that hurt another so that the child can understand why his behavior needs to change. Other than that, discipline could be used as power play (usually by adults) that leads to rebellion.

Reality hurts...is this evil as well? You are equating suffering with evil and there is no standard by which this can be conceived other than subjective value placement.

The standard definition of evil (hurt) used here is anything that a person does to another that they don't want done to themselves. For example, if I don't want you to shoot me, I am placing a value on you not shooting me. If I don't care if I'm shot, then not shooting me holds no value for me. But most people value their life and don't want to be shot, which is why certain standards of "right and wrong" exist. There are always exceptions.

Pinpoint where the will is specifically.

You can't pinpoint the will as if it has a physical location.

Discipline is not always a power play by outside conditions. sometimes it is self applied. Pushing past ones limits hurts...is that evil?

Of course. We discipline ourselves all the time. Pushing past one's limits is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the hurt of theft, poverty, murder, and hatred.

If evil is determined by inflicting pain on others that they do not want inflicted on themselves...then does that mean a suicidal person is justified in hurting others?

It isn't about being justified. Committing suicide is dissatisfaction with life to such an extent that the person sees no other way out of the pain. Sadly, leaving behind pain for his family could not be helped because life was too miserable, in his eyes, to continue on. It is man's nature to move in the direction of greater satisfaction from moment to moment, and in this case, it was more satisfying to die rather than to live, for whatever reason. This discovery prevents suicidal behavior because of the immense change in environmental conditions.

A percieved identity can force one to go against there will.

If the will cannot be pinpointed empirically, where can it be pinpointed in abstraction?

Theft, poverty, murder and hatred are interpretations, many who commit such acts do not view them as such things.

If justification is not necessary than providing a justification as why to percieve reality in a "better way" is null.

[Atla]

Yes, the system holds people accountable when they do something that is considered wrong by others as a deterrent, but it is only a partial deterrent. He was just taking it a step further by saying that if we knew for a fact that this person could not have done otherwise, can we blame him? Just desert is different than rehabilitation. A person who is a determinist would be much more compassionate in how he would view the perpetrator. This discovery takes it further and actually prevents the desire to hurt others, so there would be no need for punishment or rehabilitation.

Yes, we can blame people even if we know that they couldn't have done otherwise. Being compassionate to perpetrators must have its limits. Malignant people usually remain malignant even if they understand determinism, their desire to hurt others usually doesn't go away, you would just enable them to hurt others more so you should be blamed for that imo.

Please don't be sarcastic. Why do you respond that way? It was a rhetorical question, and a fair one.

It shows that you have no connection to the real world, or pretend not to have one in order to sell something.

I'm not the author. I'm the compiler and you are wrong. Why are you coming to so many premature conclusions when this is what he urged people not to do? We won't get very far at the rate we're going. Why can't you contain your skepticism enough to really try to understand what this man has written instead of dismissing his 30 year work so quickly?

I'm right and my conclusions aren't premature. If you reveal that great realization about death, it will of course turn out to be a feel-good speculation, not a fact. Come on, this is a philosophy forum where some people have actually thought about such issues. And we're used to people who want to sell books that will change the world.

[Atla]

Once it is established, beyond a shadow of doubt, that will is not free (and here is why my discovery was never found; no one could ever get beyond this impasse because of the implications), it becomes absolutely impossible to hold man responsible for anything he does.

And I'm a determinist who thinks that not holding people responsible because determinism is true, is just another form of "evil". Of course you have to hold people responsible. Responsibility doesn't have to be based on libertarian free will. We held people responsible throughout history, and societies will collapse if we stop doing so.

LOL 'Societies will collapse'.

Once people are stopped from 'being held' responsible, then this is actually when societies thrive and prosper. But, please do not let the actual and irrefutable Facts, in Life, get in the way of your own already obtained beliefs, "atla".

Now, as always, if any one would like to have a discussion about 'my claim', here, then let 'us' continue.

You want people to get away with any crime, naturally crime will explode and societies will collapse. You're an idiot, God.

[Atla]

AI only gives me this

Seymour Lessans, in his book “Decline and Fall of All Evil,” presents a unique philosophical and psychological framework for understanding human behavior and the nature of evil. One of the more striking claims in his work is his assertion that he has made a “major discovery about death.”

What Is Lessans’ Claim About Death?

Lessans claims that death is not an experience. He argues that the moment of death cannot be experienced because consciousness ceases entirely — and with it, all awareness, perception, or suffering. In essence:

There is no experience of death because the experiencer no longer exists.

This leads to his conclusion that death is nothing to fear, because fear depends on a conscious experiencer — which is no longer present at the moment of death.

This is obvious, nothing new, and it's bad news for people who want a happy afterlife, which is most people. Will you tell us the big realization?

[peacegirl]

I'm not sure what you mean by "linear." Could you explain?



I thought it meant not just randomness but the ability to choose A or B equally without compulsion.



Evil in this context means hurting others (i.e., doing to others what they don't want done to themselves) whether it is through narcissism, hedonism, or the plain old taking advantage to gain at someone else's expense.

One assertion leads to the next, arguments are generally linear.

Got it.

Without a determining force the will is effectively non-deterministic, random.

That is true but by using the phrase "determining force", it is causing a lot of confusion because of the implications. Nothing can force us to do anything against our will or without our consent.

Define hurt. Discipline hurts, does it mean it is evil?

It is not evil if disciplining someone because they have hurt someone else is necessary. For example, a child may need to be reprimanded for something he did that hurt another so that the child can understand why his behavior needs to change. Other than that, discipline could be used as power play (usually by adults) that leads to rebellion.

Reality hurts...is this evil as well? You are equating suffering with evil and there is no standard by which this can be conceived other than subjective value placement.

The standard definition of evil (hurt) used here is anything that a person does to another that they don't want done to themselves. For example, if I don't want you to shoot me, I am placing a value on you not shooting me. If I don't care if I'm shot, then not shooting me holds no value for me. But most people value their life and don't want to be shot, which is why certain standards of "right and wrong" exist. There are always exceptions.

Pinpoint where the will is specifically.

You can't pinpoint the will as if it has a physical location.

Discipline is not always a power play by outside conditions. sometimes it is self applied. Pushing past ones limits hurts...is that evil?

Of course. We discipline ourselves all the time. Pushing past one's limits is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the hurt of theft, poverty, murder, and hatred.

If evil is determined by inflicting pain on others that they do not want inflicted on themselves...then does that mean a suicidal person is justified in hurting others?

It isn't about being justified. Committing suicide is dissatisfaction with life to such an extent that the person sees no other way out of the pain. Sadly, leaving behind pain for his family could not be helped because life was too miserable, in his eyes, to continue on. It is man's nature to move in the direction of greater satisfaction from moment to moment, and in this case, it was more satisfying to die rather than to live, for whatever reason. This discovery prevents suicidal behavior because of the immense change in environmental conditions.

A percieved identity can force one to go against there will.

One cannot move against one's will, because it is one's will --- or what one ultimately decides to do --- that will either give one the permission to act or not.

If the will cannot be pinpointed empirically, where can it be pinpointed in abstraction?

Just because will cannot be pinpointed in a physical way, does not mean we cannot observe, in a metaphysical way, whether our will is free or not.

Theft, poverty, murder and hatred are interpretations, many who commit such acts do not view them as such things.

It isn't about the people who commit such acts who think it's okay. It's how the people who are hurt by these acts that define "hurt." Remember, the definition of hurt is doing something to someone that they don't want done to themselves. If someone steals my life savings, I am hurt. If I don't have enough sustenance to live, I am hurt. If someone shoots me, I am hurt.

If justification is not necessary than providing a justification as why to percieve reality in a "better way" is null.

You don't have to perceive reality in another way if you don't want to, but most of us want to, because people want to find answers to a world where many people are hurting. I am not sure where a "justification" in regard to suicide is necessary unless you are trying to justify to doctors why you want to do this, so you can get the meds from them to finish the job. Justification is usually needed when you are contemplating something that could hurt others by your actions. We also try to justify our actions when we have made a promise that we broke, such as going off our diet, etc..