New Discovery

[Age]

We blame because we have no better way to stop criminal behavior or behavior that hurts others. That’s how our civilization developed and why the belief in free will was necessary in order to justify punishment. But there is a better way. You are completely wrong about no blame increasing crime when the very opposite will occur but only under certain conditions that are not yet established. He even said that if people suddenly stopped blaming, the criminals would have a field day. Do you see why you’re conclusions are premature and will ruin any possible chance of understanding before you even open the book?

[quote="Atla"[Just what makes you think that blame arose with the belief in free will? Can you prove that like a 'scientist'? Even cats will hold grudges, blaming you for stuff you did to them. Cats have no philosophical degrees, probably not even self-awareness.

I didn't say blame arose with the belief in free will. I said that the belief in free will was necessary to justify punishment, especially in a court of law. Their thinking goes something like this: "This person didn't have to do what he did; he did it of his own free will and now he's going to pay the price."

And, according to you and/or your "fathers" theory and belief, 'these people' have no choice at all but think, 'This person didn't have to do what he did; he did it of his own free will and no he's going to pay the price', correct?

Obviously, you can only answer, 'Yes'.

Therefore, the very reason why you are having such a hard and terrible time "yourself", here, is because absolutely no has any choice at all to 'buy that book'. Which means the very reason why no one is, is because 'we' all are being 'made not to'. And, it does not matter how hard you 'try' 'we' are just not going to buy and read 'that book'.

Which defeats any purpose in 'the so-called discoveries' and in 'the writing' of 'that book'.

And you can't call me completely wrong because you have a BELIEF in how exactly your utopia would work. Your certainty about a very different world that doesn't yet exist is telling.

This has nothing to do with the correctness of his equation. How can we create this kind of world without studying the principles that will get us there? If his premises are wrong, I would concede, but I don't think they're wrong.

And, the reason you do not think they are wrong is because you believe, absolutely, that they can not be wrong.

And no we don't even stop criminals using blame, but rather using the justice system. It doesn't even need free will for justification you don't understand basic things.

If the criminal justice system believed a person shot up a school because he had a brain tumor, they would think differently than if they thought he was free to choose not to shoot up the school. I'm not saying that in this society, we should not blame and punish.

So, if even 'you' think that 'we' 'should' blame and punish others, then how is any thing going to change, here?

There are many things that have to change in the environment before we could even begin to transition to a different way of life.

1. Who are 'they', exactly?

2. What are 'those many things', exactly, which you say and claim, 'have to change in the environment'?

[Age]

Justice is the interpretation of how we value what reality should be, it is nothing more than a distinction that gives way to cause and effect. There is no universal justice outside of the effects of an action thus reality becomes a process of transforming patterns of thought.

Do you think or believe that you have cleared any thing up, here?

if yes, then what is 'that', exactly?

[Age]

We blame because we have no better way to stop criminal behavior or behavior that hurts others. That’s how our civilization developed and why the belief in free will was necessary in order to justify punishment. But there is a better way. You are completely wrong about no blame increasing crime when the very opposite will occur but only under certain conditions that are not yet established. He even said that if people suddenly stopped blaming, the criminals would have a field day. Do you see why you’re conclusions are premature and will ruin any possible chance of understanding before you even open the book?

Blaming human beings for what they do never necessarily follows that 'that' is 'the way' to stop criminal behavior or behavior that hurts others. If one, for example, is intent on obtaining more money, then what would make 'that one' stop doing that in absolutely 'any way', if 'that one' was not blamed when it was doing what is Wrong, in Life?

Yes, blaming is a partial deterrent and is used to stop people from hurting others.

So, why then do you want to stop 'blaming', itself, for?

But it doesn't stop the people who don't care about these threats of punishment and are willing to risk going to jail for the satisfaction of getting what they want.

Therefore, you have just expressed, very clearly I will add, what is 'wrong' with you and/or your "father's" own theory, belief, and/or writings, here.

Unless, of course, your use of the 'it' word is in relation to some thing that I could not even imagine, here.

[Age]

It's not that. It's that I cannot explain this work in my own words without leaving gaps. I have tried it even in here and I only get boos. You really need to carefully read the first three chapters, which you haven't done. You would have questions if you had.

What a pathetic cop out. You have spent decades promoting this work. Decades telling everyone it's the best and they are to blame if they somehow don't see it the same way you do. But you are too still not able to help anyone to come to an understanding? You have nothing to add, just something to sell?

I'm not saying anyone is to blame. But no one in all these years actually read the book in its entirety, the way it was meant to be read, rather than pulling excerpts out of context for the purpose of lulz.

How is 'that book' meant to be read, exactly?

Why is 'that book' meant to be read in a 'different way' from every other book written?

What, exactly, is 'the way' that 'that book' meant to be read?

If you do not inform 'the readers, here, in 'what way' 'that book' is meant to be read, then how will they ever learn, and know, 'how' and/or in 'what way' to read 'that book'?

This will be an uphill battle and I'm not sure if it will make a difference at all, not because the knowledge is false, but because people don't believe that this is a true discovery. It's so sad. Unfortunately, the writing is on the wall. There is nothing I can say that will make a damn bit of difference. :

More than one person has pointed to "discoveries" that you are at best overselling. But continue to whine and accept no responsibility for your endless failures if that's where your "greatest satisfaction" lies, you do you. Maybe it's time to do you somewhere else if you are this petty though.

I may just do that. I have to find a more willing audience to hear him out. You never gave him a chance.

If you were in this thing for the world peace, you wouldn't be trying to turn a quick buck off it, and you would be willing to contribute in your own words rather than resorting to nothing but copy pasta and complaints.

You really have to let that go. I tried in my own words, but that would invite naysayers to laugh in my face because they wouldn't understand.

But, you, "yourself", have admitted that you, "yourself", do not even fully understand it.

It would be like leaving out half of an equation and I'm just not willing to do that. You are putting me in an unfair position. But you do you. As the saying goes: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

You are just so incredibly weak.

You think so? I think I am incredibly strong. I guess our perception of what constitutes weakness and strength is different.

[FlashDangerpants]

To you it’s trivial but it really isn’t because I would not be able to give examples if I didn’t understand the book, which I’m being accused of. This whole thread is going down the drain.

You say that nobody understands the argument. Arguments can be explained from other perspectives, in other terms, if you understand them and they are any good and you have even a modicum of ability. One of those three things is missing at your end. Fix that, don't ix it, not my problem.

If you are a philosopher, don't you first read the required book before people start discussing it? I am at a big disadvantage because you think I should be able to explain it easily. It is not. You reject his claim that we have no free will because, according to you, it's a moot point because whatever we choose is in that direction based on our motivations. To you, it's just a tautology. How am I supposed to go forward. You pretended you were reading what I painstakingly posted for your benefit. You were humoring me, is all.

Have you ever read a book of actual philosophy? There's sort of two basic types. One would be the sort of book I quoted for you earlier, Simon Blackburn's Ruling Passions. This book doesn't really use a foreword because it's an easy book to read, you can pick it up and run from start to finish and most readers will get the gist without much back tracking and re-reading. Even somebody with no background in moral philosophy could pick this book up and become competent in that field via its discussions

I don't recommend trying that approach with something like Wittgenstein's Tractatus, or Kant's Critique Pure. These are not books that you just pick up and read and understand. Everyone who tries that makes a fool of themselves because revolutionary philosophical ideas, even centuries old ones, are difficult to get.

So those books are published with lengthy introductory essays, and if you are not reading them at uni, where they will be covered in multiple lectures, then Youtube is an excellent resource. If you suddenly wish to learn about Ludwig W's early works, here is a series of 8 lectures on that topic by Victor Gijsbers of Leiden University in the Netherlands. I would say that anyone who takes on that book without using a resource such as this to guide them s quite foolish. As for Kant, well don't get me started.

So where does your dad's book sit in comparison to these philosophical greats? Is there a big revolutionary idea involved? Does it merit comparison to the Copernican Revolution? Half of chapter one seems to claim that it does. You are the only person in the world who has read this book in the way that it is supposed to be read - that seems to be the claim you made here....

So who, if not you, is supposed to show us this proper way of reading and really getting it? Show us the fruits of the understanding, guide us, explain in your own words what we are failing to see in this magnificent work.

Make a useful effort to explain it then. Something isn't getting through apparently, and you should be able to do more about that. Instead you whine that nobody is being nice enough to the material.

I never used those words.

So? It's an accurate description of your situation.

No it isn't. I never whined like that, so stop it.

You're doing it right now. You were doing it when you wrote "How am I supposed to go continue?". And you are about to whine that I used the word "nonsense". You are very, very, passionately, devotedly, whiny.

I tried. You already shot me down by saying that moving in the direction of greater satisfaction is repetitive and useless. How can I continue?

Well take the argument you think I am not understanding and put it another way so that I can understand, or at least so that somebody else reading the post could see it. Put the argument into your own words. Do something. Take action. Be useful. Amount to something.

I already did. I can't explain it any better than the text itself. It will not do it justice. You will not accept this excerpt. You will say it's a tautology and that will end the conversation before it begins.

Why would you use the words "I already did" when the next sentence is going to tell me why you refuse to do that thing? Why lie to my face like that?

In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are compelled to either live out our lives the best we can or commit suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical (undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

Please expand on the claim in this paragraph that mathematical reasoning is required. You are the one who gets it, please explain it.

Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action, from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is never satisfied or content to remain in one position for always, like an inanimate object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’ I shall now call the present moment of time or life here, for the purpose of clarification, and the next moment coming up there. You are now standing on this present moment of time and space called here, and you are given two alternatives: either live or kill yourself; either move to the next spot called there or remain where you are without moving a hair’s breadth by committing suicide.

Please explain the phrase "life is never satisfied". Is it intended to reify life as some sort of force or something that exists, or is the author merely noticing the banal fact that living things move and the more mobile ones move towards things they desire and so on?

“I prefer. . .”

Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is death or here, and prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion is life. Consequently, the motion of life, which is any motion from here to there, is a movement away from that which dissatisfies; otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here or where you are, you would never have moved to there.

And here... why are we doing this at all? Why are we defining life, and why are we defining it as this movement? This isn't stuff that we typically need to do, so just doing it out of the blue to support the argument you want to make is called begging the question.

Since the motion of life constantly moves away from here to there, which is an expression of dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously move constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction. It should be obvious that ...

Please explain this move. Are we deliberately anthropomorphising sunflowers that point at the sun, or are we at risk of doing so by accident, or is this talk of satisfaction that is somehow inherent to just movement and life all a bit of a hyperbolic overstatement? You are the only one who knows how to read, so tell us how to read please.

...our desire to live, to move off the spot called here, is determined by a law over which we have no control, because even if we should kill ourselves, we are choosing what gives us greater satisfaction; otherwise, we would not kill ourselves. The truth of the matter is that at any particular moment, the motion of man is not free, for all life obeys this invariable law. He is constantly compelled by his nature to make choices and decisions and to prefer, of whatever options are available during his lifetime, that which he considers better for himself and his set of circumstances.

Yeah, that law isn't really needed though is it? So where is it proven to be the case that it is a real thing rather than just a convoluted way of referring to beliefs and desires which motivate sentient creatures to move, and an anthropomorphic extension of that to flowers?

Like I sad before, I was happy to stipulate to determinism, but I don't see the need to use this flabby and overblown argument in support of it.

Please don't call this nonsense, okay? Nonsense it is not. I tolerate a lot, but I cannot tolerate when you make false accusations and belittle such an important work whether you think so or not.

Either successfully defend the work, or fail, I have no interest your trivial umbrage or your grandiosity.

[accelafine]

Sorry, I just don't feel like engaging with your issues today.

Just as I thought. 'Psychology' would have to be among the most pointless 'professions' in the history of professions--up there with life coaches, ball-sack waxers, and lip-filler administers.
What is a 'personality disorder' anyway? Claiming that there is such a thing as a 'personality disorder' is saying that there is an 'objectively perfect personality' floating around in the universe, and anything that deviates from it is a 'disorder'. What is the point in 'diagnosing' a personality trait? If you accept that bullshit then everyone has a 'personality disorder'. So what exactly IS a 'personality' then?
What 'personality disorder' do you have? 'Conceited, misogynistic wanker' disorder?

[FlashDangerpants]

What is a 'personality disorder' anyway?

You should really be discussing this with your doctor, some tests can probably lead to some sort of help.

[accelafine]

What is a 'personality disorder' anyway?

You should really be discussing this with your doctor, some tests can probably lead to some sort of help.

Likewise. I think there are some drugs that cure personality--I've heard Dignitas has the only effective ones.

[Age]

I'm not saying anyone is to blame. But no one in all these years actually read the book in its entirety, the way it was meant to be read, rather than pulling excerpts out of context for the purpose of lulz.

And all you have done is wring your weak little hands.

If I understand something, I can put it into other words, because that's sort of how it works to understand things. If you can only repeat the original text, you are missing something yourself. You bring nothing to the table, you present no additional context, you don't help anyone to make whatever leap of understanding they are missing. You are a passenger.

You're completely off the mark. I do understand things. I even added some examples of my own.

Please understand that when the 20th century is mentioned, it refers to the time when this finding was first uncovered. The prediction that in 25 years man would be delivered from all evil was based on the conviction that a thorough investigation would have already taken place. Although it has been more than 60 years, there has been no such investigation, and, to this day, this discovery remains in obscurity. Due to the time lapse since the book’s last printing, additional contemporary examples have been added to show how these principles apply to the current state of the world, but please rest assured that the core of the discovery has not been altered in any way and is explained in the author’s own words. Although some of the references are dated, the knowledge itself couldn’t be timelier. For purposes of consistency the personal pronoun ‘he’ has been used throughout the book. No discrimination was intended.

Even 'this', here, is Wrong.

But, because you believe, absolutely, that it is not you are not open to learning and seeing how it is Wrong.

I may just do that. I have to find a more willing audience to hear him out. You never gave him a chance.

You really have to let that go. I tried in my own words, but that would invite naysayers to laugh in my face because they wouldn't understand. It would be like leaving out half of an equation and I'm just not willing to do that. You are putting me in an unfair position. But you do you. As the saying goes: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

You are just so incredibly weak.

You think so? I think I am incredibly strong. I guess our perception of what constitutes weakness or strength is different.

All you do is whine about not being understood, but given the opportunity to put work into it, you cry about how unfair that is to you. You are not "incredibly strong", but it is not surprising to see you award yourself that medal.

I really don't get the resentment.

Here 'it' is, again, you come, here, telling 'us' how important some work is, you are then provided with opportunities to prove your claims, here, to be true and right, but you do not do so.

Some people resent this.

I came to share something important,

But, ONLY if you are provided with 'money', first.

which you all won't allow yourselves to read.

Here is another example of you 'trying to' speak for everyone else, here. Critizing others for 'speaking for others' when you just keep on doing the 'exact same' thing "yourself" is not helping you, here.

It's really sad.

So then just stop doing it.

[peacegirl]

You say that nobody understands the argument. Arguments can be explained from other perspectives, in other terms, if you understand them and they are any good and you have even a modicum of ability. One of those three things is missing at your end. Fix that, don't ix it, not my problem.

If you are a philosopher, don't you first read the required book before people start discussing it? I am at a big disadvantage because you think I should be able to explain it easily. It is not. You reject his claim that we have no free will because, according to you, it's a moot point because whatever we choose is in that direction based on our motivations. To you, it's just a tautology. How am I supposed to go forward. You pretended you were reading what I painstakingly posted for your benefit. You were humoring me, is all.

Have you ever read a book of actual philosophy? There's sort of two basic types. One would be the sort of book I quoted for you earlier, Simon Blackburn's Ruling Passions. This book doesn't really use a foreword because it's an easy book to read, you can pick it up and run from start to finish and most readers will get the gist without much back tracking and re-reading. Even somebody with no background in moral philosophy could pick this book up and become competent in that field via its discussions

I don't recommend trying that approach with something like Wittgenstein's Tractatus, or Kant's Critique Pure. These are not books that you just pick up and read and understand. Everyone who tries that makes a fool of themselves because revolutionary philosophical ideas, even centuries old ones, are difficult to get.

So those books are published with lengthy introductory essays, and if you are not reading them at uni, where they will be covered in multiple lectures, then Youtube is an excellent resource. If you suddenly wish to learn about Ludwig W's early works, here is a series of 8 lectures on that topic by Victor Gijsbers of Leiden University in the Netherlands. I would say that anyone who takes on that book without using a resource such as this to guide them s quite foolish. As for Kant, well don't get me started.

So where does your dad's book sit in comparison to these philosophical greats? Is there a big revolutionary idea involved? Does it merit comparison to the Copernican Revolution? Half of chapter one seems to claim that it does. You are the only person in the world who has read this book in the way that it is supposed to be read - that seems to be the claim you made here....

So who, if not you, is supposed to show us this proper way of reading and really getting it? Show us the fruits of the understanding, guide us, explain in your own words what we are failing to see in this magnificent work.

Thank you for all the book suggestions. You, yourself, should be able to get it, easily, if you just take the time. I don't have to show you the fruits of the understanding, which you already handwaved away. Why should I continue when you have so much doubt about this discovery's authenticity that words, such as nonsense, slip right off your tongue?

Make a useful effort to explain it then. Something isn't getting through apparently, and you should be able to do more about that. Instead you whine that nobody is being nice enough to the material.

I never used those words.

So? It's an accurate description of your situation.

No it isn't. I never whined like that, so stop it.

You're doing it right now. You were doing it when you wrote "How am I supposed to continue?". And you are about to whine that I used the word "nonsense". You are very, very, passionately, devotedly, whiny.

That's not whiny. That's telling you that these words have no place in this thread. You can call it whatever you want, but I will state my case whiny or not.

I tried. You already shot me down by saying that moving in the direction of greater satisfaction is repetitive and useless. How can I continue?

Well take the argument you think I am not understanding and put it another way so that I can understand, or at least so that somebody else reading the post could see it. Put the argument into your own words. Do something. Take action. Be useful. Amount to something.

I already did. I can't explain it any better than the text itself. It will not do it justice. You will not accept this excerpt. You will say it's a tautology and that will end the conversation before it begins.

Why would you use the words "I already did" when the next sentence is going to tell me why you refuse to do that thing? Why lie to my face like that?

I'm not lying, that's why.

In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are compelled to either live out our lives the best we can or commit suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical (undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

Please expand on the claim in this paragraph that mathematical reasoning is required. You are the one who gets it, please explain it.

It is very clear, even a child can get it. It says exactly what it means. Every move we make is away from a spot that has become dissatisfying or uncomfortable in some way, or we wouldn't make any move at all. Movement is life itself otherwise we would be dead. We cannot move against what gives us greater satisfaction when we are confronted with options. Moving in this direction does not always involve contemplation. We move in this direction all day, every day. I just changed position because my arm fell asleep. This movement is part of our everyday life. This observation is more than a tautology, but if you are bent on calling it that, then at least admit that tautologies can be informative and add to our knowledge.

Steve Patterson's perspective on tautologies challenges the traditional view that they are merely true by definition and do not contribute to knowledge. Patterson argues that tautologies are foundational for critical reasoning and provide a basis for an accurate worldview. He emphasizes that tautologies are not trivial or redundant but rather essential for understanding the structure of propositions and the nature of truth. Patterson's work challenges the notion that tautologies should be dismissed as empty of content, advocating instead for their importance in philosophical discourse.

https://steve-patterson.com/tautologies ... dismissed/

Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action, from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is never satisfied or content to remain in one position for always, like an inanimate object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’ I shall now call the present moment of time or life here, for the purpose of clarification, and the next moment coming up there. You are now standing on this present moment of time and space called here, and you are given two alternatives: either live or kill yourself; either move to the next spot called there or remain where you are without moving a hair’s breadth by committing suicide.

Please explain the phrase "life is never satisfied". Is it intended to reify life as some sort of force or something that exists, or is the author merely noticing the banal fact that living things move and the more mobile ones move towards things they desire and so on?

He was establishing a point that life IS movement, and movement always involves dissatisfaction with the present position. It is what propels us forward.

“I prefer. . .”

Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is death or here, and prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion is life. Consequently, the motion of life, which is any motion from here to there, is a movement away from that which dissatisfies; otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here or where you are, you would never have moved to there.

And here... why are we doing this at all? Why are we defining life, and why are we defining it as this movement? This isn't stuff that we typically need to do, so just doing it out of the blue to support the argument you want to make is called begging the question.

It is not begging the question. It is not circular. He was trying to establish the fact that satisfaction is the only direction life can take. It cannot move against itself by moving in the direction of dissatisfaction, which Atla thought he proved. This is important as it forms the basis of one side of the two-sided equation.

Since the motion of life constantly moves away from here to there, which is an expression of dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously move constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction. It should be obvious that ...

Please explain this move. Are we deliberately anthropomorphising sunflowers that point at the sun, or are we at risk of doing so by accident, or is this talk of satisfaction that is somehow inherent to just movement and life all a bit of a hyperbolic overstatement? You are the only one who knows how to read, so tell us how to read please.

It is not hyperbolic overstatement. It is important to establish that we cannot choose what we like less than what we like more is available. It is not an equal playing field. You cannot choose B if you like A better or vice versa, because anytime there are meaningful differences, you are compelled, by your nature, to pick the one that offers you greater satisfaction, not less. You will see why this important as time goes on, if I stick around.

...our desire to live, to move off the spot called here, is determined by a law over which we have no control, because even if we should kill ourselves, we are choosing what gives us greater satisfaction; otherwise, we would not kill ourselves. The truth of the matter is that at any particular moment, the motion of man is not free, for all life obeys this invariable law. He is constantly compelled by his nature to make choices and decisions and to prefer, of whatever options are available during his lifetime, that which he considers better for himself and his set of circumstances.

Yeah, that law isn't really needed though is it? So where is it proven to be the case that it is a real thing rather than just a convoluted way of referring to beliefs and desires which motivate sentient creatures to move, and an anthropomorphic extension of that to flowers?

That may be true but as you try to understand the reason he makes a point of this, you will see its significance.

Like I said before, I was happy to stipulate to determinism, but I don't see the need to use this flabby and overblown argument in support of it.

It's not flabby and it's not overblown. Your words make me underwhelmed to go on because you're not looking to understand; you're looking to find flaws right at the start. This is going to color all of his words with a faulty slant.

Please don't call this nonsense, okay? Nonsense it is not. I tolerate a lot, but I cannot tolerate when you make false accusations and belittle such an important work whether you think so or not.

Either successfully defend the work, or fail, I have no interest your trivial umbrage or your grandiosity.

Stop giving me an ultimatum. I don't take well to threats. By the way, I am not displaying any form of grandiosity. This idea of yours is all in your sweet little head.

[Age]

I have not spoken for other people.

True, you 'have not'. However, just as True is that you have 'tried to' speak for others, exactly like "flashdangerpants" has.

So, if you really wanted to you could be less of a "hypocrite".

They have told me directly that they don't believe the hype. You, one the other hand, seem to be speaking for everyone, even those who have not even participated.

What can be seen, here, was a very common occurrence among the adult population, in the days when this is being written, and that is, 'they' would commonly say things like, 'people do this or that', without being clear about 'how many people' do this or that.

And, in case it was not yet noticed I wrote 'they', in the very way that I did for a very specific reason.

What the hell are you talking about? This knowledge has no relation to how many people do this or that.

You seem to be the big wheel here. If you say it's wrong, everyone follows. I could be wrong here but usually the person who is the most vocal wins whether or not they are correct. This will be an uphill battle and I'm not sure if it will make a difference at all, not because the knowledge is false, but because people don't believe that this is a true discovery.

Has any one actually 'believed' that 'this' is not a 'true' discovery? Or, have they 'believed' that 'this' is not a 'new' discovery?

Not anyone who has read the book, which are very few. But I have people reviewing it as we speak. Only people here have said it's not a new discovery, yet they don't even know what the discovery is, so how can they tell me it's not new?

There is a huge difference, here. And, like all of the other subtle differences that get missed and/or misunderstood along 'the way', here, this is not helping the confusion and conflicts, here.

See, of course what your "father" 'discovered' was a 'true' discovery for "him", and, just as obvious is that 'that discovery' could have even been a 'new' discovery, for "him" as well. But, what you appear to keep missing, here, is that 'that' was not a 'new' discovery in the sense that your "father" was the very first human being to have so-called 'discovered' that there is only 'determinism' and/or no 'free will'.

His claim that we don't have free will is not the discovery. It is the gateway in so people can see how we can overcome the impasse that has kept this debate from making any progress due to the inability up until now to demonstrate how determinism can help our world immensely.

It's so sad. Unfortunately, the writing is on the wall. There is nothing I can say that will make a damn bit of difference.

you could actually say that you will provide the so-called 'second discovery' for free, and then just do it. Are you absolutely sure that 'this' would not make a 'bit of difference', here?

This is not my first rodeo. It would ruin the conversation of the most important of his three discoveries.

Do you purposely misquote when replying to me knowing that I will not respond and expose your inaccuracies and inconsistencies?

[FlashDangerpants]

If you are a philosopher, don't you first read the required book before people start discussing it? I am at a big disadvantage because you think I should be able to explain it easily. It is not. You reject his claim that we have no free will because, according to you, it's a moot point because whatever we choose is in that direction based on our motivations. To you, it's just a tautology. How am I supposed to go forward. You pretended you were reading what I painstakingly posted for your benefit. You were humoring me, is all.

Have you ever read a book of actual philosophy? There's sort of two basic types. One would be the sort of book I quoted for you earlier, Simon Blackburn's Ruling Passions. This book doesn't really use a foreword because it's an easy book to read, you can pick it up and run from start to finish and most readers will get the gist without much back tracking and re-reading. Even somebody with no background in moral philosophy could pick this book up and become competent in that field via its discussions

I don't recommend trying that approach with something like Wittgenstein's Tractatus, or Kant's Critique Pure. These are not books that you just pick up and read and understand. Everyone who tries that makes a fool of themselves because revolutionary philosophical ideas, even centuries old ones, are difficult to get.

So those books are published with lengthy introductory essays, and if you are not reading them at uni, where they will be covered in multiple lectures, then Youtube is an excellent resource. If you suddenly wish to learn about Ludwig W's early works, here is a series of 8 lectures on that topic by Victor Gijsbers of Leiden University in the Netherlands. I would say that anyone who takes on that book without using a resource such as this to guide them s quite foolish. As for Kant, well don't get me started.

So where does your dad's book sit in comparison to these philosophical greats? Is there a big revolutionary idea involved? Does it merit comparison to the Copernican Revolution? Half of chapter one seems to claim that it does. You are the only person in the world who has read this book in the way that it is supposed to be read - that seems to be the claim you made here....

So who, if not you, is supposed to show us this proper way of reading and really getting it? Show us the fruits of the understanding, guide us, explain in your own words what we are failing to see in this magnificent work.

Thank you for all the book suggestions.

They weren't reading suggestions. I asked if you are comparing your book to the great works of philosophy such as those of Wittgenstein and Kant? Are you saying that your own book is not on their level?

Why did you ignore all my questions about the text you present?

[Age]

"peacegirl" why do you not take a thorough investigation of 'that book', "yourself", and then you get back to 'us' with your findings?

[peacegirl]

Have you ever read a book of actual philosophy? There's sort of two basic types. One would be the sort of book I quoted for you earlier, Simon Blackburn's Ruling Passions. This book doesn't really use a foreword because it's an easy book to read, you can pick it up and run from start to finish and most readers will get the gist without much back tracking and re-reading. Even somebody with no background in moral philosophy could pick this book up and become competent in that field via its discussions

I don't recommend trying that approach with something like Wittgenstein's Tractatus, or Kant's Critique Pure. These are not books that you just pick up and read and understand. Everyone who tries that makes a fool of themselves because revolutionary philosophical ideas, even centuries old ones, are difficult to get.

So those books are published with lengthy introductory essays, and if you are not reading them at uni, where they will be covered in multiple lectures, then Youtube is an excellent resource. If you suddenly wish to learn about Ludwig W's early works, here is a series of 8 lectures on that topic by Victor Gijsbers of Leiden University in the Netherlands. I would say that anyone who takes on that book without using a resource such as this to guide them s quite foolish. As for Kant, well don't get me started.

So where does your dad's book sit in comparison to these philosophical greats? Is there a big revolutionary idea involved? Does it merit comparison to the Copernican Revolution? Half of chapter one seems to claim that it does. You are the only person in the world who has read this book in the way that it is supposed to be read - that seems to be the claim you made here....

So who, if not you, is supposed to show us this proper way of reading and really getting it? Show us the fruits of the understanding, guide us, explain in your own words what we are failing to see in this magnificent work.

Thank you for all the book suggestions.

They weren't reading suggestions. I asked if you are comparing your book to the great works of philosophy such as those of Wittgenstein and Kant? Are you saying that your own book is not on their level?

Yes, this knowledge should be up there with the great works because it has the power to completely revolutionize the trajectory of where we are headed, moving us toward a world of peace and prosperity rather than a world of death and destruction. If this turns out to be true, wouldn't you agree that this work would be deserving of this placement?

Why did you ignore all my questions about the text you present?

Scroll back. I answered every single one.

[FlashDangerpants]

Thank you for all the book suggestions.

They weren't reading suggestions. I asked if you are comparing your book to the great works of philosophy such as those of Wittgenstein and Kant? Are you saying that your own book is not on their level?

Yes, this knowledge should be up there with the great works because it has the power to completely revolutionize the trajectory of where we are headed, moving us toward a world of peace and prosperity rather than a world of death and destruction. If this turns out to be true, wouldn't you agree that this work would be deserving of this placement?

If it is deserving of such lofty position, why does it not deserve exposition of the sort those works get? The people who best understand such works write secondary books to discuss these works, the produce lecture series. Nobody refuses to expand on Hume with weak excuses such as "I can't explain it any better than the text itself. It will not do it justice." They get on with it and they do the explaining. So get on with it, and do the explaining if you think this work is at the level that merits such treatment.