New Discovery

[promethean75]

Well, I've always been a bit of a material determinist and social constructivist, so none of your stuff is new to me. There are dozens of freelance intellectual determinists publishing articles and books. You read one you read em all, and there's nothing in them but reworked versions of hard and soft determinism. Great stuff, but shirley not revolutionary. There was only one determinism revolution in the history of philosophy, and Spinoza was the Vladimir Lenin of it. The intellectual world today consists only of freewill stragglers still trying to hold on and decent men like one Mr. Samuel Benjamin Harris.

[peacegirl]

Well, I've always been a bit of a material determinist and social constructivist, so none of your stuff is new to me. There are dozens of freelance intellectual determinists publishing articles and books. You read one you read em all, and there's nothing in them but reworked versions of hard and soft determinism. Great stuff, but shirley not revolutionary. There was only one determinism revolution in the history of philosophy, and Spinoza was the Vladimir Lenin of it. The intellectual world today consists only of freewill stragglers still trying to hold on and decent men like one Mr. Samuel Benjamin Harris.

Promethean, if will is not free, we have to assume will is not free. But the problem is how it is defined. Spinoza, according to the author, was correct, but he didn't have the full understanding as to how this knowledge can help our world. I'm tired of begging people to hear me out. If you can do that, you may be pleasantly surprised that this knowledge does not take away from anything. It gives us the way out of this troubled world.

[FlashDangerpants]

There is a point to this thread, even though FlashDangerpants thinks otherwise. Who is he to have such influence?

You are such a pathetic loser that you even have to elevate me to some exalted status for the sake of your own self-pity. I am not the one who influenced everybody else to see your book and your argument are shit, everybody is able to see that easily for themselves. I don't have influence. I am just the one who took some time to see if it could be explained to you. It cannot, but that is because you are personally very stupid.

All you are doing now is whining and feeling sorry for yourself because your sales mission has failed like it always does and you haven't had a new idea for anything useful to do about that in 30 years. It's pathetic.

[FlashDangerpants]

Well, I've always been a bit of a material determinist and social constructivist, so none of your stuff is new to me. There are dozens of freelance intellectual determinists publishing articles and books. You read one you read em all, and there's nothing in them but reworked versions of hard and soft determinism. Great stuff, but shirley not revolutionary. There was only one determinism revolution in the history of philosophy, and Spinoza was the Vladimir Lenin of it. The intellectual world today consists only of freewill stragglers still trying to hold on and decent men like one Mr. Samuel Benjamin Harris.

Peacegirl is a fake determinist. I would explain, but I really can't be bothered with the explosion of pathetic bullshit that I would have to put up with from this chronic loser.

Anyway, it is just as obvious to you as it is to me so I don't need to explain to you, and I don't think it's possible to explain it to her.

[peacegirl]

There is a point to this thread, even though FlashDangerpants thinks otherwise. Who is he to have such influence?

You are such a pathetic loser that you even have to elevate me to some exalted status for the sake of your own self-pity.

PEACEGIRL: I am not exalting you for my own self-pity. It just seems that certain people are given status by virtue of their time in this forum. I don't know for sure. What I do know is that you have an extremely negative response when you can't even tell me what the discovery is. It's absurd.

FLASHDANGERPANTS: I am not the one who influenced everybody else to see your book and your argument are shit,

PEACEGIRL: Let's get down to Brasstacks. Where is it shit? You don't know. Isn't that a giveaway that you know shit?

FLASHDANGERPANTS: everybody is able to see that easily for themselves.

PEACEGIRL: That's bullshit. People are like sheep in forums like this. The loudest gets the following.

FLASHDANGERPANTS: I don't have influence. I am just the one who took some time to see if it could be explained to you. It cannot, but that is because you are personally very stupid.

PEACEGIRL: Explained to me? I am explaining to you, not the other way around. You don't understand the first thing about this knowledge because your ears are closed.

FLASHDANGERPANTS: All you are doing now is whining and feeling sorry for yourself because your sales mission has failed like it always does and you haven't had a new idea for anything useful to do about that in 30 years. It's pathetic.

PEACEGIRL: Give it up already! How do you know this knowledge isn't useful? How is his argument shit when you don't know what his argument is other than you hate that man does not have free will. There is no other way to explain your derision for this book. It is not only hurting you, but everyone here who is using you as some kind of authority. They can just depend on you and don't have to think for themselves. And now it has gotten even worse with the introduction of AI. No critical thinking is required.

[FlashDangerpants]

PEACEGIRL:
FLASHDANGERPANTS:
...

Any time I see that I don't bother reading it. You are too lazy or stupid to work something as simple as the quote function, not my problem.

[promethean75]

"but he didn't have the full understanding as to how this knowledge can help our world."

Mate, wut r u talking about? Have you read Spinz's political stuff? The whole foundation of his society rests on a deterministic understanding of human nature and a stoic grip on the emotions. If you ain't got these two down, you ain't got no society... but a bunch of confused monkeys with muddled and inadequate ideas!

[peacegirl]

"but he didn't have the full understanding as to how this knowledge can help our world."

Mate, wut r u talking about? Have you read Spinz's political stuff? The whole foundation of his society rests on a deterministic understanding of human nature and a stoic grip on the emotions. If you ain't got these two down, you ain't got no society... but a bunch of confused monkeys with muddled and inadequate ideas!

Yes, he did understand that man's will is not free but he was unable to solve the problem of evil.

The reason theologians could never solve this problem of evil was because they never attempted to look behind the door marked “Man’s Will Is Not Free.” Why should they investigate further when they were convinced that man’s will was free? Plato, Christ, Spinoza, and many others came into the world and saw the truth, but in a confused sort of way, because the element of evil was always an unsolved factor. When Jesus Christ told the rabbis that God commanded man to turn the other cheek, they threw him out because the Bible told them that God said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” When his enemies nailed him to the cross, he was heard to say, “They know not what they do.” “Turn the other cheek,” he said. Because Christ exemplified in his behavior the principle of forgiveness and because he saw such suffering in the world, he drew to himself those who needed help, and there were many. However, the legacy he left for Christianity was never reconciled. How was it possible to turn the other cheek in a world of such evil? Why was the mind of man so confused, and in spite of every possible criticism, how was religion able to convince the world to be patient and have faith? Where did these theologians receive their inspiration, since there was no way science could reconcile good and evil with a God that caused everything? They solved this problem in a very simple manner by dividing good and evil in half, and God was only responsible for the first. Then they reasoned that God endowed man with freedom of the will to choose good over evil. To theologians, God is the creator of all goodness. Since man does many things considered evil, they were given no choice but to endow him with freedom of the will so that God could be absolved of all responsibility for evil, which was assigned to Satan. This is also the reason why religion is so hostile toward anyone who speaks against free will. Is it any wonder that Christ and Spinoza, plus innumerable others, pulled away from the synagogue? Is it any wonder Spinoza became a heretic and was excommunicated? According to the thinkers of that time, how could any intelligent person believe in Satan? Religion has never been able to reconcile the forces of good and evil with a caring and loving God; therefore, Satan was destined to be born as the opposite of all good in the world.

Because Spinoza was dissatisfied with theology’s explanation of good and evil, he opened the door of determinism and looked around quite a bit, but he did not know how to slay the fiery dragon (the great impasse of blame), so he pretended it wasn’t even there. He stated, “We are men, not God. Evil is really not evil when seen in total perspective,” and he rejected the principle of an eye for an eye. Will Durant, not at all satisfied with this aspect of Spinoza’s philosophy, although he loved him dearly, could not understand how it was humanly possible to turn the other cheek in this kind of world. He also went in and looked around very thoroughly, and he too saw the fiery dragon, but unlike Spinoza, he made no pretense of its nonexistence. He just didn’t know how to overcome the beast but refused to agree with what common sense told him to deny. The implications really need no further clarification as to why free will is in power. Nobody, including Spinoza and other philosophers, ever discovered what it meant that man’s will is not free because they never unlocked the second door, which led to my discovery. The belief in free will was compelled to remain in power until the present time because no one had conclusive proof that determinism was true, nor could anyone slay the fiery dragon, which seemed like an impossible feat. Is it any wonder that Johnston didn’t want to get into this matter any further? Is it any wonder Durant never went beyond the vestibule? Are you beginning to recognize why it has been so difficult to get this knowledge thoroughly investigated? Since the modern world of science was playing havoc with religion, it needed a boost, and along came, just in the nick of time, a scientist who gave seven reasons why he believed in God. A. Cressy Morrison, who wrote his book, “Man Does Not Stand Alone,” was almost convinced that God was a reality. He challenged Julian Huxley’s conclusions written in his book, “Man Stands Alone.” Both tried to answer the question, “Is there a Supreme Intelligence guiding this universe?” Who is right? Huxley said, “No, there isn’t,” but Morrison’s arguments were mathematically sound, and he gave quite a boost to instilling faith again in those people who were really beginning to wonder. I can almost remember word for word how he tried to prove that nothing happens by chance, and he did prove it except for this element of evil. It went something like this:

[promethean75]

Spinz may have not solved 'the problem of evil' because there is no problem of evil, PG. I don't even think you've read Benediction Spinz. There's just states of greater or lesser joy and satisfaction. No such thing as good and evil. That's monkey talk.

[peacegirl]

PEACEGIRL:
FLASHDANGERPANTS:
...

Any time I see that I don't bother reading it. You are too lazy or stupid to work something as simple as the quote function, not my problem.

You did help me with this and I thank you. I have it in my documents so I can practice it later. I am too frustrated right now to learn, given that you couldn't care less about this thread and I can't take the chance of losing my answers if I don't get it right. The fact that you call me stupid and use this against the book is outrageous and shows that you will grab at anything to put me in a bad light.

[peacegirl]

Spinz may have not solved 'the problem of evil' because there is no problem of evil, PG. I don't even think you've read Benediction Spinz. There's just states of greater or lesser joy and satisfaction. No such thing as good and evil. That's monkey talk.

The author read a lot of Spinoza, and yes, there is no such thing as evil when seen in total perspective but it is impossible for the average person to think in terms of "total perspective" when his home was just destroyed by a bomb or a family does not have enough food to eat. Let me repeat this part:

To show you how confused is the understanding of someone who doesn’t grasp these principles, a local columnist interested in my ideas, so he called them, made the statement that I believe that man should not be blamed for anything he does, which is true only when man knows what it means that his will is not free. If he doesn’t know, he is compelled to blame by his very nature. Christ also received incursions of thought from this same principle, which compelled him to turn the other cheek and remark as he was being nailed to the cross, “They know not what they do,” forgiving his enemies even in the moment of death. How was it possible for him to blame them when he knew that they were not responsible? But they knew what they were doing, and he could not stop them even by turning the other cheek. Religion was compelled to believe that God was not responsible for the evil in the world, whereas Spinoza and Christ believed correctly that there was no such thing as evil when seen in total perspective. But how was it possible, except for people like Christ and Spinoza, to forgive those who trespassed against them? And how was it possible for those who became victims of this necessary evil to look at it in total perspective? Is it any wonder man cried out to God for understanding? The time has arrived to clear up all the confusion and reconcile these two opposite principles, which requires that you keep an open mind and proceed with the investigation. Let me show you how this apparent impasse can be rephrased in terms of possibility.

If someone is not being hurt in any way, is it possible for him to retaliate or turn the other cheek? Isn’t it obvious that to do either, he must first be hurt? But if he is already being hurt and turning the other cheek makes matters worse for himself, then he is given no choice but to retaliate because this is demanded by the laws of his nature. Here is the source of the confusion. Our basic principle or corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, call it what you will, is not going to accomplish the impossible. It is not going to prevent man from desiring to hurt others when not doing so makes matters worse for himself, but it will prevent the desire to strike the very first blow. Once you have been hurt, it is normal and natural to seek some form of retaliation, for this is a source of satisfaction, the direction that life is compelled to take. Therefore, this knowledge cannot possibly prevent the hate and blame that man has been compelled to live with all these years as a consequence of crimes committed and many other forms of hurt; yet God’s mathematical law cannot be denied, for man is truly not to blame for anything he does, notwithstanding, so a still deeper analysis is required. Throughout history, no one has ever known what it means that man’s will is not free and how it can benefit the world, but you will be shown the answer very shortly. There is absolutely no way this new world — a world without war, crime, and all forms of hurt to man by man — can be stopped from coming into existence. When it will occur, however, depends on when this knowledge can be brought to light.

[promethean75]

Book quote: tldr

"but it is impossible for the average person to think in terms of "total perspective" when his home was just destroyed by a bomb or a family does not have enough food to eat."

Perhaps, but no beast, man or god would ever drop bombz or deny a family food after reading The Ethics or the... [ahem]... Tractatus Theologico-Politicus so your argument is a non-starter against the significance and power of the benediction of Spinz. None of the nonsense happening to those people in your arguments is necessary, and it's certainly no argument for the existence of evil unless by 'evil' you mean something like "i do not enjoy those guys who dropped bombz on me."

[FlashDangerpants]

PEACEGIRL:
FLASHDANGERPANTS:
...

Any time I see that I don't bother reading it. You are too lazy or stupid to work something as simple as the quote function, not my problem.

You did help me with this and I thank you. I have it in my documents so I can practice it later. I am too frustrated right now to learn, given that you couldn't care less about this thread and I can't take the chance of losing my answers if I don't get it right. The fact that you call me stupid and use this against the book is outrageous and shows that you will grab at anything to put me in a bad light.

Of course I don't use that against your book you utter moron. I hold it against you though. Nobody of average intelligence needs to save a document to tell them how to open a thing with a [tag] and then close the same thing with [/tag]. That you are still incapable after months of this shit is concerning. That said, there probably is a link between the stupidity of the book and the stupidity of the only person who thinks it is good.

You are stupid, it is visible and obvious to everyone. I don't invent it because I want to put you down, I just don't bother hiding it from you like the polite people who just ignore you do.

[peacegirl]

Any time I see that I don't bother reading it. You are too lazy or stupid to work something as simple as the quote function, not my problem.

You did help me with this and I thank you. I have it in my documents so I can practice it later. I am too frustrated right now to learn, given that you couldn't care less about this thread and I can't take the chance of losing my answers if I don't get it right. The fact that you call me stupid and use this against the book is outrageous and shows that you will grab at anything to put me in a bad light.

Of course I don't use that against your book you utter moron. I hold it against you though. Nobody of average intelligence needs to save a document to tell them how to open a thing with a [tag] and then close the same thing with [/tag]. That you are still incapable after months of this shit is concerning. That said, there probably is a link between the stupidity of the book and the stupidity of the only person who thinks it is good.

You are stupid, it is visible and obvious to everyone. I don't invent it because I want to put you down, I just don't bother hiding it from you like the polite people who just ignore you do.

How do you know what is visible to everyone? Did you take a poll? You have a grudge against me and the author, it's as simple as that, probably because you hate the idea that man's will IS NOT FREE. That I saved your instructions for later, and the fact that you are using this against me is pure stupidity on your part. This long thread has gotten nowhere when time could have been much better spent if you had shown even a tiny bit of interest, but no, you won't even engage with the excerpt I posted for your convenience. All you keep saying is that moving in the direction of greater satisfaction is a tautology. So what. This alone doesn't disprove that we don't have free will. I could never move on because of this one mistake on your part.

[peacegirl]

Book quote: tldr

"but it is impossible for the average person to think in terms of "total perspective" when his home was just destroyed by a bomb or a family does not have enough food to eat."

Perhaps, but no beast, man or god would ever drop bombz or deny a family food after reading The Ethics or the... [ahem]... Tractatus Theologico-Politicus so your argument is a non-starter against the significance and power of the benediction of Spinz. None of the nonsense happening to those people in your arguments is necessary, and it's certainly no argument for the existence of evil unless by 'evil' you mean something like "i do not enjoy those guys who dropped bombz on me."

Evil, in this context, means hurt in human relations. Hurt means doing something to someone that they don't want done to themselves. So, yes, the statement "I do not enjoy those guys who dropped bombs on me" aptly applies. I am not arguing against Spinoza's Ethics. That was not the author's intention. All the literature and philosophy he studied led up to his discovery, including Spinoza, Durant, and many others. He could not have made this finding without these philosophers' thoughts. His main thesis is that as long as there is justification to strike back against hurt done to us, we will be unable to achieve world peace. How to prevent this desire to strike a first blow, which would justify striking back --- an eye for an eye --- is the central theme of the entire book.