Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:I thought that philosophers, unless religious or mystical, agree that we are completely determined by physical forces. Hence there is no 'free-will', just Will as Schopenhaur pointed out.

ughaibu wrote:Well, you were mistaken, a fact that was made available to you by the PhilPapers survey.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: The problem with people that say things like this, is that they're just spitting out words to see where they splatter.

What's more logical, that the people responsible for the definitions, "in them there dictionaries," just roll the dice as to a particular words meaning, or that they actually go to the source, find out what it is, and then print it. Do you really think they're meaning dictators, rather than meaning compilers, collators and reporters?

Now just because one believes in one of the schools of thought within philosophy, of the plethora of differing schools, as to a particular subjects truth, that was not considered as relevant, considering all the schools of thought in their totality, as an average, in order to come to the most logical possible truth, does not mean the writers of dictionaries necessarily got it wrong.

It merely means that one has chosen to believe in a, so called truth, that is in the minority, not necessarily anything more, or anything less.

Arising_uk wrote:

ughaibu wrote:Well, you were mistaken, a fact that was made available to you by the PhilPapers survey.

My apologies I can't find the link? Could you point it out to me please.

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: The problem with people that say things like this, is that they're just spitting out words to see where they splatter.

So you keep trying to imply but lmao given that I have you as saying that one cannot assign psychological motives in this medium.
No that's what you interpreted. I may not have been clear, or you may not have put it all together. It can be done but the amount of information required is virtually infinite. I also said that someone is not in a single word or phrase, that distinctions are actually blurred, due to variations of a potential multitude of inclusions of, supposedly, differing ideas. The essence of my comments were that you were premature in your assessment.

What's more logical, that the people responsible for the definitions, "in them there dictionaries," just roll the dice as to a particular words meaning, or that they actually go to the source, find out what it is, and then print it. Do you really think they're meaning dictators, rather than meaning compilers, collators and reporters?

I think dictionaries are abridged versions of things.
So a summation then?

Now just because one believes in one of the schools of thought within philosophy, of the plethora of differing schools, as to a particular subjects truth, that was not considered as relevant, considering all the schools of thought in their totality, as an average, in order to come to the most logical possible truth, does not mean the writers of dictionaries necessarily got it wrong.

I didn't say they had. I said that a dictionary of philosophy might be a better authority of information about philosophical matters.
This is true, but for brevities sake, I use dictionaries here, as they tend to be a brief summation; they cut to the chase!

It merely means that one has chosen to believe in a, so called truth, that is in the minority, not necessarily anything more, or anything less.

Remember what you said to me about "just", I think the same about "merely". That its in the 'minority' means nothing in philosophy as its the logical force of the arguments thats meant to guide such beliefs.
Ok, but, it's also true, that it can be said, that the degree of it's logical force, can be revealed in the degree to which it's accepted, not that majority, necessarily, indicates truth.

As chaz has pointed out many times upon this issue, whether it be with respect to some gods' will or to physical determinism, the concept of a 'free-will' makes a mockery of the progress and understanding of the sciences and the progress that philosophy had made with the advent of Schopenhaurs observations that "“A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants.” or "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."
Cannot be said with certainty, as the brain, mind, and consciousness is still a mystery. I see that you, Chaz and others like counting their chickens before they're hatched, typical of megalos.

So think upon this oh spherical one, if you believe in 'free-will' why are paying a therapist to deal with your angst? Why do you not just freely will it away?
You and Chaz are so full of preconceptions it's not funny. In doing what I'm doing, I am willing it away, only fools believe in magic wands. I started willing it away once I acknowledged the probability of being damaged by my father (knowing the problem is half the battle). My psychologist is a living walking book of knowledge who's only function is to provide me with information as tools to aid in the willing. Sure I could do it myself if I became a PhD in psychology, but that's long term and more importantly, expensive. I think you've paid too much attention to Disney's Fantasia! Magic is not real sweetheart! It takes time to reverse 5 years of infancy's virtually blank slate of memories that happened 50 years ago, what, are you stupid? OK, GO! recite the actual occurrences of your experience from your birth until you reached age 5. I'm waiting, and it shall be quite some time before I receive any actually true response from you. So you have to reverse engineer your life, but that is willing it, because you could just say "fuck it," I'm a result of function (determinism) I have no power, I'm a realist, thus a lazy pessimist, that's just the way it is; the nourishment of lazy assed fools!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:No that's what you interpreted. I may not have been clear, or you may not have put it all together. It can be done but the amount of information required is virtually infinite. I also said that someone is not in a single word or phrase, that distinctions are actually blurred, due to variations of a potential multitude of inclusions of, supposedly, differing ideas. The essence of my comments were that you were premature in your assessment.

So a summation then?

This is true, but for brevities sake, I use dictionaries here, as they tend to be a brief summation; they cut to the chase!

Ok, but, it's also true, that it can be said, that the degree of it's logical force, can be revealed in the degree to which it's accepted, not that majority, necessarily, indicates truth.

Cannot be said with certainty, as the brain, mind, and consciousness is still a mystery. I see that you, Chaz and others like counting their chickens before they're hatched, typical of megalos.

You and Chaz are so full of preconceptions it's not funny. In doing what I'm doing, I am willing it away, only fools believe in magic wands. I started willing it away once I acknowledged the probability of being damaged by my father (knowing the problem is half the battle). My psychologist is a living walking book of knowledge who's only function is to provide me with information as tools to aid in the willing. Sure I could do it myself if I became a PhD in psychology, but that's long term and more importantly, expensive. I think you've paid too much attention to Disney's Fantasia! Magic is not real sweetheart! It takes time to reverse 5 years of infancy's virtually blank slate of memories that happened 50 years ago, what, are you stupid? OK, GO! recite the actual occurrences of your experience from your birth until you reached age 5. I'm waiting, and it shall be quite some time before I receive any actually true response from you. So you have to reverse engineer your life, but that is willing it, because you could just say "fuck it," I'm a result of function (determinism) I have no power, I'm a realist, thus a lazy pessimist, that's just the way it is; the nourishment of lazy assed fools!

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:No that's what you interpreted. I may not have been clear, or you may not have put it all together. It can be done but the amount of information required is virtually infinite. I also said that someone is not in a single word or phrase, that distinctions are actually blurred, due to variations of a potential multitude of inclusions of, supposedly, differing ideas. The essence of my comments were that you were premature in your assessment.

Its exactly what you are doing with your imputation that I don't think before I type and I think my interpretation was correct. For example you have used the word "megalos" in reference to myself and chaz, I presume you mean megalomanics, and I wonder what virtually infinite information you used to come to this conclusion? Personally I suspect its just the result of you swallowing your therapists viewpoint completely.

So a summation then?

With respect to the subjects of philosophy, a simplification.

This is true, but for brevities sake, I use dictionaries here, as they tend to be a brief summation; they cut to the chase!

See above. Although I wonder how you reconcile your idea that theres no point in studying philosophy for its ideas as its just argument from authority and yet you quote faceless dictionary compliers?

Ok, but, it's also true, that it can be said, that the degree of it's logical force, can be revealed in the degree to which it's accepted, not that majority, necessarily, indicates truth.

Maybe, but that would depend upon how well those who accept it understand logic.

Cannot be said with certainty, as the brain, mind, and consciousness is still a mystery. I see that you, Chaz and others like counting their chickens before they're hatched, typical of megalos.

Save your psycho-babble for yourself.

What is it you find mysterious about the brain? That it appears to be in part responsible for 'mind' or consciousness? I say in part because I think its the whole body that produces consciousness and probably language that produces what most call 'mind'.

By a "mystery" I assume you mean that sciences has not explained how it all works yet? If so I think that mainly because they've not been concentrating upon it for long but things are changing fast in this respect. Or do, I suspect, think that its some mysterious 'thing' that will never be explained to a reasonable satisfaction.

You and Chaz are so full of preconceptions it's not funny. In doing what I'm doing, I am willing it away, only fools believe in magic wands. I started willing it away once I acknowledged the probability of being damaged by my father (knowing the problem is half the battle). My psychologist is a living walking book of knowledge who's only function is to provide me with information as tools to aid in the willing. Sure I could do it myself if I became a PhD in psychology, but that's long term and more importantly, expensive. I think you've paid too much attention to Disney's Fantasia! Magic is not real sweetheart! It takes time to reverse 5 years of infancy's virtually blank slate of memories that happened 50 years ago, what, are you stupid? OK, GO! recite the actual occurrences of your experience from your birth until you reached age 5. I'm waiting, and it shall be quite some time before I receive any actually true response from you. So you have to reverse engineer your life, but that is willing it, because you could just say "fuck it," I'm a result of function (determinism) I have no power, I'm a realist, thus a lazy pessimist, that's just the way it is; the nourishment of lazy assed fools!

PhD's in Psychology are renowned for having major psychological issues, theres an old saw that the only people with more issues are their kids.

Think again, 'magic' in this area can be very real - read The Structure of Magic I & II by Richard Bandler and John Grinder. Read both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche about the world and the will.

What you say above says to me is that you have accepted your therapists Fraudian interpretation of the psyche and will be there a long-time and paying much money addressing whatever issues it is you wish to resolve. I think there are quicker ways to do such stuff because I presume that people have the resources they need to change and can change in, if not an instant, a very short time.- see NLP's timeline therapy, stating well-formed congruent outcomes in the positive, six-step reframing, et al.

I think you make the common mistake that determinism means no choice about things and you actually assume it in your acceptance of Freuds idea that its your childhood experiences that determines your behaviour now.

Theres an common NLP saying - "Experience is not what happened to you its how you deal with what happened to you." and you can deal with it in the here and now with some very powerful techniques that NLP assembled from the world of the successful, i.e. demonstrable concrete results, therapist or counsellor.

Notvacka wrote:Our very use of language here makes it obvious that something must be wrong with the concept itself.

Look at this:

The common expression is "I have a free will" rather than "I am a free will".

But how can my will be free if it's in my possession? The phrase suggests that my will is not free from "me".

On the other hand, can I be free from my will? Does my will not rule my actions?

In which case the expression should be "free will has me". Which seems like so much nonsense, because it is.

What, then, is the will supposed to be free from? External influences? Internal influences? Can anybody come up with anyghing that makes even the slightest bit of sense as to what the supposedly "free" will could be "free" from?

Free will is the experience of having alternatives to choose from. Beyond the experience itself, there is nothing tangible to be found.

Free will and identity are what we experience between circumstances and actions.

On a purely subjective level, free will is experienced as having alternatives to choose from. On the same subjective level, identity is experienced as being the one doing the choosing.

For free will to exist in reality, alternatives must exist in reality, but they don't. However, they do exist in our imagination. Here is an example of how it works:

Imagine that you are going on a journey and have the choice of going by car or by train. There could be other options, but for the sake of simplicity, let's only consider these two distinct choices.

The alternatives are:

1. You go by car.

2. You go by train.

The alternatives are not the car and the train, which both exist in physical reality. The alternatives are you going by car or you going by train. Please note the difference.

You can imagine yourself going by car and you can imagine yourself going by train. That is how you experience the alternatives of free will. Both alternatives exist in your imagination.

Then you make your mind up. Let's say that you settle for the train. That is how you experience the decision of free will. The decision exists in your imagination.

Then you actually take the train. That is how you experience the action of free will. The action exists in physical reality.

Note that only one of the percieved alternatives can exist in physical reality. If you go by train in reality, then you can't simultaneously go by car.

Once you're on the train, there is no way for you to know if you actually could have gone by car instead. That alternative only ever existed in your imagination.

What you experienced as free will could possibly have been predetermination (as suggested by the theory of relativity) or random chance (as suggested by quantum physics). Since you can't go back in time and choose differently, there is no way to know. And it doesn't matter. Free will exists in our imagination (which is important to us) but not in physical reality (which is less important).

On the train, you experience having made the morally superior choice, since trains impact the environment less than cars. This is true even if the alternative never existed in reality.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:... I'll take Freud and Jung any day over that BS![/color]

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:... I'll take Freud and Jung any day over that BS![/color]

LMFAO! . "... and ..." For you to say this its obvious that you've read neither.
ROTFLMFAO, Only due to your presumption

That you dismiss something based upon authority gleaned, I presume, from wiki and goggle searches and nice to see you have a closed mind despite the balance you proclaim.
Remember, money is at issue here, I do not have the resources nor time to read every hair brained psychologist out there, to determine, potentially, the absolute best course of counseling for my needs. The psychologist I have right now is FREE!!!!!!!!!


I hope you have many happy years in therapy because you will be.
Again, your presumption makes a potential fool of you! I would say that in FACT, the term of counseling required is subject to several variables, i.e.,

1) The degree of the problem.
2) The astuteness of both the Psychologist and patient.
3) The length of time the psychologist studied.
4) The myriad schools of study of the psychologist.

To name but a few.

You see Arising, the term is in fact, self paced.

Just as freely as I have her, I can switch at any time, to any of several therapists. I truly have a great 'free' thing going here! And I'll take what I need, from the table! I've been working on myself since I was 17, not that it's been consistent, I'm one of those "slow, but sure" kind of people, I step carefully so there is no need to backtrack.

ThemApples wrote:Hanuman, I think you are very insightful and thank you for sharing your thoughts.

From what you wrote it sounds like Heidegger's hermeneutical horizon, which roughly means we are conditioned by historicity so that when we understand or interpret/choose/react etc. we do so because of our previous 'fore-structure.'

SpheresOfBalance wrote:That's exactly what I said, but as we understand this we then have the potential to dissolve it!

That's exactly what I said, but as we understand this we then have the potential to dissolve it!