Philosophy Now Forum

Note to nature: tell that to Jerry.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 10:45 pm So, how does this all relate to free will and determinism.
If I find out for sure this is a deterministic universe, would I view the target of my recent complaints differently.

The point though is that how you view everything in the wide-awake world is exactly the same as how you view everything in the dream world...entirely as your brain compels you to. Only in the wide-awake world your brain compels you to believe that you do have free will. The psychological illusion of free will.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 10:45 pm I can't really see it making a difference. I have, generally, recently, a negative reaction. I would now know for sure that this was all 'scripted' back in the Big Bang and further back if there is a further back. But my annoyance is the same. I already assume that causes internal and external are at least influencing decisions made by everyone.

Same thing. You "see" only what you were never able not to "see". There was never the possibility of you having a positive reaction. You know the only things you were ever able to know. There was never the option to choose freely to think about something again such that you could of your own volition not be annoyed.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 10:45 pmIf I find out for sure this is a free will universe, would I view the target of my recent complaints differently.

Okay, if that's how things seem to you "here and now", then, given human autonomy, that is, in thinking it through, the conclusion you freely arrived at.

But from my frame of mind, it's one thing for the variables in your life to fall into place like dominoes wholly in sync with laws of matter so as to compel you to feel annoyed about something you were never able to opt not to feel annoyed by, and another thing altogether to have actual volition regarding things that might either annoy or not annoy you.

Though, sure, I might not be thinking this through correctly. But am I then "off the hook" because this is the only way my brain compels me to think it through?



So, how is the point I am making here an assessment of free will and determinism...

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 10:45 pmIn some very abstract way.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 10:45 pmA person does something I find irritating. Instead of having, due to their nature and the world's nurture, been compelled by this to act a certain way, they chose to perhaps go against their own nature and background. This makes for a very strange world. Freedom can be found by going against one's own desires. Either the person allowed their background and desires to come up with a choice or they went against these or ignore these.

Again, you lose me here. In a determined universe as I understand it, "a person's nature and the world's nurture" -- genes and memes -- are both seamlessly intertwined in the only possible reality. You might think that someone is going against their own desires, but...but what you think and their desires are in turn entirely fated or destined to be what they could only ever be if the human brain itself is just more matter necessarily intertwined in our wholly material world.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 10:45 pmI guess in a deterministic universe I might be more inclined to feel sorry for irritating people, which is often the case now despite my not being sure.

In a determined universe as some understand it, you would be precisely inclined to think, feel, say and do as your brain compels you to. No more, no less. And if you do not feel sure then up until now that is simply how you were determined to react.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 10:54 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 10:47 pm So, does anyone here believe that historically there have never been any moral, political and spiritual objectivists who gained power in particular communities or nations and demanded of others that they "toe the line" or else?

Nobody cares, because it's not relevant. It's just some random nonsense you brought into the thread that nobody else cares about. The conversation was not about objectivists, Nazis or Taliban until you brought them up. Nobody cares about your nonsense.

Stop crying about objectivists. If you're so scared of other people believing different stuff from you then you're better off without an account on any philosophy forum or social media. You're much too fragile to be on the internet.

Get your parents to install parental controls or something

Note to others:

Click.

I've explained what I think is relevant here...and why I think that it is relevant.

Decide for yourself then if, in Stooge mode, Flannel Jesus continues to make a fool out of himself here with me.

After all, if it doesn't embarrass him to keep posting his declamatory "it's all about iambiguous" personal attacks, it doesn't embarrass me to suggest that it ought to.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 3:13 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 10:54 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 10:47 pm So, does anyone here believe that historically there have never been any moral, political and spiritual objectivists who gained power in particular communities or nations and demanded of others that they "toe the line" or else?

Nobody cares, because it's not relevant. It's just some random nonsense you brought into the thread that nobody else cares about. The conversation was not about objectivists, Nazis or Taliban until you brought them up. Nobody cares about your nonsense.

Stop crying about objectivists. If you're so scared of other people believing different stuff from you then you're better off without an account on any philosophy forum or social media. You're much too fragile to be on the internet.

Get your parents to install parental controls or something

Note to others:

Click.

I've explained what I think is relevant here...and why I think that it is relevant.

Decide for yourself then if, in Stooge mode, Flannel Jesus continues to make a fool out of himself here with me.

After all, if it doesn't embarrass him to keep posting his declamatory "it's all about iambiguous" personal attacks, it doesn't embarrass me to suggest that it ought to.

Everyone who is keeping up with this thread is in the same boat I am. Nobody is on board with your Nazi crap.

Note to nature: cockadoodledoo

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 7:16 am Everyone who is keeping up with this thread is in the same boat I am. Nobody is on board with your Nazi crap.

Note to nature: cockadoodledoo

The poor man, and I would guess it is a man, doesn't seem to realize that calling most people in a discussion objectivists and then associating them with people he hates: Hitler, Nazis, Stalinists and the Taliban
is posting all about them.
When people respond to this idiocy and what he is, therefore, doing in the thread, other people are writing 'all about him.'
It's a lovely passive aggressive game.

Now, in terms of determinism and free will. If determinism is the case, the obviously he can't help (so far) but repeat this pattern. He might learn from what other people write about his behavior and strange claims and change the pattern. This change is of course also determined (in that universe that is determined). But it does indicate something more about him. Evern when getting feedback from a number of sources, he does not change or admit anything. Perhaps, if one believes in determinism, one would have more sympathy: stuff in his past and genetics leads to this kind of behavior. But he's still the guy who acts like this and of course other people are determined to pointing out the pattern and disliking it and perhaps ignoring his posts and so on at least for a while.

If it's a free will world: well, he is not compelled to have this pattern. He is somehow freely choosing it. Perhaps because of factors in his past, I guess, or perhaps not. I guess we could conceivably hold him more responsible, but the pattern says less about him. People would not have essence the way they have in a determined universe. Again people who dislike the idiocy of general insults may well respond in posts about his behavior. Though here they would be somehow freer to compliment ideas (without irony) that make no sense or... I still have trouble with what this would all mean. But I suppose one might be more optimistic someone would change. or make different decisions next time.

I can't really see how my behavior would change if tomorrow I was told one of the other was the case. I suppose once in a while I would listen to long songs that I can't stand. But I am not sure, beyond experimentation, why I would. Unless free will extends to not simply being free to act, but also free to react/experience differently.

Like I could decide I love licorice ice cream with carob and reading generalized insults that make no sense.

It should be added that constructions like...
He is compelled to associate people who believe things with Nazis.
...don't make sense.
There is no separate 'he' to be compelled. The desires and goals and fears (etc.) in him are part of what leads to his doing things. If it were only external causes, such a construction might make sense, but it is internal ones as well.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 10:32 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 7:16 am Everyone who is keeping up with this thread is in the same boat I am. Nobody is on board with your Nazi crap.

Note to nature: cockadoodledoo

The poor man, and I would guess it is a man, doesn't seem to realize that calling most people in a discussion objectivists and then associating them with people he hates: Hitler, Nazis, Stalinists and the Taliban
is posting all about them.
When people respond to this idiocy and what he is, therefore, doing in the thread, other people are writing 'all about him.'
It's a lovely passive aggressive game.

Now, in terms of determinism and free will. If determinism is the case, the obviously he can't help (so far) but repeat this pattern. He might learn from what other people write about his behavior and strange claims and change the pattern. This change is of course also determined (in that universe that is determined). But it does indicate something more about him. Evern when getting feedback from a number of sources, he does not change or admit anything. Perhaps, if one believes in determinism, one would have more sympathy: stuff in his past and genetics leads to this kind of behavior. But he's still the guy who acts like this and of course other people are determined to pointing out the pattern and disliking it and perhaps ignoring his posts and so on at least for a while.

If it's a free will world: well, he is not compelled to have this pattern. He is somehow freely choosing it. Perhaps because of factors in his past, I guess, or perhaps not. I guess we could conceivably hold him more responsible, but the pattern says less about him. People would not have essence the way they have in a determined universe. Again people who dislike the idiocy of general insults may well respond in posts about his behavior. Though here they would be somehow freer to compliment ideas (without irony) that make no sense or... I still have trouble with what this would all mean. But I suppose one might be more optimistic someone would change. or make different decisions next time.

I can't really see how my behavior would change if tomorrow I was told one of the other was the case. I suppose once in a while I would listen to long songs that I can't stand. But I am not sure, beyond experimentation, why I would. Unless free will extends to not simply being free to act, but also free to react/experience differently.

Like I could decide I love licorice ice cream with carob and reading generalized insults that make no sense.

OR, If 'free will' AND 'determinism' BOTH exist, then ... .

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 4:13 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 3:26 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 12:10 am

I'm just curious what you mean by "objectivist" and whether you think I'm an "objectivist" for trying to find answers to questions concerning religion and related matters that are 'true' and universal to all?

Again...

From my own subjective, rooted existentially in dasein point of view, if you believe it is possible to be in sync with the real you and, further, the real you is able to grasp the most rational and virtuous manner in which to resolve a moral conflict like abortion, then, "in my own personal opinion", you are an objectivist.

But, so much more to the point, if you find yourself in a position of power in any given community, you then make it your business to insist that others must share the same point of view. And to behave accordingly.

Or else.

So if someone believes that abortion is not murder but OK under certain circumstances and someone else believes abortion is murder and not ok under any circumstances, which one of those is the "objectivist"?

I don't know how to make it any clearer...

1] on this thread, the assumption that in a wholly determined universe, what anyone believes about abortion is embedded necessarily in the only possible reality. They believe what they do about it not because it is necessarily true but because they were never able not to believe anything else. Someone might believe that Mary did not abort Jane even though she did abort Jane. But their brain compelled them to believe that she did not.

2] the assumption that in a free will world, what we believe about abortion as a medical procedure in the either/or world is subject to change given the actual objective facts about a particular abortion. But in regard to the morality of abortion in the is/ought world, what we believe is rooted existentially in dasein.

3] the assumption that in a No God free will world there does not appear to be a way for either scientists or philosophers to establish a deontological assessment regarding the morality of abortion.

My own understanding of objectivism does not pertain to what some believe about the morality of abortion but pertains to those who insist that all others must believe what they believe -- become "one of us" -- or be deemed irrational and immoral.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 6:33 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Mar 04, 2023 9:38 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 5:35 pm That's not how anyone else uses the term. Just someone thinking they're correct isn't enough to qualify someone as an "objectivist", and criticizing them for being an "objectivist" just because they think they are correct about something is inherently hypocritical, because in the act of criticizing you show that you yourself think YOU are correct about something - that you are correct to disprove of them thinking they are correct, and they are incorrect in being an "objectivist".

Well, given free will, that's why over and over and over again I suggest that we take what we believe particular words mean philosophically "in our heads" out into the world of actual human interactions and explore the meaning given particular sets of circumstances.

Here on this thread [for me] Mary aborting Jane. If some do believe that their own argument regarding either the morality of abortion or their own take on free will, determinism and compatibilism reflects the most rational manner in which to think about the existential relationship between Mary choosing an abortion and her moral responsibility, well, if not an objectivist, what would you call them?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 5:35 pmSo, I mean, if that's what you want the word "objectivist" to mean, you can't criticise someone for being an objectivist without yourself becoming an objectivist.

I don't agree. I am fractured and fragmented in regard to both the morality of abortion and in regard to free will. Given both "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule"...pertaining to those things here that we don't even know that we don't know about regarding this...

Here's a post, for example, where I tell him straight up that an objectivist isn't just anyone who believes something, and he chooses not to correct me, not to say "I'm not saying an objectivist is someone who believes something" - instead, what he does is presents an argument that he's not an objectivist because he's "fractured and fragmented", meaning he doesn't have strong beliefs. So he's not correcting me in how I think he's using the word, despite having the explicit opportunity to, and in fact he's reinforcing that that is in fact how he's using the word "objectivist" - using it to refer to people who believe things.

Note to AGE:

He's all yours.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 7:38 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 7:25 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Mar 03, 2023 6:47 pm
That's called a belief.

Right. Ayn Rand believed in capitalism. Karl Marx believed in Communism. Adolph Hitler believed in the Final Solution. The Taliban believe in Allah. The Pope believes in Catholicism.

So, historically, what has often happened when those who believe in something gained power and had the capacity to insist that others must believe the same thing...or else? Again, I call them objectivists and, subjectively, I suggest that they are dangerous to those who believe instead in, say, democracy and the rule of law.

This gives a bit more context. Again, the conversation about objectivists is clearly and unambiguously centered around people who believe things. Apparently, if you believe something, biggy can use historical knowledge to surmise that you want to take political power and force your beliefs onto other people.

"Again, I call them objectivists and, subjectively, I suggest that they are dangerous."

I mean, he's spelled it out pretty clearly. Objectivists are people who have beliefs. You know who else had beliefs? Nazis and the Taliban. People with beliefs are dangerous.

It's not unclear at all what biggy was saying here.

Nature to iambiguous:

Trust me: it's a "condition".

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 8:03 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 7:38 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 7:25 pm

Right. Ayn Rand believed in capitalism. Karl Marx believed in Communism. Adolph Hitler believed in the Final Solution. The Taliban believe in Allah. The Pope believes in Catholicism.

So, historically, what has often happened when those who believe in something gained power and had the capacity to insist that others must believe the same thing...or else? Again, I call them objectivists and, subjectively, I suggest that they are dangerous to those who believe instead in, say, democracy and the rule of law.

This gives a bit more context. Again, the conversation about objectivists is clearly and unambiguously centered around people who believe things. Apparently, if you believe something, biggy can use historical knowledge to surmise that you want to take political power and force your beliefs onto other people.

"Again, I call them objectivists and, subjectively, I suggest that they are dangerous."

I mean, he's spelled it out pretty clearly. Objectivists are people who have beliefs. You know who else had beliefs? Nazis and the Taliban. People with beliefs are dangerous.

It's not unclear at all what biggy was saying here.

Note the irony I bolded in what you quoted of his.

First of all, in regard to this thread, the quandary/antinomy still revolves around determining/demonstrating 1] scientifically, 2] philosophically, or 3] theologically whether anything that anyone believes about any of this they believed of their own free will.

Or, sure, we can just pretend that while for thousands of years the endlessly conflicting assessments dragged on and on, it all finally gave way to, say, what you believe about it?

All I can do is -- click -- to assume that in a free will world, the beliefs we have regarding moral and political value judgments are rooted existentially in dasein. And that the objectivists among us insist that not only are all rational men and women obligated to believe what they do regarding objective truths embedded in the either/or world -- Mary did in fact abort Jane -- but that they are also obligated to believe as they do regarding the morality of her abortion.

Now, if those like Flannel Jesus in la la land keep insisting that I make no distinction here and instead assert that any belief that anyone has about anything at all makes them dangerous...sure, go along with that if you must.

Literarily or otherwise.

And even now, with it spelled out clearly for him exactly why everyone not named iambiguous thinks he's using the word "objectivist" to mean "people with beliefs" - even with numerous examples showing how he's given people that impression - he chooses to use meaningless sarcastic responses rather than something like "oh, I see why you think that, what I actually mean is this" and try to point out where the wires got crossed.

Which leads me to believe no wires were crossed at all. He used the word that way, and then later decided he wants to gaslight us about it.

Shameless.

I would like to note that I would much prefer to have a conversation that doesn't involve all the silliness of the "shameless" and "objectivist" and "Nazi" distractions. All the "tell that to Jane"s and "note to nature"s. Just chatting about ideas, disagreeing perhaps but doing so without strong negative feelings about the person at the other end. I'm certainly capable of that kind of conversation, when the person I'm talking to is invested in engaging in that way as well.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 8:13 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 7:38 am It's not unclear at all what biggy was saying here.

Right. Ayn Rand believed in capitalism. Karl Marx believed in Communism. Adolph Hitler believed in the Final Solution. The Taliban believe in Allah. The Pope believes in Catholicism.

Jefferson believed in democracy and the rule of law. Iambiguous believes objectivism is bad. Iambiguous believes that if you are convinced there is free will or convinced determinism is the case, you are similar, morally, to the makers of gulags, the Nazis and the Taliban.

Thus Jefferson and Imbiguous with their beliefs (that they both act on) are objectivists and are a threat to the rule of law and democracy.

Again, the point that some make is not that Thomas Jefferson and iambiguous believed or believe what they did and do but that all beliefs that any of us mere mortals have are derived from human brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter. On the other hand, given what is still a profoundly problematic mystery embedded in this...

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

...we still have nowhere near a definitive understanding of what that means.

Only -- click -- in an autonomous universe for matter like us some come existentially [historically, culturally, experientially] to embrace democracy and the rule of law and others the Nazis and the Taliban.

This part: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 7:15 pm And even now, with it spelled out clearly for him exactly why everyone not named iambiguous thinks he's using the word "objectivist" to mean "people with beliefs" - even with numerous examples showing how he's given people that impression - he chooses to use meaningless sarcastic responses rather than something like "oh, I see why you think that, what I actually mean is this" and try to point out where the wires got crossed.

Which leads me to believe no wires were crossed at all. He used the word that way, and then later decided he wants to gaslight us about it.

Shameless.

I would like to note that I would much prefer to have a conversation that doesn't involve all the silliness of the "shameless" and "objectivist" and "Nazi" distractions. All the "tell that to Jane"s and "note to nature"s. Just chatting about ideas, disagreeing perhaps but doing so without strong negative feelings about the person at the other end. I'm certainly capable of that kind of conversation, when the person I'm talking to is invested in engaging in that way as well.

Absolutely shameless!!!

[in other words, he's still off the hook]

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 8:18 am I'm trembling. When I came to a philosophy forum, the last thing I expected to see was people who believe different things than me!

Click.

Note to the true moral and political objectivists among us:

Explain to him that in fact you really do divide the world up between those who are "one of us" [the good guys, the smart guys] and those who are "one of them" [the bad guys, the dumb guys].

He seems convinced that you are all just a figment of my imagination.

On the contrary, start here: https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 7:35 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 8:18 am I'm trembling. When I came to a philosophy forum, the last thing I expected to see was people who believe different things than me!

Click.

Note to the true moral and political objectivists among us:

Explain to him that in fact you really do divide the world up between those who are "one of us" [the good guys, the smart guys] and those who are "one of them" [the bad guys, the dumb guys].

He seems convinced that you are all just a figment of my imagination.

On the contrary, start here: https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora

Oh, so THAT'S what an objectivist is.

And here you are, dividing the world between objectivists and everyone else. Objectivists are to be feared. They're dangerous, they're one of them. The bad guys. (Maybe the dumb guys too, who knows?)

Is this another axis along which you are also an objectivist? Have you found a new dimension of hypocrisy?

I don't read that forum btw. I think you need an account to see everything, and I had an account at one point but I've lost the password and don't feel like signing up for a new one. Do you think I should?