Philosophy Now Forum

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 12:22 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 10:11 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 8:42 pm But what you mean by 'philosophy' and what most others mean by 'philosophy' are so different that discussions are at cross purposes.

If you have not yet already noticed, what quite a lot of words used in philosophy forums/discussions mean varies greatly between speakers/writers and hearers/readers, and even what words mean to just person, itself, is so different that expressing clearly can be so difficult. As can be seen and proved True throughout this forum.

And, this is not even going into lengths about how many, many words have varying numbers, and varying degrees, of different meanings themselves, with some words containing two exactly opposing words. So, there really is no surprise at all that there are so many discussions among you human being that are at what you call 'cross purposes'. In fact it is no wonder at all why there was so much misunderstanding in 'the world', in the days when this was being written, when one just 'looks at' 'the way' you adults would just 'look at', 'see', and 'discuss' things, here.

Actually, have you noticed how often what you mean by a word is so different to most others, as well?

I have indeed noticed that my vocabulary sometimes differs from someone else's.

GREAT, well 'now' that is RESOLVED.

Different individuals use different vocabularies, as well as different meanings and definitions for the different words that they all use, in different ways.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 12:22 pm One of the uses of academic philosophy is that the academic lexicon is more standardised than everyday language, and standardising helps people to understand each other.

YET it is you adult human beings who have been, continually, DISAGREEING, BICKERING, MISUNDERSTANDING, and FIGHTING WITH 'each other' OVER things. And, some could even argue, that you adult human beings have been doing those things MORE SO in so-called 'philosophical discussions'.

In fact over the last few thousand or so years, hitherto when this is being written, you so-called "philosophers" have, REALLY, NOT made any ACTUAL PROGRESS, AT ALL.

For Future's Sake you, STILL, DISAGREE, BICKER, and FIGHT OVER the MOST SIMPLEST and EASIEST thing, in Life. That is; 'What is the meaning of 'life'?'

Just about EVERY older child KNOWS if they want to FIND 'the meaning' of some thing, then they just 'LOOK IN' A 'dictionary'.

Therefore, The 'meaning' of 'life' IS, living; being alive. Full stop.

And, The 'purpose' of 'life' IS, making living; being alive better. Again, full stop.

Also, WHEN, and IF, you adult human beings EVER want to STOP living the way that you are 'now', when this is being written, and SERIOUSLY Want to CHANGE, for the better, so as to make living; being alive BETTER for EVERY one, then 'life', itself, CAN, and WILL, become BETTER, MORE PEACEFUL and MORE HARMONIOUS.

Life, Itself, and living and being is about the MOST SIMPLEST and EASIEST thing/s TO DO, and TO DO IN Peace and IN Harmony, but that is ONLY if you, REALLY, WANT TO.

YET, you adult human beings make 'Life', and living, APPEAR to be some COMPLEX and HARD thing TO DO.

INSTEAD of USING 'vocabulary' THAT DIFFERS, how about USING 'vocablulary' that IS THE SAME. And then FIND and SEE what, ACTUALLY, TRANSPIRES.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 12:22 pm Another advantage of a standardised lexicon is that knowing and using a precise word for an idea does help to make the idea easier to understand, although imagination does of course do most of the work in this regard.

BUT IT IS so-called "philosophers" who are THE ONES WHO have NOT YET even 'standardized' what JUST 'the meaning of the word 'life' IS, YET.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 12:22 pm I say "imagination", and here is an example of a word that means a lot more than the popular idea that it's a synonym for undisciplined fantasy.

SO ONCE AGAIN, 'we', the readers, DID NOT and, still, DO NOT KNOW the ACTUAL MEANING of another word you USED here.

Immanuel can is a compatibilist confirmed. That's hilarious! After all his smug dismissals! Oh my god, too funny.

He's just misunderstood for some reason that determinism also includes internal causes, like motivations desires thoughts and "will" in general. He, like many people, are for some reason confused that determinism is a physical-only thing, and so if something not physical is affecting the physical, that's not determinism.

But it's not a physical only thing. So he's been a compatibilist the whole time.

I've taken it upon myself to illustrate what I believe has been going on in Immanuel Can's mind, why he's been saying he's not a determinist or a compatibilist despite quite clearly being both, given the newly unveiled information. And I'll also illustrate how Immanuel Can could, if he wanted to, correct his view of Determinism - but only if he wanted to correct himself. He must will it.

---

What Immaneul Can Thinks Determinists are saying
He thinks determinists are saying, the physical world is a closed system, and so when we say things like "it's deterministic" or even the looser idea that I've said, "it's either deterministic or random", that we draw this closed box around "the physical world" and that's the only thing we mean and the only thing we can possibly mean.

Why Immaneul Can Thinks He's Not a Determinist

But he doesn't believe the physical world is a closed system, and so he thinks he NOT a determinist for this reason:
We turn our solid line around our closed system into a broken line, because it's not a closed system, and causal influences are coming from outside - specifically from Agency, right? From Agents, which operate separate to the physical world. Immanuel Can thinks that because the physical world isn't a closed causal system, that means he can't be a determinist, because not everything is determined from within the red line anymore. Causal influences are flowing between the physical world and the realm of agents. I've illustrated the realm of agents as one thing, but it matters not if it's multiple things - if you think every agent ought to have it's own block, then simply imagine many blue squares above with their own lines going to and from the physical realm, to fix the graph for that point of view.

The "Closed System", Fixed

But here's where he's confused - when someone says that the system we live in is deterministic, or that it's *either* deterministic or has some randomness, as I've said -- Immanuel Can is half-right. We DO need to focus on a closed system, because those claims really only apply to closed systems. What he's confused about, though, is *what the closed system is*. He's decided that determinists can only be talking about a closed system around the Physical World.

But if there's more stuff that goes into causality than just "the physical world", then the concept of "The Closed System" has to reflect that. We have to extend our borders.
If the agent world causally interacts with the physical world, then "The Closed System" under question when someone says things are deterministic - or "a bit random or deterministic" - has to include those Agents too.

And even if there are more things that affect the physical world, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter how many extra things you want to propose interact with the physical world. Whatever other things you think causally interact with the physical world, or with the Agent Realm(s), or with the other realms that interact with the Phyiscal World -- everything that interacts with the physical world, or recursively with something that interacts with the physical world -- you have to include that in "The Closed System".

So Immanuel Can thought the closed system was "the physical world" this whole time, but the point isn't that the physical world IS the closed system, the point is that the physical world is PART of a closed system - find the closed system the physical world is a part of, and THEN we call that closed system "deterministic" (or alternatively "deterministic or some randomness", if you want to allow for some genuine randomness to exist, which it may very well).

(I'm only allowed 3 images in a post, so...)
Continued...

Continue to Part 2 of FJ's post V

...
Here, we extend the closed system to include *anything* that interacts with the physical world, whether directly or indirectly.

We include any extra boxes that aren't included in 'physical or agential'. We include things that interact with the physical world. If there's other stuff that interacts with the Agential world, you'd include that. You include anything that interacts with anything that interacts with the physical world. You do that recursively - if there is any chain of interaction between some "thing" and the physical world, you include that "thing" in our red box.

So even if the physical world is not causally closed, by including everything recursively that interacts with the physical world in what we call "The System", we build a causal closure and *that's* The System which is being called deterministic (or deterministic with some randomness).

So it's not important for the compatibilist claim that the physical world is causally closed, just that *there is a causal closure* that the physical world is a part of. And when you include ALL of the causal closure... that's where Immanuel Can apparently becomes a determinist. He's said it himself, God knows what we're going to do, so unless we have a *real genuine ability* to make God wrong, this extended causal closure must be deterministic - it must behave in such a way that whatever God knows will happen, will happen.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 7:25 am (I'm only allowed 3 images in a post, so...)
Continued...

If only people realized how carefully we read them and the care that goes into our responses - though you've surpassed me on this one by orders of magnitude.

I'm going to do the lazy approach.

1) He assumes many things about determinism that are not true about determinism, for example that determinism is must be a materialistic determinism
2) He seems to think deteminism means external forces compell the person to sin, for example. It does not mean that.

He does not see the problem with conditional statements when combined with God's infallible knowledge of what you are going to do.
God knows what is going to happen. What God knows will happen, period.
Yet you could do something else.

So, tomorrow I could choose not to murder even though God knows I will murder.
Which means I could choose to do something that would mean God is fallible.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None of this critique on my part means I think that we are not responsble for our actions.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 2:52 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 6:47 am All I can say is he is going to read this and again assume you are saying something like the complexity of the brain makes it free from the laws of matter.

No, once again I am stuck -- necessarily? -- noting "click" here because all I can do given The Gap and Rummy's Rule is us to take my own existential leap of faith to determinism. Determinism as "I" have come to understand it "here and now".

But: even then only given my own set of assumptions about the human condition...premises [philosophical or otherwise] which in all likelihood will in no way, shape or form be even close to nailing my own brain down here. Ontologically or otherwise.

It's in suggesting, however, that those like you and Atla and phyllo and others are in the same boat that tends to rile some here. This part in other words:

What does 'It's in suggesting' mean? Who are the some getting riled? Are you saying you know the motivations of this group of some people?

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

Is this what is riling that group of some people. This doesn't rile me, but I don't know if I'm in the group of some, given how that sentences was worded about the 'some'.

So, convinced this is not applicable to you? Okay, in regard to one of your own value judgments note how it is not. Note how you have never felt "fractured and fragmented" in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics.

I'm not sure what this has to do with compatibilism meaning that brain cells are free from the laws of matter.

Note how the Benjamin Button Syndrome is simply not applicable to your own interactions with others day in and day out.

Have I said this? I have to say I have forgotten what you mean by this Syndrome. I once knew and searched by way to the original post, but I am still unsure.

As for what to make of the "complexity of the brain" here...?

Just more of the same from the objectivists, in my view. They speak of things like meaning and morality and metaphysics as though they really were able to connect the dots between them and the objective reality of human social, political and economic interactions.

Sure, objectivists often do these things. But this still doesn't seem related to what I wrote.

I know! Let's continue to explore this over and over and over again up in the theoretical clouds! After all, once that's nailed down philosophically, we might actually accumulate the definitions that no one is exempt from. Maybe someone will even be able to reconfigure these definitions into the most rational of all human behaviors. The Republic 2.0.

This entire post is up in the clouds.

I have in two forums presented concrete situations related to moral responsibility in a deterministic universe. The situations were specific with specific, concrete details.

And here we have you, yet again, hinting up in the clouds.

You do realize that every time you express incredulity about how moral responsibility could be compatible with determinism, you are up in the clouds? It's just that you don't make an argument about why this much be the case. It's just an implicit assertion, without any concrete explanation.

But, in my own personal opinion "here and now" this is what he excels at:

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 6:47 amIn parallel, in many posts he will write what are essentially arguments of incredulity. Or perhaps assertions of incredulity. How could one possibly give someone responsiblity for their inevitable acts/choices? Two things that never seem to happen:
1) When someone does do this with a specific act - does explain how this can be non-contradictory, he does not interact with those posts and/or repeats his incredulity.
2) He never justifies his incredulity. I do have sympathy for the incredulity, but I think if he actually tried to argue it, he might find that it is a problematic default. It also need justification and at present is nowhere an argument from him.

Maybe those like Veritas Aequitas can pursue this with him so that at least the two of them have all the technical knowledge necessary for, well, whatever it is necessary for given the time when they confront those like Mary who have been told that they were never able to opt not to "choose" an abortion, but are still held morally responsible for doing so.

Except I have specifically explained this using concrete situations. And more than once. And I know you read at least one of them because you responded to simply dismiss it.

Though, sure, even if Mary notes how that makes no sense at all, what does she know about the rigors of analytic philosophy when confronting conflicting goods.

See, you're mixing issues. You are mixing the conflicting goods issue with responsibility and determinism compatibility, as I explained in the other forum.

More recently you claimed that we could use any moral situation to show how responsibility is compatible with determinism. But in the other forum you simply refused to respond to a post where I used another situation, even when I said I would then move from that one to abortion. I used a concrete act and how I thought in a deterministic universe one could hold that person responsibile. It was not up in the clouds. It gave specifics of the action and actions in reponse to that act. All on the ground and specific.

So, this is all just huffing and puffing.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 6:47 am Further I never see any argument for how libertarian free will actually fits with moral responsibilty.

Wait, shouldn't we all go up into the theoretical clouds in order to pin down precisely what "libertarian free will" means. As opposed to say what Libertarian free will means? As opposed to, say, what the Ayn Randroid Objectivists embody?

So, let me see if I understand. You get to make implicit and explicit claims up in the clouds, but if I ask for justification or note that you never give it, this is me going up in the theoretical clouds. Perhaps you could give a specific concrete situation and explain your poistion.

Me? Well, click...

"In particular, libertarianism is an incompatibilist position which argues that free will is logically incompatible with a deterministic universe. Libertarianism states that since agents have free will, determinism must be false and vice versa. wiki

Of course, how are they really any different from the rest of us given The Gap and Rummy's Rule? As though 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.

And so again you make your up int he clouds assertion. If I respond to this, then it is me going up in the theoretical clouds. And by respond point out that your assumption is never justified.

All in the context of me having specifically justifed my position with concrete examples, specific actions and reactions: iow doing precisely as asked.

Then those here who actually believe that what they believe about all of this reflects, what, the ontological truth about the human condition itself?

Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well. Usually in the form of one or another God.

Sure, throw, for no reason at all the kitchen sink at me.

You are hypocrite of the first degree. This whole post managed not to respond to what you quoted. It's primarily up in the clouds. You do not justify you're appeals to incredulity and positions on free will, determinism and compatiblism
either up in the theoretical clouds
nor with concrete examples in the way you want us to and some of us have done.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 12:33 am P! If God knows the future, the future is "determined".
P2: If neither God nor anyone else compels people to make choices, they have freedom of choice despite God's knowledge.
Conclusion: Freedom of choice and determinism are compatible.

1) there's a confusion about determinism: he seems to think determinism means external forces determined the choice, rather than that desires, values, motivations, emotions, etc. led to the choice being part of determinism. This is a common misunderstanding.
2) he thinks we could do things that would entail that God is fallible. God knew I would do X. God is never wrong. I could do something other than X but it is impossible that I will do something other than X because God knew I would do X and God cannot be wrong.

I think he is also assuming that is we could never have done anything other than X, then we are not responsible. But we wanted to do X. We are that person. If you want to rape and you rape, that's who you are. If someone smacked you in the head, gave you a mass of hallucinogens and manipulated your body to rape someone, you are not responsble. External causes led to the rape. There need be nothing of a rapist in you. But if you raped someone, driven by internal causes, you are responsble.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 6:26 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 12:22 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 10:11 pm

If you have not yet already noticed, what quite a lot of words used in philosophy forums/discussions mean varies greatly between speakers/writers and hearers/readers, and even what words mean to just person, itself, is so different that expressing clearly can be so difficult. As can be seen and proved True throughout this forum.

And, this is not even going into lengths about how many, many words have varying numbers, and varying degrees, of different meanings themselves, with some words containing two exactly opposing words. So, there really is no surprise at all that there are so many discussions among you human being that are at what you call 'cross purposes'. In fact it is no wonder at all why there was so much misunderstanding in 'the world', in the days when this was being written, when one just 'looks at' 'the way' you adults would just 'look at', 'see', and 'discuss' things, here.

Actually, have you noticed how often what you mean by a word is so different to most others, as well?

I have indeed noticed that my vocabulary sometimes differs from someone else's.

GREAT, well 'now' that is RESOLVED.

Different individuals use different vocabularies, as well as different meanings and definitions for the different words that they all use, in different ways.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 12:22 pm One of the uses of academic philosophy is that the academic lexicon is more standardised than everyday language, and standardising helps people to understand each other.

YET it is you adult human beings who have been, continually, DISAGREEING, BICKERING, MISUNDERSTANDING, and FIGHTING WITH 'each other' OVER things. And, some could even argue, that you adult human beings have been doing those things MORE SO in so-called 'philosophical discussions'.

In fact over the last few thousand or so years, hitherto when this is being written, you so-called "philosophers" have, REALLY, NOT made any ACTUAL PROGRESS, AT ALL.

For Future's Sake you, STILL, DISAGREE, BICKER, and FIGHT OVER the MOST SIMPLEST and EASIEST thing, in Life. That is; 'What is the meaning of 'life'?'

Just about EVERY older child KNOWS if they want to FIND 'the meaning' of some thing, then they just 'LOOK IN' A 'dictionary'.

Therefore, The 'meaning' of 'life' IS, living; being alive. Full stop.

And, The 'purpose' of 'life' IS, making living; being alive better. Again, full stop.

Also, WHEN, and IF, you adult human beings EVER want to STOP living the way that you are 'now', when this is being written, and SERIOUSLY Want to CHANGE, for the better, so as to make living; being alive BETTER for EVERY one, then 'life', itself, CAN, and WILL, become BETTER, MORE PEACEFUL and MORE HARMONIOUS.

Life, Itself, and living and being is about the MOST SIMPLEST and EASIEST thing/s TO DO, and TO DO IN Peace and IN Harmony, but that is ONLY if you, REALLY, WANT TO.

YET, you adult human beings make 'Life', and living, APPEAR to be some COMPLEX and HARD thing TO DO.

INSTEAD of USING 'vocabulary' THAT DIFFERS, how about USING 'vocablulary' that IS THE SAME. And then FIND and SEE what, ACTUALLY, TRANSPIRES.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 12:22 pm Another advantage of a standardised lexicon is that knowing and using a precise word for an idea does help to make the idea easier to understand, although imagination does of course do most of the work in this regard.

BUT IT IS so-called "philosophers" who are THE ONES WHO have NOT YET even 'standardized' what JUST 'the meaning of the word 'life' IS, YET.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 12:22 pm I say "imagination", and here is an example of a word that means a lot more than the popular idea that it's a synonym for undisciplined fantasy.

SO ONCE AGAIN, 'we', the readers, DID NOT and, still, DO NOT KNOW the ACTUAL MEANING of another word you USED here.

"Primary imagination is the creation of the self " . Coleridge . Coleridge was a poet who created ideas; he did so by way of his creating imagination.

Philosophy does not aim to tell people what to think; it helps you to think creatively.

There have been several important and many minor creative thinkers in the last few thousand years of recorded history who have helped men lead happier lives. The study of ideas in philosophy tells who these men were and what they had to tell us.

Freely comparing ideas, trying to answer searching questions and disagreeing after due thought, is a way for us to help each other to be creative and hopefully get better ideas. Better idea are ideas that help us to have happier lives.

An education in philosophy teaches people how not to "bicker" but instead to have useful dialogues
Many people have spent their hard earned money, time, and their life energies doing philosophy and other creative arts at universities. Their aim is to be happier by discovering certain truths about their self and to help others to be happier in the same way.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 11:44 pm

Determinism need not be commited to any particular substance metaphysics: physicalism, materialism, dualism, idealism. All that is entailed is that prior causes whatever the substances or sources lead to the next step inevitably. (and note again, this does not mean you are not responsible) The causes can be internal or external or a combination.

If we say that one's desires, motivations, values were not the internal causes that led inevitably to action X, then there is randomness in the system. At this moment I have this much desire to X and this value which is strong to the degree it is and so on, and these are the causes that lead me to the what I do. My mood is also a factor. That is my WILL.

These are the causes.

To defend your position you'd need to do a couple of things:
1) show that I can, in the same moment, want to do one thing more than something else, but also want to do that something else more than the first thing. I can't see how that works.
2) show that somehow I could do something that God knows in advance I will not do. Though actually for determinism, all it needs is that what will happen is what is going to happen.

How could someone do something that would demonstrate that God is fallible?

And again, I am NOT arguing any of the following:

• there is only one substance and that is matter.
  if someone is determined it is by external causes or is forced to do it.
  God is making people do things, if there is determinism (and God)

I hold none of those positions.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 10:36 am
How could someone do something that would demonstrate that God is fallible?

He means "could" in a very subtle way. He means, if you ONLY consider the physical universe, which is an unclosed casual system and indeterministic on its own in his view, there's nothing stopping this physical body from doing that physical thing. So physically, they could do it.

BUT when you consider the entirety of the extended casual system in my previous post, where all of the casually relevant factors including the agent realm are taken into account, well god knows how those all WILL play out when they interact with each other.

So the zoomed in view on the unclosed physical world leaves a very real "could", but the view of the casually closed extended system means that of course there's no real sense in which you could actually do something god knows you can't do. IC doesn't think you can actually, literally do something that would make god wrong.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 10:36 am The causes can be internal or external or a combination.

That's what I was asking you about: what do you mean by "internal"? You're still not clear about that, so far as I can see. Do you mean internal-chemical or internal-electrical, on the one hand, or internal-volitional?

If we say that one's desires, motivations, values were not the internal causes that led inevitably to action X, then there is randomness in the system.

Not "randomness." Just "indeterminacy." If we don't know WHY people did things, it doesn't imply they didn't have a motive. It just means we don't know what their particular motive was. And what we know or don't know will change nothing about what is.

To defend your position you'd need to do a couple of things:
1) show that I can, in the same moment, want to do one thing more than something else, but also want to do that something else more than the first thing. I can't see how that works.

Well, your description of "what I'd need to do" is simply wrong, there...it self-contradicts. It's also not at all clear to me that "doing" that would prove a thing, on either side.

But it's actually very, very easy to see how motivation works. It's common that people have multiple and even conflicting motives. And I gave you such an example already, in my last message.

2) show that somehow I could do something that God knows in advance I will not do.

That's actually wrong. I've pointed out that God always knows what you're going to do. But knowing has nothing to do with making. That, rather than what you suggest, is the crux of the argument.

How could someone do something that would demonstrate that God is fallible?

Such a "demonstration," would have nothing to do with the question, even were it possible. Why would one want to do that?

Sorry...all three of these proposed "demonstrations" are not only illogical but irrelevant to the question of whether or not Determinism (or Compatibilism) is true. I actually can't see any logic behind why you suggest them at all.

Maybe you'll clear that up.

How does it seem to you? Do you genuinely believe you're a robot, or do you instinctively know that you're a free will being? (Honest question, not implied insult.) If it seems to you like you can make choices, then the burden of proof is on the Determinist to prove to you that that is an illusion. And honestly, I have no idea how he's going to manage that.

I think that there is no difference between determinism and free-will.

The entire debate is based on imagining that determinism means that a person has fewer abilities than he has and also imagining that free-will means that a person has more abilities than he has.


If one looked at any person in any situation and asked ... What choice will that person make in a deterministic world and in a free-will world?

The answer is that he/she will make exactly same decision in both worlds. The decision is based on external factors and personal internal factors. That's true both if there is a God and if there is no God.

There is no "lack of choice" in determinism and there is no escaping "antecedent events" in free-will.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 11:05 am He means "could" in a very subtle way. He means, if you ONLY consider the physical universe, which is an unclosed casual system and indeterministic on its own in his view, there's nothing stopping this physical body from doing that physical thing. So physically, they could do it.

If that's what he means, then that doesn't have any conflict with determinism.

BUT when you consider the entirety of the extended casual system in my previous post, where all of the casually relevant factors including the agent realm are taken into account, well god knows how those all WILL play out when they interact with each other.

Which means it is determined, but very much by the nature of the person. His nature, his will led to what he was always going to do, since God would have always known he was going to do this.

So the zoomed in view on the unclosed physical world leaves a very real "could", but the view of the casually closed extended system means that of course there's no real sense in which you could actually do something god knows you can't do. IC doesn't think you can actually, literally do something that would make god wrong.

Yes, I understood that, but I just wanted to phrase it as if 'could' indicated that, so that the door could be closed on that notion.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 10:11 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 6:26 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 12:22 pm
I have indeed noticed that my vocabulary sometimes differs from someone else's.

GREAT, well 'now' that is RESOLVED.

Different individuals use different vocabularies, as well as different meanings and definitions for the different words that they all use, in different ways.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 12:22 pm One of the uses of academic philosophy is that the academic lexicon is more standardised than everyday language, and standardising helps people to understand each other.

YET it is you adult human beings who have been, continually, DISAGREEING, BICKERING, MISUNDERSTANDING, and FIGHTING WITH 'each other' OVER things. And, some could even argue, that you adult human beings have been doing those things MORE SO in so-called 'philosophical discussions'.

In fact over the last few thousand or so years, hitherto when this is being written, you so-called "philosophers" have, REALLY, NOT made any ACTUAL PROGRESS, AT ALL.

For Future's Sake you, STILL, DISAGREE, BICKER, and FIGHT OVER the MOST SIMPLEST and EASIEST thing, in Life. That is; 'What is the meaning of 'life'?'

Just about EVERY older child KNOWS if they want to FIND 'the meaning' of some thing, then they just 'LOOK IN' A 'dictionary'.

Therefore, The 'meaning' of 'life' IS, living; being alive. Full stop.

And, The 'purpose' of 'life' IS, making living; being alive better. Again, full stop.

Also, WHEN, and IF, you adult human beings EVER want to STOP living the way that you are 'now', when this is being written, and SERIOUSLY Want to CHANGE, for the better, so as to make living; being alive BETTER for EVERY one, then 'life', itself, CAN, and WILL, become BETTER, MORE PEACEFUL and MORE HARMONIOUS.

Life, Itself, and living and being is about the MOST SIMPLEST and EASIEST thing/s TO DO, and TO DO IN Peace and IN Harmony, but that is ONLY if you, REALLY, WANT TO.

YET, you adult human beings make 'Life', and living, APPEAR to be some COMPLEX and HARD thing TO DO.

INSTEAD of USING 'vocabulary' THAT DIFFERS, how about USING 'vocablulary' that IS THE SAME. And then FIND and SEE what, ACTUALLY, TRANSPIRES.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 12:22 pm Another advantage of a standardised lexicon is that knowing and using a precise word for an idea does help to make the idea easier to understand, although imagination does of course do most of the work in this regard.

BUT IT IS so-called "philosophers" who are THE ONES WHO have NOT YET even 'standardized' what JUST 'the meaning of the word 'life' IS, YET.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 12:22 pm I say "imagination", and here is an example of a word that means a lot more than the popular idea that it's a synonym for undisciplined fantasy.

SO ONCE AGAIN, 'we', the readers, DID NOT and, still, DO NOT KNOW the ACTUAL MEANING of another word you USED here.

"Primary imagination is the creation of the self " . Coleridge . Coleridge was a poet who created ideas; he did so by way of his creating imagination.

Philosophy does not aim to tell people what to think; it helps you to think creatively.

And, when you are PRE/ASSUMING or BELIEVING absolutely ANY thing is true, then you are NOT 'thinking creatively'.

As you posters here keep PROVING me True here.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 10:11 am There have been several important and many minor creative thinkers in the last few thousand years of recorded history who have helped men lead happier lives. The study of ideas in philosophy tells who these men were and what they had to tell us.

Will you provide any actual examples?

If no, then why not?

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 10:11 am Freely comparing ideas, trying to answer searching questions and disagreeing after due thought, is a way for us to help each other to be creative and hopefully get better ideas. Better idea are ideas that help us to have happier lives.

Again, will you provide any actual examples here?

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 10:11 am An education in philosophy teaches people how not to "bicker" but instead to have useful dialogues

LOL
LOL
LOL

It does not matter one iota how much one has learned through any education system, on any subject, if one just chooses to assume to believe some thing is true, then they can NOT have a Truly useful dialogue regards that presumption/belief.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 10:11 am Many people have spent their hard earned money, time, and their life energies doing philosophy and other creative arts at universities.

So what?

you adult human beings, at times, are CERTAINLY NOT very intelligent AT ALL. As you have just SHOWN 'us' here, once again.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 10:11 am Their aim is to be happier by discovering certain truths about their self and to help others to be happier in the same way.

There is ONLY One Truth about the One and ONLY 'Self', in Life.

Also, and AGAIN, for the VERY SLOW OF LEARNING, there is NO 'their self', 'your self', NOR 'our self'. These terms are OXYMORONS and just CONTRADICTIONS IN TERMS.