For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
You mean at the top? I'll try.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 09, 2025 3:56 pm And for fuck's sake. Every time you use the quoite function you make the same stupid mistake. Just remove line that begins [quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=
If you really need to type your own tags all the time.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 09, 2025 4:30 pm
You are ignoring the actual question yet again. Which of these philsophers can you quote telling us that determinism makes us do stuff against our will?
I really don't need telling that none of them came up with the same thing your dad did.
I've listened to people discussing the definition of determinism to mean forcing or causing to do something "against one's will." Don't pin me down because it wasn't attributed to any one philosopher. It was a definition used in conversation.
It can be seen as both. If it's a process, it seems it would be something that doesn't belong to us; we are just going along for the ride. On the other hand, human will can be thought of as a thing that is part of us, that we possess.Belinda wrote:Peacegirl, you reify will. Will is a process not a thing.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 09, 2025 6:50 pmDeterminism as surrendering one's own will to an external force and that your choices are not up to you.peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 09, 2025 5:37 pmFlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 09, 2025 4:30 pm
You are ignoring the actual question yet again. Which of these philosophers can you quote telling us that determinism makes us do stuff against our will?
I really don't need telling that none of them came up with the same thing your dad did.So you haven't read these philosophers or anything like that. But you've had some sort of conversation that doesn't name names about them?I've listened to people discussing the definition of determinism to mean forcing, not like having a gun to someone's head, but having the power to override someone's will. Don't pin me down because it wasn't attributed to any one philosopher. It was a definition used in conversation.
Many people dislike the idea of determinism because they believe it leads to moral relativism and a loss of autonomy.
Some argue that determinism suggests that human actions are predetermined, which can lead to a lack of moral responsibility and justification for actions.
1. Others fear that if people believe they are not free to make choices, it may result in unethical behavior, as they may feel less constrained by their actions.
2. Additionally, determinism is often viewed as incompatible with the concept of free will, which many people believe is essential for ethical behavior and moral responsibility.
3.These perspectives highlight the complex relationship between determinism and autonomy in discussions about morality and human behavior.
I'm still trying to learn how to get rid of some of the tags. I'll keep trying. I'm sure FlashDangerpants will be there to help me and laugh that I haven't figure it out.FlashDangerpants wrote:You have been trying to overrule Atla and I and Belinda anyone else really when we tell you that philosophers don't actually argue that determinism results in people being forced to do things against their will. You are bullshitting us.
You are on the spot, you made this up, or your dad made it up and you never bothered to find out.Anyway, I'm not a bullshitter. I don't have it in me. I am saying that this concern regarding determinism forcing a move against our will has been discussed in certain circles. People are worried that if determinism were true, people would be like dominoes falling over from the previous dominoes with no say at all.
I don't personally think that. It's just something that comes up in discussions. Determinism: A force that causes... means, to many people, that they are forced to do what they do without their consent, or against their will.
Because what they do involves premises arranged in support of every conclusion. What your dad did was nothing like that, he just arranged a story with a bunch of loosely connected assertions in it to sound a bit like an argument for people who don't really understand reason and logic. That is why.peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 09, 2025 8:18 pmYou wouldn't know because you don't what his discovery is, so why shouldn't I tell you that none of them came up with the same thing my dad did?FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 09, 2025 4:30 pm
You are ignoring the actual question yet again. Which of these philsophers can you quote telling us that determinism makes us do stuff against our will?
I really don't need telling that none of them came up with the same thing your dad did.
Because of your habit of typing your own tags, Belinda did not get notified you quoted her there. Burying that in the middle of what looks like a reply to me places a burden on her that doesn't seem quite fair.peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 09, 2025 8:18 pmI've listened to people discussing the definition of determinism to mean forcing or causing to do something "against one's will." Don't pin me down because it wasn't attributed to any one philosopher. It was a definition used in conversation.It can be seen as both. If it's a process, it seems it would be something that doesn't belong to us; we are just going along for the ride. On the other hand, human will can be thought of as a thing that is part of us, that we possess.Belinda wrote:Peacegirl, you reify will. Will is a process not a thing.
The question of whether human will is a process or a thing is subjective and can be interpreted in various ways:
Process: Some perspectives view the human will as a process, where it involves conscious decision-making and rational thought. This view emphasizes the role of intellect and reflection in shaping choices and actions.
Thing: Conversely, other interpretations suggest that the human will is a distinct entity, akin to a thing, which can be seen as a fundamental aspect of human nature. This perspective often contrasts with the idea of will as a mere process.
In summary, the human will can be understood as both a process of decision-making and a thing that embodies the essence of human nature.
Again with the slop. Worse, you didn't even bother to get the AI to address the actual controversy for you. If you try to fob me off one more time with a pointless diversion into why you think determinism frightens people I will call you a name that you will deserve.peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 09, 2025 8:18 pm 4 Sources
Determinism as surrendering one's own will to an external force and that your choices are not up to you.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 09, 2025 6:50 pm
So you haven't read these philosophers or anything like that. But you've had some sort of conversation that doesn't name names about them?
Many people dislike the idea of determinism because they believe it leads to moral relativism and a loss of autonomy.
Some argue that determinism suggests that human actions are predetermined, which can lead to a lack of moral responsibility and justification for actions.
1. Others fear that if people believe they are not free to make choices, it may result in unethical behavior, as they may feel less constrained by their actions.
2. Additionally, determinism is often viewed as incompatible with the concept of free will, which many people believe is essential for ethical behavior and moral responsibility.
3.These perspectives highlight the complex relationship between determinism and autonomy in discussions about morality and human behavior.
You have plenty of it in you. You are clearly mendacious. I don't care about certain anonymous circles, you said that it is part of the philosophical definition of determinism and when Atla and I (and Belinda when she gets round to it) corrected that faulty assertion you decided to engage in dishonesty to deflect. You probably gave the AI the proper task of covering your blushes here and failed because there's no sources.peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 09, 2025 8:18 pmI'm still trying to learn how to get rid of some of the tags. I'll keep trying. I'm sure FlashDangerpants will be there to help me and laugh that I haven't figure it out.FlashDangerpants wrote:You have been trying to overrule Atla and I and Belinda anyone else really when we tell you that philosophers don't actually argue that determinism results in people being forced to do things against their will. You are bullshitting us.
You are on the spot, you made this up, or your dad made it up and you never bothered to find out.
4 SourcesFlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 09, 2025 9:02 pmBecause what they do involves premises arranged in support of every conclusion. What your dad did was nothing like that, he just arranged a story with a bunch of loosely connected assertions in it to sound a bit like an argument for people who don't really understand reason and logic. That is why.peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 09, 2025 8:18 pmYou wouldn't know because you don't what his discovery is, so why shouldn't I tell you that none of them came up with the same thing my dad did?FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 09, 2025 4:30 pm
You are ignoring the actual question yet again. Which of these philsophers can you quote telling us that determinism makes us do stuff against our will?
I really don't need telling that none of them came up with the same thing your dad did.
FlashDangerpants”]Because of your habit of typing your own tags, Belinda did not get notified you quoted her there. Burying that in the middle of what looks like a reply to me places a burden on her that doesn't seem quite fair.peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 09, 2025 8:18 pmI've listened to people discussing the definition of determinism to mean forcing or causing to do something "against one's will." Don't pin me down because it wasn't attributed to any one philosopher. It was a definition used in conversation.It can be seen as both. If it's a process, it seems it would be something that doesn't belong to us; we are just going along for the ride. On the other hand, human will can be thought of as a thing that is part of us, that we possess.Belinda wrote:Peacegirl, you reify will. Will is a process not a thing.
The question of whether human will is a process or a thing is subjective and can be interpreted in various ways:
Process: Some perspectives view the human will as a process, where it involves conscious decision-making and rational thought. This view emphasizes the role of intellect and reflection in shaping choices and actions.
Thing: Conversely, other interpretations suggest that the human will is a distinct entity, akin to a thing, which can be seen as a fundamental aspect of human nature. This perspective often contrasts with the idea of will as a mere process.
In summary, the human will can be understood as both a process of decision-making and a thing that embodies the essence of human nature.
That’s funny. Of course I will declare it. I thought people knew because I left “Source” at the bottom if people wanted to further their exploration.“FlashDangerpants” wrote:And if you are going to AI to write your response, please do the decent thing and declare it. Belinda loves AI though, so she won't mind. She gets it to dress up as Spinoza and pose as a dead philosopher for her.
I am going to explain some stuff. Please just read it from one end to the other before you hit reply (which I don't think is your habit), and then just reply with a fulsome answer to the points. Maybe don't bother chopping the text up, the following short paragraphs are a continuous thought that doesn't need splitting up anyway....
Durant believed in free will, but Lessanas disagreed with him. This formed the basis of his book. If it wasn't for Durant, Lessans would have never made this discovery.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 09, 2025 3:53 pmThere is no important argument associated with Will Durant. Everything you listed there is just Reader's Digest history of phil stuff. I got the decades wrong I suppose.peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 09, 2025 3:47 pmpeacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 09, 2025 12:26 pm
Why the obvious put down, as if I have to discuss every philosopher that ever existed to prove that he was right all along. Do you actually think he did not know these theories on free will and determinism? Do you think he skipped over all of the philosophers that came before him? You're out of your mind.
[/i]He just happened to have written The Story of Civilization. I'm surprised you didn't know who he was. I thought you knew about every well-known philosopher!FlashDangerpants wrote:He left school at 14 and repeatedly references one specific "philosopher" as the guy who speaks against determinism. I forget the name, but that guy is just a writer of a couple of history of philosophy books for the Reader's Digest crowd in the 30s and is utterly forgotten today.
Influential American historian and philosopher
Will Durant was an influential American historian and philosopher, best known for his eleven-volume work, "The Story of Civilization," which he co-authored with his wife, Ariel Durant. His approach to philosophy emphasized a total perspective, aiming to unify and humanize historical knowledge, making it accessible to the general public. Durant's significant contributions to philosophy and history earned him the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction in 1968 and the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1977. His works, such as "The Story of Philosophy," have sold millions of copies and continue to influence readers' understanding of history and philosophy today.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Story of Civilization
A set of all eleven volumes
Author
Will Durant
Ariel Durant
Language English
Subject History
Published 1935–1975
Publisher Simon & Schuster
Publication place United States
Pages 13,549
ISBN 978-1567310238
The Story of Civilization (1935–1975), by husband and wife Will and Ariel Durant, is an eleven-volume set of books covering both Eastern and Western civilizations for the general reader, with a particular emphasis on European (Western) history.
The series was written over a span of four decades.
The first six volumes of The Story of Civilization are credited to Will Durant alone, with Ariel recognized only in the acknowledgements. Beginning with The Age of Reason Begins, Ariel is credited as a co-author. In the preface to the first volume, Durant states his intention to make the series in five volumes, although this would not turn out to be the case.[1]
The series won a Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction in 1968 with the tenth volume in the series, Rousseau and Revolution.[2]
The volumes were best sellers and sold well for many years. Sets of them were frequently offered by book clubs. An unabridged audiobook production of all eleven volumes was produced by the Books on Tape company and was read by Alexander Adams (also known as Grover Gardner).[3]
Volumes
I. Our Oriental Heritage (1935)
This volume covers Near Eastern history until the fall of the Achaemenid Empire in the 330s BC, and the history of India, China, and Japan up to the 1930s.
Full title: The Story of Civilization ~ 1 ~ Our Oriental Heritage ~ Being a History of Civilization in Egypt and the Near East to the Death of Alexander; and in India, China and Japan from the Beginning to Our Own Day; with an Introduction on the Nature and Foundations of Civilization.
II. The Life of Greece (1939)
This volume covers Ancient Greece and the Hellenistic Near East down to the Roman conquest.
Full title: The Story of Civilization ~ 2 ~ The Life of Greece ~ A History of Greek Government, Industry, Manners, Morals, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Literature and Art from the Earliest Times to the Roman Conquest.
III. Caesar and Christ (1944)
The volume covers the history of Rome and of Christianity until the time of Constantine the Great.
Full title: The Story of Civilization ~ 3 ~ Caesar and Christ ~ This Brilliantly Written History Surveys All Aspects of Roman Life ~ Politics, Economics, Literature, Art, Morals. It Ends with the Conflict of Pagan and Christian Forces and Raises the Curtain on the Great Struggle between Church and State.
IV. The Age of Faith (1950)
This volume covers the Middle Ages in both Europe and the Near East, from the time of Constantine I to that of Dante Alighieri.
Full title: The Story of Civilization ~ 4 ~ The Age of Faith ~ A History of Medieval Civilization ~ Christian, Islamic, and Judaic ~ from Constantine to Dante ~ A.D. 325 - 1300.
V. The Renaissance (1953)
This volume covers the history of Italy from c.1300 to the mid 16th century, focusing on the Italian Renaissance.
Full title: The Story of Civilization ~ 5 ~ The Renaissance ~ A History of Civilization in Italy from the Birth of Petrarch to the Death of Titian ~ 1304 to 1576.
VI. The Reformation (1957)
This volume covers the history of Europe outside of Italy from around 1300 to 1564, focusing on the Protestant Reformation.
Full title: The Story of Civilization ~ 6 ~ The Reformation ~ A History of European Civilization from Wyclif to Calvin ~ 1300 - 1564.
VII. The Age of Reason Begins (1961)
This volume covers the history of Europe and the Near East from 1559 to 1648.
Full title: The Story of Civilization ~ 7 ~ The Age of Reason Begins ~ A History of European Civilization in the Period of Shakespeare, Bacon, Montaigne, Rembrandt, Galileo and Descartes ~ 1558 - 1648.
VIII. The Age of Louis XIV (1963)
This volume covers the period of Louis XIV of France in Europe and the Near East.
Full title: The Story of Civilization ~ 8 ~ The Age of Louis XIV ~ A History of European Civilization in the Period of Pascal, Molière, Cromwell, Milton, Peter the Great, Newton and Spinoza: 1648-1715.
IX. The Age of Voltaire (1965)
This volume covers the period of the Age of Enlightenment, as exemplified by Voltaire, focusing on the period between 1715 and 1756 in France, Britain, and Germany.
Full title: The Story of Civilization ~ 9 ~ The Age of Voltaire ~ A History of Civilization in Western Europe from 1715 to 1756, with Special Emphasis on the Conflict between Religion and Philosophy.
X. Rousseau and Revolution (1967)
Ariel and Will Durant with a copy of Rousseau and Revolution in 1967
This volume centers on Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his times. It received the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction in 1968.[4]
Full title: The Story of Civilization ~ 10 ~ Rousseau and Revolution ~ A History of Civilization in France, England, and Germany from 1756, and in the Remainder of Europe from 1715 to 1789.
XI. The Age of Napoleon (1975)
This volume centers on Napoleon I of France and his times.
Full title: The Story of Civilization ~ 11 ~ The Age of Napoleon ~ A History of European Civilization from 1789 to 1815.
I understand Strawson's take on free will and moral responsibility, but he doesn't have the answer.FlashDangerpants wrote:So yeah, I don't think your dad knew a lot about philosophy, and when I mentioned a very influential yet not actually important paper from the 1960s by Strawson at the start of this thread your response was to ask ChatGPT how to argue against Strawson. So no, I don't think you are any better.
No, I'm not here to bullshit but I'm also not here to discuss other philosophers who don't have the answer FlashDangerpants. I know what the basic argument is about, and THEY DON'T HAVE IT!FlashDangerpants wrote:So yes please. Rather than saying "the philosophers" all think that determinism means we are forced to act against our will, even though everyone here disagrees with that assessment, tell us which philosophers you are actually speaking against so that we can compare findings without bullshitting each other.
Please just accept that the reason you cannot find any philosopher who has ever claimed that determinism entails being forced to against your own wishes is because you have misunderstood the whole thing and that is simply not what philosophers actually claim.
I just explained the reason why this second principle is so important. And I already said that the conversation has come up because people may think of determinism as turning us into dominoes where we have no say, no will, no agency, and no way to make our own choices. The whole idea that determinism causes us to do what we do makes it sound like the choices that are made are not from us, but from an external source, and therefore these choices could be against our will because our will would not be counted. That's all I'm going to say about this.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 09, 2025 11:57 pmPlease just accept that the reason you cannot find any philosopher who has ever claimed that determinism entails being forced to against your own wishes is because you have misunderstood the whole thing and that is simply not what philosophers actually claim.
Don't try to gaslight us. Just get it right, you have no excuse any more.
Well, ok, but you have been using a strawman to paint your philosophical opponents with a lie, so your failure to remediate this situation detracts from any credibility you might have had.peacegirl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 10, 2025 12:08 amI just explained the reason why this second principle is so important. And I already said that the conversation has come up probably because people think of determinism as turning us into dominoes where we have no say, no will, no agency, and no way to make our own choices. That's all I'm going to say about this.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 09, 2025 11:57 pmPlease just accept that the reason you cannot find any philosopher who has ever claimed that determinism entails being forced to against your own wishes is because you have misunderstood the whole thing and that is simply not what philosophers actually claim.
Don't try to gaslight us. Just get it right, you have no excuse any more.
Durant is a nobody. I mean I guess I can see how a book absurdly titled "Mansions of philosophy" could have inspired your dad's taste for purple prose, but beyond that, well... You just don't get to be an important or memorable philosopher just by making commentary. Flash Dangerpants won't be remembered by future generations because he is a critic not a creator of important new argument. Durant is just a more famous version of that, but the fame is rapidly evaporating.
Uhm... try reading that paragraph again as if for the first time. So about this voice thing, is this going to be one of those situations where he doesn't mean to be taken literally?peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 09, 2025 11:19 pm It is interesting to observe at this point that Durant was indirectly involved in my discovery. To give you a little background, it was November of 1959 when I received an amazing revelation that would change the course of my life. I happened to overhear on the radio a priest state very dogmatically that man has freedom of the will, and the hair stood up on my arms like a cat ready to fight. I didn’t understand why that happened and didn’t pay much attention to it at the time but felt that I was chilled for some reason. Up until that time I never gave much thought to the subject of free will, not rejecting or accepting it, but when this chill occurred every time the subject came up, I began to see the connection. That night in a dream I kept hearing this phrase: “The solution to all the problems plaguing mankind lies hidden behind the fallacious belief that man’s will is free.” I still didn’t understand where it was leading, but the next day I started to reread Durant’s chapter on free will in his book Mansions of Philosophy. When I completed it, I remarked, “He really doesn’t know what he is talking about, and Spinoza is right; man’s will is not free.” Then, after nine strenuous months, I shouted, “Eureka, I have found it!” and I have had no rest ever since. After opening the door of determinism and proving conclusively that man’s will is not free, I saw another sign that read: ‘Hidden behind this door, you will discover the solution to the problem of evil — the long-awaited Messiah.’ I applied the key, opened the door, and after many months in the deepest analysis, I made a finding that was so fantastic, it took me several years to understand its full significance for all mankind. I saw how this new world must become a reality in a very short time.