Does the "Free Will" point of view affect morals and character?

[Wizard22]

Okay...so what point are you trying to make? "I don't understand."

Yes, everybody in this thread knows, you've repeated yourself dozens of times.

Prove that I don't understand.

[Flannel Jesus]

If freedom of will is measured by self-control, as the Determinists would prefer it be, then they go on to claim that any and every Man controls very little of himself, because he inherits very little that is 'authentically' or 'wholly' "his own". Or worst case ...that a man has no control over himself whatsoever.

This is the Determinist premise, NOT MINE, and not the Free-Willists.

This quote is the proof. "If freedom of will is measured by self-control, as the Determinists would prefer it be" <- this isn't it. This isn't what the conversation is about.

[Wizard22]

Then how can Free-Will and Determinism be compatible, if not exactly as I pointed out?

Compatible with what, except two types of knowledge, both of which have not been demonstrated??

[Flannel Jesus]

Maybe, at some point in your life, you spoke to a determinist who used wording like that to express their ideas. If you have, then you've made the mistake of over generalising that particular determinists choice of words and conceptual framing to all determinists.

[Wizard22]

There is Cause and Effect.

Humans inherit most, or all, of their characteristics and compulsions from their parents genetically. Cause and Effect.

How much of this inheritance is 'owned' by the individual then? How much does he or she control? And what does such control represent except the 'free-will' attributed to it?


I'd like you to start answering questions, please.

[Iwannaplato]

It seems random to you, yes. Maybe you lack empathy and the ability to 'place' your mind into another's? Do you have children? Most women have degrees of empathy related to the babies they birth. Mother-Child develops an affinity for cognitive and emotional transcription, an ability to 'read' and write emotions and thoughts to one-another.

Maybe you lacked this in your life, I don't know, just a guess. It's not a one-way street. It's not only the mother, to the child. It is also from the child, to the mother. And in this, a mother can understand the Will of her child.

Again, I thought things like this were common sense. I guess not, anymore. Or maybe people are just forgetful, a Demented state like the illegitimate US president. Dementia is quite accursed. You've forgotten the core aspects of life where people find meaning and value.

I can see that Belinda wasn't especially nice to you, but don't you think this went too far? And here, again, you make it clear that you don't know what free will means in philosophy.

Why shouldn't the Will be Free???

That word 'shouldn't' is the giveaway. Yes, there are people who use the two terms as if they are the same. But in philosophy free will has to do with something other than Liberty and freedom to express, assemble, ignore authority and so on. You wouldn't ask 'shouldn't we have free will?' as if it's an attitude or political stance. Dicussions of that kind of freedom would fit nicely in the political subforum here.

But here we are in the Metaphysics subforum.

There's a difference between free will and freedom (or Liberty). I tried and did not manage to get this difference across to you. I certainly may not have done a good job. But you seemed to have not much interest in finding out or even considering if you might be talking at cross purposes to other people.

Fine. Look where it's gotten you. Using a rhetorical device basically saying

Belinda isn't a good enough woman.

[Wizard22]

I know what popeye believes.

He says that any self-control a person has, is reactionary and can only be reactionary. He doesn't realize that his arguments are essentially Hard Determinism. He doesn't leave much room, if any at all, for free-will. And, according to his logic, if man had "free-will" then that too would be reactionary to whatever control mechanism he genetically inherited.

But that's not exactly compatible, which is why he has his beliefs, and you have yours, despite you unwilling to engage here.

[Iwannaplato]

This response can go toward FJ, popeye, belinda, and the rest as well.

This is generally my position. I think arguments in favor of determinism make more sense than the ones I've seen so far for free will. But I don't consider it case closed.

But what's your argument for free will?

When you decide to do something what leads to your actions that is not compelled by your desires, goals, values and then external factors and the situation?

We have moment A and then moment B.

When you choose at moment B something leads to you choosing that was not there in the precise instant before that. Your state and the state of things around you. What is that?

And wouldn't you want to do what your desires and knowledge would lead you to do?

I'm going to throw an Epistemological wrench in this equation.

What are my or your desires? What are my or your knowledge? What is the act of 'possessing' either, desire or knowledge? Did you or I, invent these letters or words we write with? Did we create the culture that preceded us? No, but our predecessors did. How much of what we inherit, are 'theirs'? All of it? Some of it? How much of it?

How much of 'I' do you or I control? How much do we have power over? If we only have control over a small portion, then we only have freedom to the relatively small amount of (self-)control, correct?

Therein Free-Will implies a much larger degree of Self-Control as well.

I'm sorry, I couldn't find a coherent argument in there, let alone an Epistemological wrench. Prove to me that made sense.

[Iwannaplato]

Okay...so what point are you trying to make? "I don't understand."

Yes, everybody in this thread knows, you've repeated yourself dozens of times.

Prove that I don't understand.

1) proving things is more about things like math or symbolic logic
2) he certainly doesn't have to make a good case to anyone else. We can read your posts.
3) what have you 'proven' so far?

Your responses will be for anyone still reading you. I can't really be bothered anymore. I'm sorry I got cranky with you when you first entered this. I tried to make up for that. But this isn't interesting anymore.

[Wizard22]

Fine. Look where it's gotten you. Using a rhetorical device basically saying

Belinda isn't a good enough woman.

That wasn't my point. Belinda does not seem to have a free-will, which is something I frequently find in women. Women are especially aggressive about denying free-will, more so than Hard Determinist men. I want to know why that is. It isn't a slight or offense against her, although I get why you might see it as such.

She admits to rejecting free-will openly. I've recently had a debate against another woman, who holds her same position. In fact, I've never met a woman who believes in free-will. This maybe a mechanism in Mammals by which females do not feel 'free' as individuals, but rather more so as part of social groups, by which free-will is then abstracted toward perceived authority figures.

In any case, she needs to understand, that just because she doesn't have free-will, doesn't mean others also do not.

[Iwannaplato]

I know what popeye believes.

He says that any self-control a person has, is reactionary and can only be reactionary. He doesn't realize that his arguments are essentially Hard Determinism. He doesn't leave much room, if any at all, for free-will. And, according to his logic, if man had "free-will" then that too would be reactionary to whatever control mechanism he genetically inherited.

But that's not exactly compatible, which is why he has his beliefs, and you have yours, despite you unwilling to engage here.

Yes, I think popeye is a hard determinist. Which is as relevant to my post as a kangaroo.

[Wizard22]

And here, again, you make it clear that you don't know what free will means in philosophy.

We should add "gate-keeping" rhetoric to the list, the presumption that one "holds the key" as to what constitutes Philosophy, or the rules of engagement of argument or debate.

There's a difference between free will and freedom (or Liberty). I tried and did not manage to get this difference across to you. I certainly may not have done a good job. But you seemed to have not much interest in finding out or even considering if you might be talking at cross purposes to other people.

On one of the pages, several pages back, I made the point of 'fish freedom', 'bird freedom', 'tree freedom', etc. as qualitative differences of 'freedom' and ability across different species of organisms.

You seem to have missed or ignored that point. Do you want me to go back and quote myself? I can, if you want.

[Flannel Jesus]

Fine. Look where it's gotten you. Using a rhetorical device basically saying

Belinda isn't a good enough woman.

That wasn't my point. Belinda does not seem to have a free-will, which is something I frequently find in women.

This is another thing that makes me pretty certain you don't understand even the basic concepts at play here. Either we have free will or we don't. If we, human beings, have free will, then there's nothing Belinda could do to stop having free will, apart from dying. It's not something you can turn off, if it exists at all.

Your conceptions of all of this, determinism and free will and compatibilism - all of it seems so extremely alien. It doesn't feel like you're talking about the same stuff as the rest of us, even if you happen to use some of the same words.

[Wizard22]

1) proving things is more about things like math or symbolic logic
2) he certainly doesn't have to make a good case to anyone else. We can read your posts.
3) what have you 'proven' so far?

Your responses will be for anyone still reading you. I can't really be bothered anymore. I'm sorry I got cranky with you when you first entered this. I tried to make up for that. But this isn't interesting anymore.

I expect Determinists to lose patience here.

My approach here is not only to demonstrate Free-Will in action and practice, but to convince Determinists the negative of their presuppositions. This is the only way "good philosophy" can be had. You and I need to confront our core convictions. If one side is doing this, without the others, then it's a one-way conversation, a monologue, not a dialogue. You need to be able to question your own Deterministic beliefs.

With Flannel Jesus, I've made more progress. Determinism hinges on what Determinisms know about Physics and Reality. If their knowledge is shaky, flawed, inferior in anyway, then so too must their rationale about Determinism be directly affected and corrupted. It's not enough to say that Cause and Effect are physical, and the Present proceeds from the Past, or that "all is Reactionary" to some largest force, or to the beginning of time itself. Rather this debate requires actual, real Causes and Effects in motion.

We need to decide which of two parties, caused the Car Accident. If a Jury and Judge cannot accurately rule who or what caused it, then why should philosophers or enthusiasts believe they can do exceedingly more than a Jury's Judgment about Existence itself???

[Iwannaplato]

This is another thing that makes me pretty certain you don't understand even the basic concepts at play here.

Yup.

Which is really fine. He could try to reach out, when it's offered, to see if there's a communication issue...
but on top of no interest in this...
He thinks his positions are fine unless other people can prove there is something he doesn't understand.
On the other hand people need to prove their positions.

He need prove nothing.

Lovely, contrasting sets of criteria.

It's like a chastity belt against learning.