Philosophy Now Forum

Is it birth? The law? Do you actually own your life? Is your life part of a group life?

PhilX

I make my life mine when I claim it, defend it.

I lose it when I turn myself over to others.

Self-owenership is a day-to-day exercise in vigilance.

Damned easy to give over with so many carrots dangled eveywhere...gotta be a zealot to be autonomous.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2017 2:26 pm Is it birth? The law? Do you actually own your life? Is your life part of a group life?

PhilX

I did not arrange my birth, and have no idea of the day of my death. Most of my circumstances are also unknown to me, and come to me from elsewhere. During my lifespan, I have a limited range of choices, and those few choices are truly mine. But that's all. All else comes to me as a given.

Nobody else wanted it, so I have the claim of salvage rights.

One does not own one`s life, this suggestion is as ridiculous as it is impossible, only circumstances ever can, so collective circumstances own one`s life. Absolutely nothing else besides. Free will is no more than an illusion, a psychological "add on" suggestion - You were going to make that said same choice anyway!

"One does not own one`s life"

Really? I say I'm my first, best property...come, try and use me without my permission.

#

"Free will is no more than an illusion"

'Free will' is just a placeholder for the one who chooses...that is: I 'am' a free will, I don't have free will (except as I have myself [which I do]).

##

"those few choices are truly mine. But that's all"

If you, the chooser, don't own 'you' then you don't own the choices.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2017 2:26 pm Is it birth? The law? Do you actually own your life? Is your life part of a group life?

PhilX

No man is free who is not master of himself. - Epictetus -

I do not own my life. What I call my life has been and continually is created by external circumstances. I am not master of myself so cannot be considered owner of my life.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:35 pm "One does not own one`s life"

Really? I say I'm my first, best property...come, try and use me without my permission.

#

"Free will is no more than an illusion"

'Free will' is just a placeholder for the one who chooses...that is: I 'am' a free will, I don't have free will (except as I have myself [which I do]).

##

This debate, then, comes down to a match between two extremes: the belief that I am master of fate, and the belief that fate eradicates any "me" that could choose.

I suggest that both are wildly implausible. Nobody can plausibly say that they are the originator of their own birth, the producer of all their own circumstances, and the determiner of the length of life (one can shorten it, but not lengthen it by a minute more than it has in it). But equally, nobody can say we have NO choices; for to argue the position is self-defeating. If we have no choices, we cannot choose to believe in Determinism...so why are we arguing, if that's the case? Moreover, Determinism eradicates all morality, justice, intellection, identity and individual value in the world...things without supposing, nobody lives in practice.

In short, absolute "free will" is impossible, and strict Determinism is empty and cannot be posited in an hypocritical, non-self-defeating way.

"those few choices are truly mine. But that's all"

If you, the chooser, don't own 'you' then you don't own the choices.

True: but we can see that that "owning" cannot be complete and unconditional either. Everybody knows there are things in their own lives over which they have no control. Who would "choose" to have cancer? Who would "choose" to be run over by a stagecoach? Why would we imagine anybody could ever "chose" when, where and how their own parents would produce them, the members of their family, and where and in what time period they would be raised?"

Nobody chose these things ever. So the only plausible view takes into consideration both. We have that which is given us, and yet we have some choices.

The exercise of our freedom is not unrestricted, but is a dance with the "given."

There's no point in even trying to debate Determinism because it's an assumption. Same with solipsism. Both of them deny the self-evident truths of free-will and other minds. When we experience the world as we know it, these are givens. Not only that, but solipsism and determinism are nihilistic at their core, and deserve to be rid of due to their effects on life as we know it. What do I mean by that? Determinism denies that we are persons, that we have free will, that there is justice, that there is choice in our certain circumstances, that we can have meaning from nature, and so on. Likewise, solipsism denies that there are others which we patently depend upon for our existence as others do for ourselves, that there is another or other minds that are not simply a selfish masquerade of ones' own mind, that others are not zombies and have just as much value on their lives as ones own value of ones' own life, that selfishness is not the best option in morality, and so on. Thus, regardless of denying the notion of self-evidential free-will and other minds, one can deny them on principle of their meaning for the person who believes in them and the believers' responsibility to others.

With that said, I derive my own life from the finite body and finite living space and time I am in. My own awareness, the being of the universe, and 'who' I am through my constantly changing mind-stream are what make my life my own. The fact that others and myself can say 'I' is also another reason why our lives are our own.

This is the life I experience. And I make many many choices every day.

One only owns one`s life to the extent that/on the level that they live it and experience it first hand. Everything which we are, say, and do is the product of accumulative circumstance.

"This debate, then, comes down to a match between two extremes: the belief that I am master of fate, and the belief that fate eradicates any "me" that could choose."

Of course not. I, for example, say I own 'me' and am a free will. This means if I choose to cross the street, then I can make the effort (I choose, I do). Ain't nuthin' in there sayin' I'll be successful, nuthin' in there about mastery of anything. Me owning me, being an agent, won't stop a bullet or lightning or cancer. But, what gets shot, struck, or sick (that is, 'me') is mine which means I'm likely to fight harder to overcome the injuries than some one who sees himself as a domino (just a 'product of accumulative circumstance').

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:45 pm Me owning me, being an agent, won't stop a bullet or lightning or cancer.

Right. That's the point.

Free will may exist -- and I think we have good reason to think it does -- but It's not a100% "free." For a "life" is more than my choices; for those choices are made within a matrix of situations that are already "given," and which limit how many and what kind of free choices are possible to me.

But, what gets shot, struck, or sick (that is, 'me') is mine which means I'm likely to fight harder to overcome the injuries than some one who sees himself as a domino (just a 'product of accumulative circumstance').

Yes, quite so.

The bullet, the stick or the disease may come to you as a "given"; but you have to decide whether or not to fight.

I think this is yet another reason to deny Determinism. For if Determinism were really believed and practiced, then it rationalizes total quietism -- the refusal to act. After all, why would one bother to "fight" or "choose" when everything is predetermined anyway? That wouldn't even make sense.

But the fact that even nominal Determinists DO choose, fight, argue, get disappointed, anticipate opportunities, receive and give love, experience resentment, and so forth, powerfully indicates over and over that they are incapable of really believing their Determinism so as to practice the kind of lifestyle that rationalizes with Determinism.

In short, even THEY don't believe what they say.

Celebritydiscodave2 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2017 10:35 am One only owns one`s life to the extent that/on the level that they live it and experience it first hand. Everything which we are, say, and do is the product of accumulative circumstance.

Can you clarify your view? The way you put it is a bit confusing to me.

If we can only "own" our lives by experiencing them and living them firsthand, how can that fit with the claim that "accumulative circumstances" predetermine (i.e. make a "product" of, or produce) "everything which we are, say and do?

Your second claim would seem to falsify the first one, if I understand both correctly. It would seem to suggest, rather, that there is NO way for us to "own" our lives, since they are set by "circumstance."

But I've got to be misunderstanding you somewhere there...