Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:52 pm**

we are faced with a problem...
one of individual free will and our connection to society/state...

one such answer is Adam Smith in his "Wealth of Nations"
he suggest that by our own individual, private, selfish actions
we somehow, he never actually tells us how this is so, but our own
selfish action benefits the society/state.. that somehow, my being
selfish in my own actions toward gaining benefits for me and my family,
I also benefit the society/state..

so this question of how our individual/separate actions done with
"free will" works for/or against, the society/state at large..
As I seek my own individual happiness, how is that connected to
the society/state?

As indicated, I hold that evolution plays a role in this... we have
been through evolution, a level of concern for our local society/state...
how do my individual actions, impact my family, the society, the state?

We human beings are, as formed by evolution, social creatures..
for our own survival we must engage with the society/state...
we need other people, socially, politically, economically.....

In every way, shape and form, our own individual survival
is predicated on there being a society/state...without a society/state,
we die...it is as simple as that...no society/state, no individual self...

and within a smaller society/state, our individual actions within our free
will, impact a society/state greater....in other words, in a group of ten, my
individual actions will impact the group far greater than my actions
within a group of a 1000 or 10,000 people...

Because of this, my own actions, done with free will, will
have a greater impact on a smaller population than with a larger one...
This fact allows us to understand the implications of actions...

If one person commits a crime, it will impact a smaller group more
than a larger group...and within our modern society/state, one
violent crime has little to no impact...the impact on the modern
society/state comes from either one crime done numerous times,
or a large number of people engaging in different sort of crimes...
so, it isn't one isolated gun massacre that is damaging, but the multiple
series of gun violence that is harming society...
it is the weekly reports of mass murder that impacts a society/state

So, the question becomes, at what point does our individual actions,
done with free will, becomes impossible for a society to ignore?

Many argue, the gun control argument becomes a prime candidate,
that we cannot interfere with one's individual free will to own guns...
but at what point does the wanton killing of its citizens become
enough to change our minds?

We have evolution to thank for our being social creatures, but
at what point, as a society/state, do we begin to think about
removing guns to protect the society/state?

I have free will, but at what point does my free will to act as I
see fit, come into conflict with the safety and security of the society/state,
and which has priority? The state/society or the individual with free will?

The primary political question is this question of prioity, of the society/state
vs the individual...

Conservatives answer this question one way and liberals answer this
another way....from gun control to masks to vaccines to income inequality
to the abortion question to trans/gay rights in America....

Every single major question facing us today, comes down to
this question of the individual needs against the society/state needs...
which has prioity, the individual or the society/state?

Kropotkin

Posted: **Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:17 am**

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:52 pm we are faced with a problem...
one of individual free will and our connection to society/state...

Why is this a so-called 'problem', exactly?

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:52 pm one such answer is Adam Smith in his "Wealth of Nations"

For an answer to come about firstly there needs to be a question, or a 'problem'. Obviously, neither have been provided.

Just saying, "individual free will and our connection to society/state", is obviously nether a problem, nor a question. Therefore, no answer is needed nor even be able to be wanted here.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:52 pm he suggest that by our own individual, private, selfish actions
we somehow, he never actually tells us how this is so, but our own
selfish action benefits the society/state.. that somehow, my being
selfish in my own actions toward gaining benefits for me and my family,
I also benefit the society/state..

Of course this is what happens. This is just blatantly obvious, well to some of us anyway.

And how this actually happens is also just blatantly obvious, as well, again well to some of us anyway.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:52 pm so this question of how our individual/separate actions done with
"free will" works for/or against, the society/state at large..
As I seek my own individual happiness, how is that connected to
the society/state?

It is because of human beings' wants and desires for more and more things, human beings continually progress towards learning, and thus understanding, more and more things, which eventually is what benefited the society/state, at large.

But obviously in the days when this was being written, 'you', human beings, had not yet arrived at this stage, YET. This is just because 'you' were too busy seeking out to get more and more for "yourselves", and a select few "others" only, that you had not learned, nor understand, YET what is truly right and wrong in Life. But 'you' are getting there.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:52 pm As indicated, I hold that evolution plays a role in this...

Well considering the Fact that evolution plays a role in EVERY thing, it would be sufficient to 'hold' that evolution plays a role in 'this' ALSO.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:52 pm we have
been through evolution, a level of concern for our local society/state...
how do my individual actions, impact my family, the society, the state?

What do you mean by asking this question here?

Surely, you understand that EVERY thing 'you' do, has an effect on 'other things', which is just what the word 'impact' means or refers to, close enough?

Or, were you meaning something else here?

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:52 pm We human beings are, as formed by evolution, social creatures..
for our own survival we must engage with the society/state...
we need other people, socially, politically, economically.....

In fact 'you' NEED each other for 'your' very own survival.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:52 pm In every way, shape and form, our own individual survival
is predicated on there being a society/state...without a society/state,
we die...it is as simple as that...no society/state, no individual self...

Yes, agreed.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:52 pm and within a smaller society/state, our individual actions within our free
will, impact a society/state greater....in other words, in a group of ten, my
individual actions will impact the group far greater than my actions
within a group of a 1000 or 10,000 people...

But that all depends on what you actually do.

If, for example, you make a bomb, done with free will, and drop it an area where it will impact on 1,000 or 10,000 people, then that action might more likely create more of an impact on those people and the people surrounding them than it does on the ten closest to you.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:52 pm Because of this, my own actions, done with free will, will
have a greater impact on a smaller population than with a larger one...

Not always and not necessarily so.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:52 pm This fact allows us to understand the implications of actions...

But it is not yet 'fact'. At the moment 'it' is still just what you believe is true only.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:52 pm If one person commits a crime, it will impact a smaller group more
than a larger group...and within our modern society/state, one
violent crime has little to no impact...the impact on the modern
society/state comes from either one crime done numerous times,
or a large number of people engaging in different sort of crimes...
so, it isn't one isolated gun massacre that is damaging, but the multiple
series of gun violence that is harming society...

Just ONE example of gun violence IS 'damaging' to the ones involved, who are obviously a PART OF 'society'. Therefore, ANY example of gun violence damages that society.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:52 pm it is the weekly reports of mass murder that impacts a society/state

But just hearing or reading about ONE mass murder impacts a society/state. Remember EVERY one in a society/state is PART OF that society/state.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:52 pm So, the question becomes, at what point does our individual actions,
done with free will, becomes impossible for a society to ignore?

When you learn to distinguish an 'action' from a 'behavior', then you will understand better at what point do 'your' individual 'behaviors', done with free ability, become impossible for the people of a society to ignore.

See, there is a difference between 'behaving' and 'misbehaving'. But first one has to learn and understand what is Truly Right in Life, from what is Truly Wrong in Life. But, first other things have to be learned and understood.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:52 pm Many argue, the gun control argument becomes a prime candidate,
that we cannot interfere with one's individual free will to own guns...[/quot]

But they are obviously NOT 'sound and valid arguments'. Which means they are not even worthy of being repeated. As they have NO actual bearing on what is actually True and Right in Life.
Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:52 pm but at what point does the wanton killing of its citizens become
enough to change our minds?
When you learn that you do NOT have "your own minds", then you will be a step closer to what the actual Truth is here.

The wanton killing of the very first citizen was enough for 'you', human beings, to CHANGE 'your ways'. But, obviously, 'you' were NOT YET READY for this to occur, back in the days when this was being written.
Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:52 pm We have evolution to thank for our being social creatures,
'you' have evolution to thank for absolutely EVERY thing else as well.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:52 pm but
at what point, as a society/state, do we begin to think about
removing guns to protect the society/state?
When guns are unnecessary. Which, by the way, was a LONG TIME AGO, relative to when this was being written.
Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:52 pm I have free will, but at what point does my free will to act as I
see fit, come into conflict with the safety and security of the society/state,
and which has priority?
The ONLY WAY the society/state is unsafe and insecure is because of 'you', human beings, and your misbehaving.

At what point your free will came into conflict with the society/state all depends on what 'laws' have been decided upon by 'you', human beings, and 'your' own free will.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:52 pm The state/society or the individual with free will?
The state/society is obviously made up of 'you', free willed human beings. There is NO actual entity of state nor society. The words 'society' and 'state' here just refer to 'you', human beings, collectively.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:52 pm The primary political question is this question of prioity, of the society/state
vs the individual...
The society/state is NOT some 'thing' outside of, beyond, nor past 'you', individuals, collectively. So, the 'priority' is ALWAYS 'you', human beings, in conjunction with EVERY thing else. Although I would ask 'you' to question, Who has MORE PRIORITY in Life, children or adults?
Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:52 pm Conservatives answer this question one way and liberals answer this
another way....from gun control to masks to vaccines to income inequality
to the abortion question to trans/gay rights in America....
Obviously not every so-called "conservative" nor "liberal" answers the same questions the same way.
Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:52 pm Every single major question facing us today, comes down to
this question of the individual needs against the society/state needs...
You speak as though the society/state is some kind of its own entity, which is obviously NOT true AT ALL.

Also, the actual 'needs' of EVERY human being is the EXACT SAME for absolutely EVERY thing. But just as obvious is the 'wants' of EVERY human being can be COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

But this is just because 'needs' are NEEDED for living and survival, whereas 'wants' are completely UNNECESSARY.
Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:52 pm which has prioity, the individual or the society/state?

Kropotkin
'societies/states' are made up of and consist of 'you', individual human beings.

ALL of 'you' were created, through evolution, the EXACT SAME WAY, or EQUALLY. Which means absolutely NO one has 'priority' over the other. 'you' are ALL a PART OF Life, with NONE more deserving than another.

Posted: **Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:23 pm**

Age wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:17 am
Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:52 pm we are faced with a problem...
one of individual free will and our connection to society/state...
Why is this a so-called 'problem', exactly?
Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:52 pm one such answer is Adam Smith in his "Wealth of Nations"
AGE: For an answer to come about firstly there needs to be a question, or a 'problem'. Obviously, neither have been provided.

K: as I recall in another thread/post, there you denied the existence of
questions/problems.... Life isn't an answer, it is a question....
and if you believe, truly believe that there are no questions/problems,
truly believe that there are no questions/problems..
I might suggest that you are posting on the wrong website...
you aren't a philosopher, but a theologian and as such, if you think,
if you believe the answers are already given, then you have no
real business hanging in a philosophy website...
I might suggest you find a theological website where the questions
are not important, only the already given answers are important...

as for me, I will continue to seek answers to this thing we call life..
because life isn't an answer, but it is a question...

Kropotkin

Posted: **Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:30 pm**

Age wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:17 am
Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:52 pm we are faced with a problem...
one of individual free will and our connection to society/state...
Why is this a so-called 'problem', exactly?

As galling as it is to agree with "Age," this is the right question. (I guess even a blind squirrel finds an occasional nut.)

There's no problem here. Individuals prosper. As they do, they create markets for others to prosper. So long as the market is fair and unimpaired, everybody wins. And we don't have to say more than that. There's certainly no argument in those facts that suggests we ought to meddle with such a relationship.

So where's the alleged "problem"?

Posted: **Sat Aug 06, 2022 7:14 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:30 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:17 am
Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:52 pm we are faced with a problem...
one of individual free will and our connection to society/state...
Why is this a so-called 'problem', exactly?
As galling as it is to agree with "Age," this is the right question. (I guess even a blind squirrel finds an occasional nut.)

There's no problem here. Individuals prosper. As they do, they create markets for others to prosper. So long as the market is fair and unimpaired, everybody wins. And we don't have to say more than that. There's certainly no argument in those facts that suggests we ought to meddle with such a relationship.

So where's the alleged "problem"?

K: oh, for the love of tomatoes.. this is one of if not the basic question we face today.
or have you missed the entire question, at least in America, between this question of
free will and the demands of society.. which includes, in no particular order,
abortion, gun rights, free speech among other numerous demands/actions...
the demands of a society/state versus the individual rights of expression and actions....
This has been a question in philosophy since Plato wrote his ''Republic''...

What is the ''proper'' role or relationship between the state and an individual
right to act as they see fit? This has been publicly debated since Rousseau made it
one of his central points in roughly 1750...and much of the French Revolution
and American revolution revolves around these points...

or to put it another way, what is the obligation/responsibility an
individual has to their society/state and what obligations/responsibilities
does a state/society have toward an individual?

Kropotkin

Posted: **Sat Aug 06, 2022 8:26 pm**

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 7:14 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:30 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:17 am

Why is this a so-called 'problem', exactly?
As galling as it is to agree with "Age," this is the right question. (I guess even a blind squirrel finds an occasional nut.)

There's no problem here. Individuals prosper. As they do, they create markets for others to prosper. So long as the market is fair and unimpaired, everybody wins. And we don't have to say more than that. There's certainly no argument in those facts that suggests we ought to meddle with such a relationship.

So where's the alleged "problem"?
K: oh, for the love of tomatoes.. this is one of if not the basic question we face today.
or have you missed the entire question, at least in America, between this question of
free will and the demands of society.. which includes, in no particular order,
abortion, gun rights, free speech among other numerous demands/actions...

I don't see the problem at all, actually, since none of those things breaks down into interests of society versus interests of the individual.

Take abortion. What is "the interest of society" in that one? Is it that children be allowed to live, or that we kill as many as possible? People have said both things: and if you think the "interest of society" is on the side of "population control," you're going to think one thing; and if you think "the interest of society" is on not having an open license for murder, you're going to think another.

Or "guns." Is it in "the interest of society" that people be deprived of the means to resist a tyrannical goverment or to protect themselves against predatory mobs ginned up thereby? Or is it "in the interest of society" to try to eliminate all guns but the ones the government owns? You can see ways of arguing both, I'm sure.

So? There's no "problem" you list that seems to break down along the lines you claimed.

Posted: **Sat Aug 06, 2022 9:25 pm**

we have a saying in my neck of the woods...
you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it..

If you are not intelligent enough to understand one of the fundamental
questions of philosophy, of the relationship between the state/society and the individual,
I really, really, really can't help you...

Might I suggest engaging in something that might challenge you intellectually,
which is watching reruns of "Full House" or perhaps reruns of ''Friends"..

clearly philosophy is over your head...

Kropotkin

Posted: **Sat Aug 06, 2022 9:35 pm**

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 9:25 pm If you are not intelligent enough to understand one of the fundamental
questions of philosophy, of the relationship between the state/society and the individual,
I really, really, really can't help you...

How kind of you. When I need your help, I know where not to call.

I can track the question just fine, thank you. Fine enough, in fact, to see problems with your construction to which you seem oblivious.

But your "gun" example, on which you hang so much, is clearly slanted to produce the assumption that the elimination of guns a) is in the interest of society, and b) is practical by social fiat. Both assumptions are highly contentious, but you've treated them as unproblematic.

So if you don't see the problem with your example, it's only because you see only your own side. The case looks simple to you: much more simple than it ought.

Guns aren't an instance of individual-against-state. There are both individual and state reasons for both sides. Taking the issue seriously would mean understanding that, before you go on.

Not only that, but you've wrongly assumed the individual/state controversy is the same as the conservative/liberal controversy, rather than that the sides in the liberal/conservative controversies have different ideas about what the state should do, and what is legitimately an individual domain -- in other words, both conservatives and liberals have views of the individual, and views of the state. You missed that, too.

So what is a state versus individual issue, Peto? It's not the ones you've listed, for sure. Having a clear case would help you launch a better conversation. And you might really be surprised how the other side thinks.

Posted: **Sat Aug 06, 2022 11:56 pm**

"we have a saying in my neck of the woods...
you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it."

Keter everybody has that saying. And most of em don't even live in the neck of some woods but in the city. Even Chinese people say it.

That saying is so universal it doesn't need an introduction. Please don't let it happen again. If you wanna say the horse to water thing, just say it. My sincerest thanks.

Posted: **Sun Aug 07, 2022 7:35 am**

Trying to balance the needs of the individual and the needs of society is what characterizes Western democracies.

Where the needs of society come first, these needs are usually established by those few who hold authoritarian power.
Like in China.

If, on the other hand, the needs of the individual prevail, then society risks dissolving into anarchism.

However, all of this has little to do with free will. Which can safely be overlooked in this matter. Which is not affected by whether or not free will exists.

Instead, it is the limits that are imposed on society and on the individual that play a decisive role.
But these limits are set in a democracy by the majority, which expresses the feelings of the population.

Posted: **Sun Aug 07, 2022 7:44 am**

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:23 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:17 am
Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:52 pm we are faced with a problem...
one of individual free will and our connection to society/state...
Why is this a so-called 'problem', exactly?
Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:52 pm one such answer is Adam Smith in his "Wealth of Nations"
AGE: For an answer to come about firstly there needs to be a question, or a 'problem'. Obviously, neither have been provided.

K: as I recall in another thread/post, there you denied the existence of
questions/problems....

Well you could not have recalled more Incorrectly.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:23 pm Life isn't an answer, it is a question....

The word 'Life' is just a word to refer to some 'thing'.

What is 'Life', Itself, exactly? , is another matter, and as can be clearly seen this is now a question.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:23 pm and if you believe, truly believe that there are no questions/problems,
truly believe that there are no questions/problems..
I might suggest that you are posting on the wrong website...

I have not ever thought, let alone believed, such a thing, so what you suggest is just moot.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:23 pm you aren't a philosopher, but a theologian and as such, if you think,
if you believe the answers are already given, then you have no
real business hanging in a philosophy website...

Are you sure you are even talking to the right one here?

You appear to be have completely and utterly missed the point that I was making here, and then have wandered off thinking or believing other things.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:23 pm
I might suggest you find a theological website where the questions
are not important, only the already given answers are important...

Just to let you know I have absolutely NO idea NOR clue as to what you think or believe that I think and believe in regards to theology.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:23 pm as for me, I will continue to seek answers to this thing we call life..

If you want to find and SEE the answers to Life, then just remain Truly OPEN, Truly Honest, Truly CURIOUS, while Truly Wanting to CHANGE, for the better.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:23 pm because life isn't an answer, but it is a question...

Kropotkin

The one word 'Life' is just used to describe or denote some 'Thing', so, by itself, it is NOT a question, NOR even an answer.

'A question' is made up of usually more than just one word and is, usually, asked to gain MORE knowledge, clarity, or understanding.

Posted: **Sun Aug 07, 2022 7:51 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:30 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:17 am
Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 7:52 pm we are faced with a problem...
one of individual free will and our connection to society/state...
Why is this a so-called 'problem', exactly?
As galling as it is to agree with "Age," this is the right question. (I guess even a blind squirrel finds an occasional nut.)

It never ceases to amaze that you can find and see words and views that align with you and your views, but can never seem to find 'that' what counters and refutes what you say and claim, and acknowledge them. You also appear to be never able to find and answer the questions posed to you, for clarification.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:30 pm There's no problem here. Individuals prosper. As they do, they create markets for others to prosper. So long as the market is fair and unimpaired, everybody wins.

But considering the Fact that 'the market' is, obviously, NOT fair, this explains why NOT everyone so-call wins.

Also, you appear to have missed the point that I was making about there being no actual 'problem' here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:30 pm And we don't have to say more than that. There's certainly no argument in those facts that suggests we ought to meddle with such a relationship.

So where's the alleged "problem"?

Posted: **Sun Aug 07, 2022 8:04 am**

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 7:14 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:30 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:17 am

Why is this a so-called 'problem', exactly?
As galling as it is to agree with "Age," this is the right question. (I guess even a blind squirrel finds an occasional nut.)

There's no problem here. Individuals prosper. As they do, they create markets for others to prosper. So long as the market is fair and unimpaired, everybody wins. And we don't have to say more than that. There's certainly no argument in those facts that suggests we ought to meddle with such a relationship.

So where's the alleged "problem"?
K: oh, for the love of tomatoes.. this is one of if not the basic question we face today.
or have you missed the entire question, at least in America, between this question of
free will and the demands of society.. which includes, in no particular order,
abortion, gun rights, free speech among other numerous demands/actions...
the demands of a society/state versus the individual rights of expression and actions....
This has been a question in philosophy since Plato wrote his ''Republic''...

WHAT has supposedly been 'a question' here?

Put the supposed question in ACTUAL question form, then, and ONLY THEN, we can SEE 'it', and only then we will be able to answer 'it'.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 7:14 pm What is the ''proper'' role or relationship between the state and an individual
right to act as they see fit?

See, here we have an ACTUAL example of an ACTUAL question, in question form.

Now that we have ACTUAL 'problem' to look at, we are NOW able to answer this question, and thus solve this problem.

The 'proper' role or relationship between the state, of individuals, and an individual's right to act as they see fit, is the one that EVERY one agrees with and accepts.

But I suggest you ALL find out what is the Right, and the Wrong, way to 'act', or better worded 'behave' in Life, first. Then you can move onto the 'problem' you proposed above.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 7:14 pm This has been publicly debated since Rousseau made it
one of his central points in roughly 1750...and much of the French Revolution
and American revolution revolves around these points...

This is just because 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, STILL do NOT YET consciously KNOW what is Right, and what is Wrong, in Life.

Not that you were YET meant to KNOW, by the way.

Living, and being alive, is a process of learning, individually and collectively. And, ALL things are learned along the way. Although some things are KNOWN, instinctively within, this KNOWING does NOT come-to-light UNTIL some 'things' are first learned, and understood.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 7:14 pm or to put it another way, what is the obligation/responsibility an
individual has to their society/state and what obligations/responsibilities
does a state/society have toward an individual?

Kropotkin

The EXACT SAME obligation/responsibility. That is; Do NOT abuse ANY thing. Or, in other words, treat EVERY thing how it was meant to be treated or for its purpose.

But, in order to be able to do this 'properly', one must first learn what their 'purpose' in Life is, individually, and collectively.

But, as I continually say, first things first. Or, in other words, some 'things' just have to be learned and understood first, BEFORE one can individually, and/or collectively, move on to the next one to be able to learn and understand that, properly and correctly also.

Posted: **Sun Aug 07, 2022 8:12 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 8:26 pm
Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 7:14 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:30 pm
As galling as it is to agree with "Age," this is the right question. (I guess even a blind squirrel finds an occasional nut.)

There's no problem here. Individuals prosper. As they do, they create markets for others to prosper. So long as the market is fair and unimpaired, everybody wins. And we don't have to say more than that. There's certainly no argument in those facts that suggests we ought to meddle with such a relationship.

So where's the alleged "problem"?
K: oh, for the love of tomatoes.. this is one of if not the basic question we face today.
or have you missed the entire question, at least in America, between this question of
free will and the demands of society.. which includes, in no particular order,
abortion, gun rights, free speech among other numerous demands/actions...
I don't see the problem at all, actually, since none of those things breaks down into interests of society versus interests of the individual.

Take abortion. What is "the interest of society" in that one? Is it that children be allowed to live, or that we kill as many as possible?

NEITHER.

Why do some people even resort to this absurd, ridiculous, and distorted way of thinking, sometimes known as 'black and white thinking'?

When people provide two options ONLY, then there is NO wonder WHY human beings take so long to find, uncover, realize, and/or arrive at the True and Right answers/solutions.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 8:26 pm People have said both things: and if you think the "interest of society" is on the side of "population control," you're going to think one thing; and if you think "the interest of society" is on not having an open license for murder, you're going to think another.

And when one is Truly OPEN and Honest, then that one can CLEARLY SEE what is ACTUALLY True, Right, AND Correct here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 8:26 pm Or "guns." Is it in "the interest of society" that people be deprived of the means to resist a tyrannical goverment or to protect themselves against predatory mobs ginned up thereby?

Are there NO other options?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 8:26 pm
Or is it "in the interest of society" to try to eliminate all guns but the ones the government owns? You can see ways of arguing both, I'm sure.

I will suggest, ONCE AGAIN, instead of picking ONE SIDE over ANOTHER SIDE and 'trying to' argue or fight for one or the other side, one just BECOMES and then REMAINS Truly OPEN in order to be able to FIND and SEE what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 8:26 pm So? There's no "problem" you list that seems to break down along the lines you claimed.

Posted: **Sun Aug 07, 2022 8:16 am**

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 9:25 pm we have a saying in my neck of the woods...
you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it..

Is 'your' "neck of the woods" the english speaking world?

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 9:25 pm If you are not intelligent enough to understand one of the fundamental
questions of philosophy, of the relationship between the state/society and the individual,
I really, really, really can't help you...

When you say, "of philosophy", what does the 'philosophy' word mean or refer to, to you, exactly?

Also, why do you not just put the so-called 'fundamental question' here, in a fundamental question form. Then, and ONLY THEN, we can answer 'it' for you.

Peter Kropotkin wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 9:25 pm Might I suggest engaging in something that might challenge you intellectually,
which is watching reruns of "Full House" or perhaps reruns of ''Friends"..

clearly philosophy is over your head...

Kropotkin

If you did NOT answer my question posed to you, for clarification, about what the 'philosophy' word actually means or refers to, to you, above, then will you please do it now?

If no, then why not?

Philosophy Now Forum

free will & other matters

free will & other matters

Re: free will & other matters

Re: free will & other matters

Re: free will & other matters

Re: free will & other matters

Re: free will & other matters

Re: free will & other matters

Re: free will & other matters

Re: free will & other matters

Re: free will & other matters

Re: free will & other matters

Re: free will & other matters

Re: free will & other matters

Re: free will & other matters

Re: free will & other matters