Tweet
*Surprised that history and poli sci have nothing to do with the "real world".
To be honest, we really don't have much to do with the real world...
-
To be honest, we really don't have much to do with the real world...KH FOR OWNER!
ASHER FOR CEO!!
GUYNEMER FOR OT MOD!!! -
Not if you're looking at where the idea originates.
Ned:
You have the relentless ability to annoy everybody when you post.
If you look at the Judges who ruled in favour of R v. Wade, would you classify any of them as conservatives?It also leads to Roe v. Wade and the stong protection of the right of privacy.Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!Comment
-
Originally posted by Agathon
Don't be deliberately obtuse. If we want to know how an idea came into being and reached its present form we look at its history.
Free will doesn't make sense given the scientific world view. We can have a view of free will where my decisions are caused by my beliefs and desires, but that's not the kind of freedom most people associate with free will. Historically, some people have posited an immaterial soul to explain why our desires and decisions are not subject to ordinary causality.
Well, that's pointless, because ANYTHING is either subject to causality or not subject to causality. If it isn't subject to causality, it is probabilistic, if it is subject to causality, it is deterministic. I don't understand how my definition of free will isn't the one most people hold - making their own decisions.
And ordinarily that means punishing the person whose beliefs and desires caused him to commit the crime rather than someone who did it out of ignorance or under duress. It's valuable to be able to distinguish causes in this way because we don't end up killing or locking up people who are not likely to do bad things in future.
If you say so...
It is one thing to give that account and another to suppose there is some magical thing called free will which removes my decisions and mental states from causality.
Where have I stated that free will is not subject to causality? In fact, I believe I specifically stated that it was...
The former is consistent with a "deterrence" view of punishment, the latter with a "retributivist" view of punishment. Conservatives are almost all retributivists.
That's a stupid, blanket statement, but it brings up a good question - what's wrong with retribution?
No. I argue that they came up with it because it is required to solve certain problems that theism creates. That is not an ad hominem argument.
You are using it to say that free will is religious (which is an attack on free will and the arguments supporting it, IMO
) by attacking those who posited it.
Because you are thinking of the wrong treatise. That stuff is in the Physics and the Metaphysics. I am talking about the Nichomachean Ethics, specifically Book Gamma which deals with voluntary, involuntary and non-voluntary action. It has little directly to do with the four causes.
Ok, I don't know about that. A lot of my knowledge of philosophy comes from Sophie's World and philosophypages.com
Do your beliefs and desires determine your actions? If so, what determines them? Are you a physical creature subject to causal laws? If so, how do you fit free will in (the old Quantum mechanics argument doesn't work because then your free will is no more under your control than the decay of a radioactive particle is under its control).
Yes, physical laws, yes, my mind is controlling my actions.
Free will is a ridiculous concept. If our will really is free then why aren't we surprised by our own decisions? How is it that we can largely predict what other people are going to do?
Free will != spontaneity. Free will = control over your own actions.Comment
-
Sky, he's arguing that Free Will was first posited by Christians. Why would calling Christians religious be an attack on them?that free will is religious (which is an attack on free will and the arguments supporting it, IMO ) by attacking those who posited it.Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!Comment
-
He's arguing that free will is religious because it was first posited by religious people.Comment
-
It's religious because it's nonphysical."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
that is possibly the STUPIDEST argument I've ever heard.
What is "nonphysical"? Do you mean not existing in the universe? If so, then it DOESN'T EXIST, because anything that exists is within the universe (the set of all that exists).
Even stupider, though, is that you were WRONG. Free will can easily be physical - my mind controls my actions. Explain how my mind is not "physical"?Comment
-
that is possibly the STUPIDEST argument I've ever heard.
I agree... I guess everything metaphysical is 'religious'. I'm sure Nietszche and Kant would love to know how religious they were.“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)Comment
-
In fact, by his definition, Democritus, essentially the first reductionist/mechanist/materialist (and one of the main founders of atomism) would be religious, as well, since the "void" (empty space) is "nonphysical"... and Democritus was a staunch atheist.Comment
-
1. Being physical means being affected by the physical laws.that is possibly the STUPIDEST argument I've ever heard.
What is "nonphysical"? Do you mean not existing in the universe? If so, then it DOESN'T EXIST, because anything that exists is within the universe (the set of all that exists).
Even stupider, though, is that you were WRONG. Free will can easily be physical - my mind controls my actions. Explain how my mind is not "physical"?
2. Free will implies the ability to act outside of physical laws (i.e. there's a nonphysical "soul" that's dictating your actions rather than the physical laws).
3. Watch the ad hominens.
You're confusing metaphysics with the supernatural.I agree... I guess everything metaphysical is 'religious'. I'm sure Nietszche and Kant would love to know how religious they were."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Originally posted by Ramo
1. Being physical means being affected by the physical laws.
well, DUH - and one of the definitions of "abstain" is "to abstain". REAL helpful.
2. Free will implies the ability to act outside of physical laws (i.e. there's a nonphysical "soul" that's dictating your actions rather than the physical laws).
False. Free will is completely consistent with determinism (or even probabilism), as I've explained fifty bajillion times, including once or twice in THIS THREAD.
3. Watch the ad hominens.
I said the ARGUMENT was stupid. That isn't an ad hominem.Comment
-
You're confusing metaphysics with the supernatural.
You said: "It's religious because it's nonphysical." Metaphysical IS nonphysical.“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)Comment
-
You know what, Imram? Calculus is religious too! It's nonphysical!Comment
-
If the meaning is trivial, why are you getting it wrong? Being affected by physical laws is not the same thing as existing within the universe (if a God or a soul exists, these would be within the universe but unaffected by physical laws).well, DUH - and one of the definitions of "abstain" is "to abstain". REAL helpful.
Well, I'm sure you've explained it wrong 50 bajillion times.False. Free will is completely consistent with determinism (or even probabilism), as I've explained fifty bajillion times, including once or twice in THIS THREAD.
You're ignoring the context in which I said that. Free will is something that affects physical objects. If something that's supposed to affect physical objects is nonphysical (God, Soul, etc.), something religious is going on (although it'd be fair to examine exactly what constitutes a religion).
You said: "It's religious because it's nonphysical." Metaphysical IS nonphysical."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
ACK! Oh no! The Holy God of Newton (fook that false god Liebnitz) must be worshiped!
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)Comment
Comment