maybe start a thread topic on QQ ?
Afterall your only objective here is to attack the man (QQ) and not the ball (thread topic)
I think integrity of motive is more important than grammar, don't you?
Is free will possible in a deterministic universe?
- Thread starter Sarkus
- Start date
Afterall your only objective here is to attack the man (QQ) and not the ball (thread topic)
I think integrity of motive is more important than grammar, don't you?
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Start a thread on you? You would love that I'm sure.
I'm questioning the integrity of your motive so I also have the capacity to question your grammar while I'm at it.
My only motive isn't to attack you. I don't buy the premise of the thread but free will vs determinism is an interesting topic. It's less so after you guys get a hold of it.
this issue has been blazing for over 2500 years - a few more wont hurt...I'm amazed at how some of you can argue a point ....forever. You're like philosophical gladiators or something.
Or lawyers.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I question whether you know what "hypocrisy" means.
The school of Elea in ancient Greece, 2500 odd years ago concluded that nothing changes... and you know what? Nothing has....I'm amazed at how some of you can argue a point ....forever. You're like philosophical gladiators or something.
Or lawyers.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
This is why philosophy majors end up as dish washers or waiters.I'm amazed at how some of you can argue a point ....forever. You're like philosophical gladiators or something.
Or lawyers.
but of course you would... I would expect nothing less from you...
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
They were also ignorant by today's standards.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Yet, nothing I said or have done is hypocritical.
The Eleatics. Wait, didn't they believe that life was all about perpetual change? When you think about it, most of the great philosophers were simply using common sense to figure out life.
They'll remind you of your free will, as you look over the menu.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
No, they'll question whether you really want the fries (no free will you know).The Eleatics. Wait, didn't they believe that life was all about perpetual change? When you think about it, most of the great philosophers were simply using common sense to figure out life.
They'll remind you of your free will, as you look over the menu.
The Eleatics. Wait, didn't they believe that life was all about perpetual change? When you think about it, most of the great philosophers were simply using common sense to figure out life.
Yes, but they believed that that perpetual change was fully predetermined thus unchanging. The birth of Hard determinism 101.
the rest is history,
All the worlds greatest thinkers, Kant, Descartes, Hobbes, etc have all been trying to solve the freewill riddle since then....
and dare I say....
the logic of co-determination and how important learning to self determine is....
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Go ahead and say it, you are ignorant by today's standards. There, you've said it.
It is not a case of "if you have done it then there was no alternative" (i.e. concluding that there was no alternative after the event), but rather there was no actual / genuine alternative to begin with.
One can not choose what is not there.
It appears as though what results from the process of choice is one of a number of genuine alternatives, but, per the argument, there is only one genuine path, and no genuine alternatives.
Given that that is not the position being taken, your subsequent assessment holds no weight against it.
Per the argument there is no "until he learns how to".
One can not learn to do something that is impossible.
It thus does not change the definition, or the argument, in any way, other than to reject the idea of "genuine choice until...".
If something is impossible, no amount of learning will change that.
Last edited by a moderator:
As has been said far too many times: if you want to work to a different definition of what it means to be free, noone is stopping you, and you can no doubt end up with different conclusions.
Personally, if the result of the process is predetermined from long before the process was ever even considered, I see little scope for any meaningful or non-trivial freedom.
But go for it.
Noone is stopping you.
Everyone seems so keen to continually attack one definition and subsequent argument that noone has actually put forth an alternative for discussion, and actually discussed it.
What is stopping people?
Choice is just a word for a process.
The process exists, whichever way we conclude regarding the freedom (in so far as it is defined) within it.
If the freedom is an illusion that does not make the process per se an illusion.
If one, however, defines the process as containing genuine freedom then if that genuine freedom is deemed to be an illusion then so would that process.
But since I don't define "choice" in this contest as anything other than a process - with no a priori assumption as to whether it contains genuine freedom or not - the process is not, to me at least, an illusion.
Is that clear?
Yeah totally, and totally wrong headed...you have ruled yourself out of the discussion because you consider it impossible for freewill to be anything other than supernatural before actually debating the issue.
Last edited: