Philosophy... What do You Think?

@mrdecepticonleader: if it is not free will, what else could it be? What are some other theories?

@pooty: I think the fact that people are limited by their body and different situations people are put in kinda tones down reality of free will

@pooty said:

@mrdecepticonleader: if it is not free will, what else could it be? What are some other theories?

Instinct maybe? I know there are other theories regarding the subject as well.Maybe do some digging?

And what is the difference between free will and will? Do we have free will because we have our own will? How does one define free will?

@mrdecepticonleader: And what is the difference between free will and will? Do we have free will because we have our own will? How does one define free will?

I don't know. I was hoping you would tell me.

Personally it's a waste of time

@pooty said:

@mrdecepticonleader: And what is the difference between free will and will? Do we have free will because we have our own will? How does one define free will?

I don't know. I was hoping you would tell me.

I don't really know either just asking questions and speculating as all.

Some people should read on predestination and moral choice.

@DarkxSeraph said:

Some people should read on predestination and moral choice.

Who and why?

Because it ties in directly with the themes you are talking about here. And, in generalities, going over some of the posts, they seem more musings on the topic than anything.

Anyone can wax poetic on such a topic, but without actually reading some philosophers' writings on the subject and mentally digesting them, you're spinning wheels around the topic.

And, apologies on the not using the @Reply--at work and the browser's ancient and doesn't support the text editor, quote, or reply functions.

@DarkxSeraph said:

Because it ties in directly with the themes you are talking about here. And, in generalities, going over some of the posts, they seem more musings on the topic than anything. Anyone can wax poetic on such a topic, but without actually reading some philosophers' writings on the subject and mentally digesting them, you're spinning wheels around the topic. And, apologies on the not using the @Reply--at work and the browser's ancient and doesn't support the text editor, quote, or reply functions.

I see well it hasn't really been brought up until now

Any discussion on the existence/definition of free will that doesn't include discussion on predestination or the existence of moral choice, imo, isn't a true discussion on free will.

The opposite of free will is lack of such, which gives in to predestination (our paths are chosen/guided/forced upon us, which eliminates the chance for moral choice (your ability to make true moral choices) and thus, responsibility for those choices. This all ties into the discussion on free will because if you believe people do not have it, you, in a way, by default, side with predestination.

People have mentioned having will, but not free will: as in: you can make choices, but you are limited.

This is generally a fallacy. The existence of deterrents to particular behaviors does not erase the ability to follow those behaviors--you merely decide not to in order to escape consequence. If you make a moral choice to go against deterrents and act on that choice you bear moral responsibility for the choice.

The flip side on predestination is: how can you punish someone (give them moral responsibility) when they had no choice in which action/decisions were made due to lack of free will.

@DarkxSeraph said:

Any discussion on the existence/definition of free will that doesn't include discussion on predestination or the existence of moral choice, imo, isn't a true discussion on free will. The opposite of free will is lack of such, which gives in to predestination (our paths are chosen/guided/forced upon us, which eliminates the chance for moral choice (your ability to make true moral choices) and thus, responsibility for those choices. This all ties into the discussion on free will because if you believe people do not have it, you, in a way, by default, side with predestination. People have mentioned having will, but not free will: as in: you can make choices, but you are limited. This is generally a fallacy. The existence of deterrents to particular behaviors does not erase the ability to follow those behaviors--you merely decide not to in order to escape consequence. If you make a moral choice to go against deterrents and act on that choice you bear moral responsibility for the choice. The flip side on predestination is: how can you punish someone (give them moral responsibility) when they had no choice in which action/decisions were made due to lack of free will.

Whilst free will and predestination are opposites that doesn't mean they are the only theories/ideas regarding the concept of free will.

There kind of isn't much wiggle room on the subject, philosophically speaking. Either you have the ability to make a moral choice/have free will, or you do not.

Predestination in this case is a catch all for anything that doesn't allow room for that moral choice/free will. It's not as cut/dry as a 'God's plan' or 'programmed robot.' Moral choice is removed in many ways: mental illness (which the Law Recognizes in cases of insanity, which has removed Moral Choice and therefore, the individual cannot stand trial and is, instead, given treatment), duress ('shoot this man or I kill your family'), and other outside factors.

These are all cases in which Moral Choice is somehow pushed aside and unable to be achieved. Of course, if we truly wish, in some of these cases we can act against the influence (let the family be killed, for example), but they are still that: influences and deterrents in most cases.

That doesn't mean free will does not exist. It actually inforces that it does due to the fact that we recognize that there was a choice to be removed in the first place.

So, perhaps I used Predestination a bit broadly, but a discussion of it and moral choice are necessary in discussions on free will.

@DarkxSeraph said:

There kind of isn't much wiggle room on the subject, philosophically speaking. Either you have the ability to make a moral choice/have free will, or you do not.

Predestination in this case is a catch all for anything that doesn't allow room for that moral choice/free will. It's not as cut/dry as a 'God's plan' or 'programmed robot.' Moral choice is removed in many ways: mental illness (which the Law Recognizes in cases of insanity, which has removed Moral Choice and therefore, the individual cannot stand trial and is, instead, given treatment), duress ('shoot this man or I kill your family'), and other outside factors.

These are all cases in which Moral Choice is somehow pushed aside and unable to be achieved. Of course, if we truly wish, in some of these cases we can act against the influence (let the family be killed, for example), but they are still that: influences and deterrents in most cases.

That doesn't mean free will does not exist. It actually inforces that it does due to the fact that we recognize that there was a choice to be removed in the first place. So, perhaps I used Predestination a bit broadly, but a discussion of it and moral choice are necessary in discussions on free will.

Well I don't believe in premeditation.

Though one has a moral choice does that mean we have free will? I mean does free will actually exist is that actually free will?

I'm not a philosopher, but some matters in philosophy interest me, I guess.

If you don’t believe in predetermination, then you believe in free will. It’s pretty cut and dry on that. Unless you believe that all choices are illusion. In which case, you believe in a guided ‘destiny,’ which in turn, is a variant of Predestination in that your choices are not true choices and you have no control.

If you believe in the ability to make moral choices, you believe in free will. Moral choice cannot exist without free will by its very nature. Having a moral choice absolutely depends on the ability to freely make that choice—not having it be an illusion or pre-planned event/destiny.

For example, can you punish a robot for following its programming? No. Because the robot never had the ability to make a choice. It did not have free will. Punishing a robot in said circumstance is pointless and meaningless. However, if it were a person, instead, who made the choice (cognizant or not of the ramifications and consequences in detail—could be as simple as ‘this would hurt someone if done’ or as detailed as ‘five people will suffer because of this choice’) knowingly and willingly with knowledge and ability to deny the course of action, then a moral choice has been made and punishment would be appropriate.

If you believe that there is a choice, then you believe in free will.

In terms of limited choice: there is still free will. The reason people don’t go and just start stealing money or the like is because of the consequence of said action (or morality, depending on the person). It’s not that they can’t choose to do so, it is because a deterrent is in place that makes them not want to make that decision. You can break laws if you want, or do horrible things, or whatever you choose (given means and opportunity—lack of these two does not constitute a lack of free will)—but most don’t because of consequence.

@DarkxSeraph said:

If you don’t believe in predetermination, then you believe in free will. It’s pretty cut and dry on that. Unless you believe that all choices are illusion. In which case, you believe in a guided ‘destiny,’ which in turn, is a variant of Predestination in that your choices are not true choices and you have no control.

If you believe in the ability to make moral choices, you believe in free will. Moral choice cannot exist without free will by its very nature. Having a moral choice absolutely depends on the ability to freely make that choice—not having it be an illusion or pre-planned event/destiny.

For example, can you punish a robot for following its programming? No. Because the robot never had the ability to make a choice. It did not have free will. Punishing a robot in said circumstance is pointless and meaningless. However, if it were a person, instead, who made the choice (cognizant or not of the ramifications and consequences in detail—could be as simple as ‘this would hurt someone if done’ or as detailed as ‘five people will suffer because of this choice’) knowingly and willingly with knowledge and ability to deny the course of action, then a moral choice has been made and punishment would be appropriate.

If you believe that there is a choice, then you believe in free will.

In terms of limited choice: there is still free will. The reason people don’t go and just start stealing money or the like is because of the consequence of said action (or morality, depending on the person). It’s not that they can’t choose to do so, it is because a deterrent is in place that makes them not want to make that decision. You can break laws if you want, or do horrible things, or whatever you choose (given means and opportunity—lack of these two does not constitute a lack of free will)—but most don’t because of consequence.

Lovely.

@ShootingNova said:

I'm not a philosopher, but some matters in philosophy interest me, I guess.

Same here.Tis why I made this thread :)

@DarkxSeraph said:

If you don’t believe in predetermination, then you believe in free will. It’s pretty cut and dry on that. Unless you believe that all choices are illusion. In which case, you believe in a guided ‘destiny,’ which in turn, is a variant of Predestination in that your choices are not true choices and you have no control.

If you believe in the ability to make moral choices, you believe in free will. Moral choice cannot exist without free will by its very nature. Having a moral choice absolutely depends on the ability to freely make that choice—not having it be an illusion or pre-planned event/destiny.

For example, can you punish a robot for following its programming? No. Because the robot never had the ability to make a choice. It did not have free will. Punishing a robot in said circumstance is pointless and meaningless. However, if it were a person, instead, who made the choice (cognizant or not of the ramifications and consequences in detail—could be as simple as ‘this would hurt someone if done’ or as detailed as ‘five people will suffer because of this choice’) knowingly and willingly with knowledge and ability to deny the course of action, then a moral choice has been made and punishment would be appropriate.

If you believe that there is a choice, then you believe in free will.

In terms of limited choice: there is still free will. The reason people don’t go and just start stealing money or the like is because of the consequence of said action (or morality, depending on the person). It’s not that they can’t choose to do so, it is because a deterrent is in place that makes them not want to make that decision. You can break laws if you want, or do horrible things, or whatever you choose (given means and opportunity—lack of these two does not constitute a lack of free will)—but most don’t because of consequence.

I see well I was just asking those questions really to spark more conversation since they are questions I hear when talking about free will.

Just like to thanks for contributing to this thread so far.Great posts :)

@lykopis: Finally was wondering when you'd post here.

@mrdecepticonleader:

I know, right? lol --- So far, it's made for some interesting reading. Hard to contribute when so much of what I think is already expressed but having said that, I still will. In time. ;P

@lykopis said:

@mrdecepticonleader:

I know, right? lol --- So far, it's made for some interesting reading. Hard to contribute when so much I what I think is already expressed but having said that, I still will. In time. ;P

Excellent

No problem, sir.

bump

@mrdecepticonleader said:

bump

Hell I guess this is as good a place to ask this: It is nearly impossible to change a persons sexual preference. If sexual desire is natural, is a pedophile responsible for their sexual preference?

Hell I guess this is as good a place to ask this: It is nearly impossible to change a persons sexual preference. If sexual desire is natural, is a pedophile responsible for their sexual preference?

@pooty said:

Hell I guess this is as good a place to ask this: It is nearly impossible to change a persons sexual preference. If sexual desire is natural, is a pedophile responsible for their sexual preference?

Well sexual preference and sexual desire are two different things.

There is a reason its considered pedophilia.It harms people.Whilst ones own sexuality doesn't.

Is it natural or not I actually am not sure I may have look into that.Its an interesting question.Weather this is the right thread for it or not.

I am bumping.

I love phil

Thanks :)

See? This is why I love philosophy! It raises so many interesting conversations!

Philosophy is the language of extremely bored people.....

I think philosophy is interesting, but fails horribly when it tries to actually make claims about what's real or isnt, or how the universe works.

Even worse is when people like William Lane Craig try to use it to make claims about the universe to support their religion... double fail!

Tread carefully, the OP made it clear he doesn't want to religious debates in this thread as there's already a thread for that.

Yep.

Philosophy is good I'd say. Thinking for yourself whether you believe something or not.

I personally love it.

In the last few hundred years we've gone from riding horses to the moon. Philosophy is still kicking around virtue ethics, which are thousands of years old. While it can be interesting the field of philosophy is definitely the dismal art to economics dismal science.

@overlordarhas, it seems nihilism varies in meaning, which is ironic to be honest, since most commonly nihilism tells us that there is no meaning. The most extreme case would be somewhat what you mentioned, reality does not exist. It isn't actually a denial of all existence, for example, we exist in an abstract reality but our perception gives it form. The most conventional form of nihilism however is that there is actually no value or purpose to life, or anything for that matter.

The closest thing to that extreme form of nihilism that I've come across would be solipsism, which tells us that we can only be certain that only our minds exist. To me that makes a little bit more philosophical sense than the metaphysical nihilism you spoke of.

@partialsanity:

The one you have given (Nothing Matters) is Existential Nihilism where it states that humanity is insignificant in nature and that, each individual is thrown in space barred from knowing why yet compelled to invent meaning to one's existence. Meaning all we know is subjective in nature and there is no real truth thus nothing matters.

What I have sited as an example is the epistemological form where knowledge is not possible or reality itself does not exist.

@overlordarhas: Ah, that looks like the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia article.

Nihilism can also take epistemological or ontological/metaphysical forms, meaning respectively that, in some aspect, knowledge is not possible, or that reality does not actually exist.

-Wikipedia

Epistemology only deals with knowledge, not reality. What this is saying is that epistemological nihilism in essence means that knowledge is not possible, and that ontological/metaphysical nihilism in essence means that reality doesn't actually exist. If you scroll down to the metaphysical nihilism subsection, it explains a little more in-depth what this really means.

No philosophical concept can tell us that literally nothing exists, for us to be able to come up with the very concept of that means that something has to exist, at most we can say that what we believe is, isn't and we just have no other way to interpret that.

@partialsanity:

If you analyze it closely, knowledge is a collection of raw data accumulated our entire life, it help us define things. If knowledge does not exist can you say that a rock is a rock?

What we know is our personal reality, take that out then nothing exist.

@overlordarhas: Even if knowledge doesn't exist, it would only be because what we know is false. The negation of knowledge alone does not imply the negation of existence. Something has to exist, somewhere. These extreme versions of nihilism only tell us that our reality is not real, and in the most extreme cases it tells us that nothing can be said to be real because the concept of real does not exist. This however doesn't mean that literally nothing exists.

What this is telling us is that the possible reality is some abstract... thing. It is literally indescribable, and anything/anyone that interprets it in any form, which is what this concept assumes we are doing, is wrong. Therefore, all knowledge would be false and any reported version of reality would also be false.

Solipsism deals with this concept also, but it also includes that only our mind truly exists but everything in the phaneron is false.

Nihilism is inherently a form of anti-realism, but anti-realism isn't the same as something that would be considered anti-existentialism.

@partialsanity:

Let us take a rock for example, can it be called a rock without someone affirming that it is a rock, can a rock affirm itself that it exist?

@overlordarhas: A rock can't affirm anything.

Exactly, affirming something is dependent on those who has the ability to affirm, but what if the one affirming or supposed to affirm has no knowledge because knowledge in none-existent? (Am I making sense?)

The rock will ceased to exist because no one will tell that it is.

The existence of the rock becomes meaningless.

@overlordarhas: (Not exactly.)

The implication in nihilism is that knowledge is false, therefore it does not exist. Yes, the existence of the rock becomes meaningless, but it does not negate its abstract existence. Nihilism is basically telling us, that our concrete world is a false representation of an abstract one, therefore nothing we see or experience actually exists because nothing is real, because "real" does not exist as there is no reality in an abstract existence, therefore nothing we do matters because whatever we are doing is not actually real.

Thus we have no purpose or value, our reality is a complete farce. Or in other words, there is no reality, only an abstract existence and a false perception. By extension, there is no spoon.

This thread needs some more love.

You define free will as the alternative to pre-determination in your first paragraph, than say in the last paragraph that it is making decisions on the basis of deterrent. You're erroneously conflating two things that we give the name "free will." The first is a person's will as an alternative to pre-determination. The second is a person's will as the decisive manifestation of pre-determination in decision-making. The first one is nonsense, because a person's will (proceeding from the mechanism of decision-making, including deterrents) is a physical manifestation of pre-determination. The second one isn't, as some decisions are made by agents more independently than others.

We punish people who make bad decisions to deter people from making similarly bad decisions later. That such a decision is made independently means only that the personal punishment of the decision-maker is appropriate, and that through this punishment, prevention of future repetitions of the same sort of decision is possible by influencing independent processes in the subject and other people similar to the ones that led to the decision (general deterrence*). Pre-determination is still in effect.

Making choices is an example of pre-determination, not the absence of it.

* Aside: punishing people instead "because they deserve it" is, simply put, sadism, justified by self-pandering attributions of negative moral value in other people and the "just deserts" that will balance it out. Karma bull**** lol. Since we're in the philosophy thread, I'd like to hear arguments from the other side, but I'm pretty sure it's insupportable if we assert that the ultimate goal of punishment is to minimize suffering.

Here's a question related to the last paragraph above: in general, why and when, if at all, should people be punished?

@mrdecepticonleader: If you mean philosophy, as in logic, then the answer is "It is king of all". It explains things where mathematics cannot. This is due to mathematics and numbers not actually "existing", they are simply concepts created by man.

But logic is essentially the blueprint, the "map key" to understanding the universe. Not everything that occurs is logical, but everything can be explained, by logic, if approached from the right perspective.