So should he exercise some free will and take a more responsible path?
And why does foul language apparently rank worse than lying about who you are?
Free will versus determinism
- Thread starter peacegirl
- Start date
- Status
So should he exercise some free will and take a more responsible path?
And why does foul language apparently rank worse than lying about who you are?
I did not degrade anyone, but having someone degrade me by throwing foul language around is hurtful. He would have never hurt me if we were in the new world knowing that I would be compelled to turn the other cheek. No, he does not have free will karrie, and neither do you or I. Because s_lone was frustrated he got greater satisfaction out of saying what he did. I am really not blaming him even though I struck back (we're still in this world and therefore we can't use these principles 100%) because I know he couldn't help himself at that moment. I am just hurt. I hope he regrets what he said.
I don't think I was clear. It starts out in alphabetical order and then you have to figure out how to get 35 distinct 3 letter combinations so that each of the 15 different letters on a line and in all 35 groups would never be twice with any other letter, just like he stated. In other words, it doesn't matter what combination the letters are in, just so they aren't with the same letter twice.
Last edited:
Yes, I am retaliating. Do you think I'm going to turn the other cheek? We're not in the new world because if we were you would not have used this demeaning language toward me and therefore I would not need to strike back. I hope you realize that you did strike the first blow s_lone, and now you want to be excused. And you actually think you understand this knowledge? 8O
I just looked at the answer and it doesn't look easy to me. So be my guest and try to figure it out. Kudos to you if you can. I am routing for you.
You might try to set the example. You claim to have this knowledge, why doesn't it NOW compel you to turn the other cheek? You've claimed from the beginning that once people have this knowledge that's how they'll behave, but it's not how you behave. Do you not see that this shows Lessans' view of human nature is hopelessly naive? It's simply not reasonable to believe that in the new world people will never get frustrated or exasperated or angry or hurt enough to lash out at anyone, you can't even do it in this virtual world.
There's no way to resolve this discussion. All we can do is stop, no other resolution is possible. A key part of Lessan's thesis is that anyone who understands it will be compelled to agree with it. Peacegirl thinks that's true. Nobody else does, so according to the book--and peacegirl of course--that means we don't understand it. If we did, we'd agree. Either we accept his thesis, or we don't understand it, there are no other options, and in particular there's no possibility he could be wrong. Once we do understand it, all our criticisms of it will go away. That's what the book says, and that's really all peacegirl keeps saying. Over and over and over and over... No defence or further explanation is necessary, all that's required is repetition, until we finally get it.
I give up. These principles prevent the first blow. But we're not in the new world, so if I get hurt by someone, I will probably retaliate. I'm not going to sit there and take abuse. Most people find it hard to turn the other cheek because it's our nature to strike back when hurt.
dexter said:
This thread is going down the tube fast. I don't think at this point there is anything that is going to change that.
you've been saying that for 20 pages. lol.
You said it yourself, it is in our nature to strike back when hurt. It is also in human nature to have expectations of others, and to be hurt when people don't meet those expectations. That is why his theory goes COMPLETELY against human nature, and would never happen. Because for it to take effect, someone would have to first turn their cheek and accept the blow without blame, without anger, without frustration, without resentment. And if you can buy into his theory so 100%, and still not see that, not live that, then why would people who don't agree with it EVER end up living it?
You said it yourself, it is in our nature to strike back when hurt. It is also in human nature to have expectations of others, and to be hurt when people don't meet those expectations. That is why his theory goes COMPLETELY against human nature, and would never happen. Because for it to take effect, someone would have to first turn their cheek and accept the blow without blame, without anger, without frustration, without resentment. And if you can buy into his theory so 100%, and still not see that, not live that, then why would people who don't agree with it EVER end up living it?
If people read the first two chapters as they claim, why have they forgotten everything that was written?
"Although Spinoza did not understand the full significance of this enigmatic corollary, he accepted it by rejecting the opposite principle of ‘an eye for an eye’ by refusing to defend himself against his sister or blame her for cheating him out of his inheritance. Neither he nor his sister had a free choice because the one was willing to cheat to get what she wanted while he was willing to be cheated rather than hold her responsible. Spinoza made matters worse for himself financially, but at that moment of time he had no free choice because it gave him greater satisfaction to let her cheat him out of what he was entitled to by law. Both of them were moving in the direction of what gave them satisfaction.
Spinoza’s sister had no understanding of this knowledge nor did the world at that time, although Spinoza himself knew that man’s will is not free. Consequently, he allowed others to hurt him with a first blow by turning the other cheek. He was excommunicated from the synagogue while being God-intoxicated, which seems to be a contradiction. You would think that a person would be thrown out for being an atheist but not for being a God-intoxicated man. The fact that I know God is a reality doesn’t intoxicate me. I know that the sun is also a reality but when the heat gets unbearable, should I jump for joy? There is no comparison between Spinoza and myself. He was a gentle man, I am not. He refused to blame his sister for stealing what rightfully belonged to him because he was confused and believed she couldn’t help herself. I, on the other hand, would never advocate turning the other cheek when someone can get the advantage by not turning it. He excused her conduct, but if someone tried to take what belonged to me I’d fight him tooth and nail.
Turning the other cheek under these conditions could make matters worse, which is why many people reject the pacifist position. How is it humanly possible not to fight back when one is being hurt first, which goes back to the justification of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ I personally would get greater satisfaction defending myself or retaliating against those people who would do, or have done, things to hurt me and my family. I’m not a saint, but a scientist of human conduct. Most of mankind is compelled, for greater satisfaction, to move in this direction. Therefore, it should be clear that the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, does not mean that you should suddenly stop blaming because you have discovered that man’s will is not free. It only means at this point that we are going to follow it, to extend it, to see exactly where it takes us; something that investigators like Durant have never done because the implications prevented them from opening the door beyond the vestibule.
The fact that man’s will is not free only means that he is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. If you sock me I might get greater satisfaction in socking you back. However, once man understands what it means that his will is not free, this desire to sock me is prevented by your realization that I will never blame you for hurting me. Until this knowledge is understood we will be compelled to continue living in the world of free will, otherwise, we would only make matters worse for ourselves."
Uh-huh.... this is my point. Until you could convince EVERYONE (which will never happen, humanity is too diverse for that), that his baseless plan would bring about peace, it would be unworkable.
It boils down to one simple thing... all utopian ideals require that everyone think the same, and humanity doesn't.
It boils down to one simple thing... all utopian ideals require that everyone think the same, and humanity doesn't.
peacegirl; This thread is going down the tube fast. I don't think at this point there is anything that is going to change that.[/QUOTE said:
I wouldn't be responding if you weren't posting.
Your pics don't make it plainer. One can be threatened by words. Words on a screen have meanings, and they affect people differently.
You're right, but if people are so antagonistic about this comment that they won't read the book, then I have to rethink if it is absolutely necessary to include it, especially when it doesn't take away from his observations regarding the eyes.
:sleepy2:
It was a rhetorical question. No, I don't need your comments because they add nothing to the debate.
Thanks for the entertainment. Your pics were great, but once is enough. Next time you're on ignore. I am not taking anymore abuse from you.
As she said: "I wouldn't be responding if you weren't posting." and "Next time you're on ignore."
Seems like the lady is suggesting a way to end all this herself, no?
I think this thread should be renamed "Much Ado about Nothing"- hopefully without being an afront to the Great Bard.
That's right, and that simple statement gives the lie to Lessans' thesis. There's nothing in his utopian world that guarantees nobody will ever be hurt.
All this discovery does is prevent the first blow; it does not prevent the range of diversity in human beings that makes life interesting.
You don't have to regret what you said. I just want you to know that I did not come here to frustrate you, but that does not give you permission to talk to me in such a manner. I am not a dog to be treated like garbage just because you don't like something Lessans said. I thought these forums were about free expression. I came here to explain a discovery whether you believe it is genuine or not. For you to demand that I side with you on the issue of the eyes is wrong, but I do forgive you. I must be hitting a nerve and you are taking it out on me. I have respected you throughout this long discussion, and I would hope you would do the same.
No, there isn't a guarantee. Someone could accidentally knock into someone and they would have a knee jerk reaction and hit them back. But overall, this knowledge does prevent so much of the hurt (which you will see as you read how these principles work as they are extended into every area of human relation; that is, if you ever get that far). When the hurt is removed that is driving us to act out our anger (especially in the economic world), and then when this principle is put into effect, you will see that a peaceful world is actually very attainable, even though at first glance it sounds like a fairy tale. But that's only because your thinking is based on the world as it exists today.
Let's forget the fallacies for now.. Rather, let's look at this practically in today's society and see what kind of solutions it can provide.
How do you think representative groups - like governments or religious entities - would act differently regarding these sorts of matters if they were acting in compliance with the ideology that you are proposing? For instance, foreign policy - terrorism and the mandate for war in the middle east. Or how about in the territory itself - the ground zero mosque and the tenacity between religious factions?
What could be done differently by these groups that one might deem more appropriate behaviour and in line with the deterministic principles you are suggesting?
- Status