Free Will vs Determinism

[Immanuel Can]

Of course you couldn't. Getting along is more important to you type people than the truth.

Is that why you imagine I'm so conciliatory with you?

I don't recall backing down to keep the peace, and I don't think I am now. I think you're blowing smoke: that's the truth.

Plain and controversial enough for you? Or am I still trying to "get along"?

[Vendetta]

Vendetta wrote:

That's where you're wrong. You've completely missed our point. We are not saying that there are not bad things that need to be discussed, we are talking about the manner in which they are discussed. Of course there are bad things out there, the world is a screwed up place. And of course these things need to be brought to the table. But they can be looked at in a way that doesn't directly insult either party and takes all perspectives into consideration. We could be talking about the bombing of children in Sudan or somewhere, but the nature of the topic has nothing to do with whether or not you are so strong to your beliefs that you are unwilling to even entertain those of others, and instead bash them for believing such.

What do you mean "entertain" (others' beliefs)?

True, you should understand the stories others are telling themselves and others. Having comprehended you are justified in bashing them for believing dangerous nonsense. You don't bash children, idiots, ill people, or slaves. You do lambast adults who refuse to take up their responsibilities to serve others and who instead serve themselves. Anger is justifiable and it can be effectual to express anger against men who are doing bad actions.

There are some of us here at online philosophy discussions who don't do philosophy as a form of escapism, but who are sincere.

Entertain as in at least consider before getting to that point. When people believe dangerous nonsense they are often misinformed. Yelling at them for believing what they do is not going to make them change their minds, it will only make them more defensive. What must be targetted is the idea, not the individual. If you look into why the person believes the idea and still conclude that it is harmful and wrong then by all means debate them and attempt to change their mind. But that can be done without lambasting people, which never gets anywhere.
People are more likely to see your point of view when you are calm and reasonable.
Additionally, I am throughly sincere in my philosophy.

[Immanuel Can]

...what Vendetta just said. That. Yes.

Vendetta wrote:

That's where you're wrong. You've completely missed our point. We are not saying that there are not bad things that need to be discussed, we are talking about the manner in which they are discussed. Of course there are bad things out there, the world is a screwed up place. And of course these things need to be brought to the table. But they can be looked at in a way that doesn't directly insult either party and takes all perspectives into consideration. We could be talking about the bombing of children in Sudan or somewhere, but the nature of the topic has nothing to do with whether or not you are so strong to your beliefs that you are unwilling to even entertain those of others, and instead bash them for believing such.

What do you mean "entertain" (others' beliefs)?

"Entertain" means to suspend in deliberation for a while, so as to sort out the facts. It's the opposite of "to dismiss out of hand."

True, you should understand the stories others are telling themselves and others. Having comprehended you are justified in bashing them for believing dangerous nonsense. You don't bash children, idiots, ill people, or slaves. You do lambast adults who refuse to take up their responsibilities to serve others and who instead serve themselves. Anger is justifiable and it can be effectual to express anger against men who are doing bad actions.

But here, we just talk about clarifying issues. Nobody's "doing" things by email. And talking rudely is unhelpful in clarifying issues. Personal attacks are irrelevant, and rhetoric is just empty posturing...someone trying to put enough acrimony and spite in their writing to convey emotion rather than intelligence, and bash other people into wounded silence.

That sort of thing is distracting, unhelpful, cowardly and petty. Why bother? We can be polite and still be strong in our intelligence. In fact, if we have to resort to rhetoric instead of substance, chances are we are conscious of intellectual failure on our part.

There are some of us here at online philosophy discussions who don't do philosophy as a form of escapism, but who are sincere.

Then we should talk with sincerity. We should focus on issues, not persons, on premises, not rhetoric, and on making intellectual progress, not on shutting people down.

Alas, there's a mix here.

[Vendetta]

...what Vendetta just said. That. Yes.

Vendetta wrote:

That's where you're wrong. You've completely missed our point. We are not saying that there are not bad things that need to be discussed, we are talking about the manner in which they are discussed. Of course there are bad things out there, the world is a screwed up place. And of course these things need to be brought to the table. But they can be looked at in a way that doesn't directly insult either party and takes all perspectives into consideration. We could be talking about the bombing of children in Sudan or somewhere, but the nature of the topic has nothing to do with whether or not you are so strong to your beliefs that you are unwilling to even entertain those of others, and instead bash them for believing such.

What do you mean "entertain" (others' beliefs)?

"Entertain" means to suspend in deliberation for a while, so as to sort out the facts. It's the opposite of "to dismiss out of hand."

True, you should understand the stories others are telling themselves and others. Having comprehended you are justified in bashing them for believing dangerous nonsense. You don't bash children, idiots, ill people, or slaves. You do lambast adults who refuse to take up their responsibilities to serve others and who instead serve themselves. Anger is justifiable and it can be effectual to express anger against men who are doing bad actions.

But here, we just talk about clarifying issues. Nobody's "doing" things by email. And talking rudely is unhelpful in clarifying issues. Personal attacks are irrelevant, and rhetoric is just empty posturing...someone trying to put enough acrimony and spite in their writing to convey emotion rather than intelligence, and bash other people into wounded silence.

That sort of thing is distracting, unhelpful, cowardly and petty. Why bother? We can be polite and still be strong in our intelligence. In fact, if we have to resort to rhetoric instead of substance, chances are we are conscious of intellectual failure on our part.

There are some of us here at online philosophy discussions who don't do philosophy as a form of escapism, but who are sincere.

Then we should talk with sincerity. We should focus on issues, not persons, on premises, not rhetoric, and on making intellectual progress, not on shutting people down.

Alas, there's a mix here.

Much more well said than my response from a few seconds ago. Thank you.

[Belinda]

Vendetta wrote:

Then we should talk with sincerity. We should focus on issues, not persons, on premises, not rhetoric, and on making intellectual progress, not on shutting people down.

Nice behaviour has been tried. The world is very bad and there are very bad people in charge of much of the world. Bad people should be shut down. I don't think there are bad and powerful people in online philosophy forums but there might be. There are bad people elsewhere online and bad ideas are proliferating. The ideas that bad people are inspired by should be heard but countered with all due violence if that is what it takes. I am sorry but I did not make the world.

[Immanuel Can]

Vendetta wrote:

Then we should talk with sincerity. We should focus on issues, not persons, on premises, not rhetoric, and on making intellectual progress, not on shutting people down.

Nice behaviour has been tried. The world is very bad and there are very bad people in charge of much of the world.

Not tried enough. One does not cure the abundance of bad behaviour by practicing it oneself.

Bad people should be shut down.

I disagree. I don't want other people deciding for me who I can and cannot listen to, as if I were a child who could not discern truth for himself. Let them talk: I feel comfortable sorting them out. I think the best argument can win. Let the children stay home.

The ideas that bad people are inspired by should be heard but countered with all due violence if that is what it takes.

Violence? Then, in the words of the '70s band The Who, "Meet the new boss / Same as the old boss." If we use violence to win, then we become the next totalitarian regime.

I am sorry but I did not make the world.

True. But we will make it what it will become. So we must watch that we do not perpetuate cruelty, stupidity and violence, even if we are doing so in the name of some cause we consider unimpeachably good. A pogrom in the name of righteousness is still a pogrom; and a gulag in the service of the ideal state is still a gulag.

Or (to tip my hat to Marshall McLuhan) the means we use inevitably become the message we actually proclaim.

[thedoc]

True. But we will make it what it will become. So we must watch that we do not perpetuate cruelty, stupidity and violence, even if we are doing so in the name of some cause we consider unimpeachably good. A pogrom in the name of righteousness is still a pogrom; and a gulag in the service of the ideal state is still a gulag.

Or (to tip my hat to Marshall McLuhan) the means we use inevitably become the message we actually proclaim.

A noble idea, but when confronted with violence, you can either submit and cease to be a factor, or counter violence with violence. Or chose some other response with unknown results. If I win and survive, I get to write the history, as long as I eliminate anyone who might write the truth.

[thedoc]

the means we use inevitably become the message we actually proclaim.

Don't do as I say, do as I do.

[Immanuel Can]

A noble idea, but when confronted with violence, you can either submit and cease to be a factor, or counter violence with violence. Or chose some other response with unknown results. If I win and survive, I get to write the history, as long as I eliminate anyone who might write the truth.

That's the world as Nietzsche and Foucault have interpreted it...a place of raw power struggle, in which the language of morals and values is no more than the attempts by one faction or another to dominate and suppress others. It's all a "fix," all a fake, all a power grab and nothing more. Nobody's morally sincere, except the deluded. And the supermen who transcend good and evil as concepts entirely, well they get the pole position.

And you know, I think he might well be entirely right...about the secular world, the world without God. It's quite possible that out there it's nothing but raw power against raw power, and all values are just hypocritical postures adopted by the winners. For that reason, I've always enjoyed Nietzsche. He and I do not disagree on his diagnosis, IF "God is dead."

But that's not the world as it really is. In the real world, there's men who make up morals, and there is right and wrong as God knows them to be. And in the end, God wins. Every time. That's how all this plays out.

Therefore, we have to make sure to use the morals and the methods of the winning side, or wind up on the losing side. Temporarily, evil may sometimes seem to get the upper hand; but the story ain't over yet.

[Immanuel Can]

the means we use inevitably become the message we actually proclaim.

Don't do as I say, do as I do.

Or "practice what you preach"?

[Vendetta]

A noble idea, but when confronted with violence, you can either submit and cease to be a factor, or counter violence with violence. Or chose some other response with unknown results. If I win and survive, I get to write the history, as long as I eliminate anyone who might write the truth.

That's the world as Nietzsche and Foucault have interpreted it...a place of raw power struggle, in which the language of morals and values is no more than the attempts by one faction or another to dominate and suppress others. It's all a "fix," all a fake, all a power grab and nothing more. Nobody's morally sincere, except the deluded. And the supermen who transcend good and evil as concepts entirely, well they get the pole position.

And you know, I think he might well be entirely right...about the secular world, the world without God. It's quite possible that out there it's nothing but raw power against raw power, and all values are just hypocritical postures adopted by the winners. For that reason, I've always enjoyed Nietzsche. He and I do not disagree on his diagnosis, IF "God is dead."

But that's not the world as it really is. In the real world, there's men who make up morals, and there is right and wrong as God knows them to be. And in the end, God wins. Every time. That's how all this plays out.

Therefore, we have to make sure to use the morals and the methods of the winning side, or wind up on the losing side. Temporarily, evil may sometimes seem to get the upper hand; but the story ain't over yet.

Your faith is insanely admirable. Perhaps this very concept of this becoming an ungoverned, dog eat dog world is part of why many hope that God is there to set it all straight, and cling to faith even in the darkest of times.

[thedoc]

And in the end, God wins. Every time. That's how all this plays out.

And what is God's end, it isn't always what people expect.

[thedoc]

God is there to set it all straight.

Certainly God will set it straight, in God's own time and in God's own way.
Why should God behave according to human expectations?
I know I've posted this before, but I think it bears repeating.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwkgGPvClF4&t=78s

[Immanuel Can]

...Perhaps this very concept of this becoming an ungoverned, dog eat dog world is part of why many hope that God is there to set it all straight, and cling to faith even in the darkest of times.

Possibly. Of course, there'd be no good in doing that if it turned out not to be true. Hope that is never fulfilled is just a happy delusion, right? However, I suppose even an Atheist could make a sort of case for faith -- after all, if there's no reward in believing the world is a random place with no God in it, and that death ends all, why not embrace anything that makes one even a little bit more happy? Ironically, I can't think of how an Atheist would argue AGAINST happy delusions.

However, for my part, I would make no case in favour of delusions, happy or otherwise. And fake hope...well, that would just be a kind of betrayal, wouldn't it?

But faith that is grounded in knowledge and hope that does not disappoint are very wonderful companions in difficult days.

[Belinda]

Vendetta wrote:

Then we should talk with sincerity. We should focus on issues, not persons, on premises, not rhetoric, and on making intellectual progress, not on shutting people down.

Nice behaviour has been tried. The world is very bad and there are very bad people in charge of much of the world.

Not tried enough. One does not cure the abundance of bad behaviour by practicing it oneself.

Bad people should be shut down.

I disagree. I don't want other people deciding for me who I can and cannot listen to, as if I were a child who could not discern truth for himself. Let them talk: I feel comfortable sorting them out. I think the best argument can win. Let the children stay home.

The ideas that bad people are inspired by should be heard but countered with all due violence if that is what it takes.

Violence? Then, in the words of the '70s band The Who, "Meet the new boss / Same as the old boss." If we use violence to win, then we become the next totalitarian regime.

I am sorry but I did not make the world.

True. But we will make it what it will become. So we must watch that we do not perpetuate cruelty, stupidity and violence, even if we are doing so in the name of some cause we consider unimpeachably good. A pogrom in the name of righteousness is still a pogrom; and a gulag in the service of the ideal state is still a gulag.

Or (to tip my hat to Marshall McLuhan) the means we use inevitably become the message we actually proclaim.

Psychologically it's true that violence breeds violence, and this is true of regimes as well as true of individuals. Justice sometimes demands that our only choice for serving justice is by way of killing other people. Two points: there are just wars for instance the second World War : and there are internationally- acclaimed rules for conducting war .

Once diplomacy and appeasement have been tried, as happened in the run-up to WW II, war is the best choice. If we had not fought Germany we would have been overrun by Nazis. The first World War was not a just war, and it would not have made any difference which of the two aristocratic regimes ruled Britain, although arguably the Kaiser himself was more deranged than the British regime.