"Free will was given to man by god."

[Sculptor]

Henry Quirk wrote:

That's exactly it. You and me, as agents, push at and jump over and pull at dominos (events & causal chains), but we're not dominos, you and me.

Some people are less like dominos . Strength to the people who refuse to be pushed over by popular opinions but have their bases anchored in knowledge and fair judgement.

But to bring this away from self congratulation and back to the philosophical idea of free will and determinism...
Some people are indeed more like dominoes and others more able to challenge authority - but for each moment in time they are determined to act that way due to antecedent factors.
Terry Jones is on my mind at the moment. There is no doubt that had I not seen Monty Pythons rip apart the establishment and those endemic cultural assumptions, I would not be so anti-establishment myself, and neither would millions of others.
The experiences of my life determine who and what I am, I'd not have it any other way.

It is ironic that the person you are quoting here is possibly the most rigid, and establishment poster on this Forum; right wing, nationalistic, and thinks in the most standard and predictable way of anyone, yet he also harbours this incoherent idea about "free will" which is more about a political view than a philosophical one.

[Immanuel Can]

Some people are indeed more like dominoes

If that's so, then you're admitting that some are not: i.e. that free will exists.

Terry Jones is on my mind at the moment. There is no doubt that had I not seen Monty Pythons rip apart the establishment and those endemic cultural assumptions, I would not be so anti-establishment myself, and neither would millions of others.
The experiences of my life determine who and what I am, I'd not have it any other way.

So Terry Jones had free will, but you don't?

"free will" which is more about a political view than a philosophical one.

This isn't correct. You've got the tail wagging the dog, there.

Free will versus Determinism is a metaphysical question. Any "politics" one gets from it are merely derivative of the answer to the metaphysical question.

[henry quirk]

Henry Quirk wrote:

That's exactly it. You and me, as agents, push at and jump over and pull at dominos (events & causal chains), but we're not dominos, you and me.

Some people are less like dominos . Strength to the people who refuse to be pushed over by popular opinions but have their bases anchored in knowledge and fair judgement.

None of us are like dominos, but many are stupid and weak.

That some folks are weak-willed or stupid is not a refutation of free will (agent causality).

[henry quirk]

Henry Quirk wrote:

That's exactly it. You and me, as agents, push at and jump over and pull at dominos (events & causal chains), but we're not dominos, you and me.

Some people are less like dominos . Strength to the people who refuse to be pushed over by popular opinions but have their bases anchored in knowledge and fair judgement.

But to bring this away from self congratulation and back to the philosophical idea of free will and determinism...
Some people are indeed more like dominoes and others more able to challenge authority - but for each moment in time they are determined to act that way due to antecedent factors.
Terry Jones is on my mind at the moment. There is no doubt that had I not seen Monty Pythons rip apart the establishment and those endemic cultural assumptions, I would not be so anti-establishment myself, and neither would millions of others.
The experiences of my life determine who and what I am, I'd not have it any other way.

It is ironic that the person you are quoting here is possibly the most rigid, and establishment poster on this Forum; right wing, nationalistic, and thinks in the most standard and predictable way of anyone, yet he also harbours this incoherent idea about "free will" which is more about a political view than a philosophical one.

[Belinda]

I agree all points, Sculptor.

It is a challenge to see if I can get him to understand that Free Will does not exist. At least Henry writes explicitly and is a deist which is encouraging.

[Lacewing]

how is it that people can end up in all kinds of ways, despite having similar encounters, influences, and circumstances? If these things are what create/mold the individual, then there would not be people who explore or think or function beyond their circumstances or experiences.

I see how you feel, but please think on the following true examples.

Yes, those stories represent powerful circumstances and time periods, and we are all profoundly affected by such things. I don't think that invalidates what I said, however. People CAN see beyond all sorts of things. Maybe not all people (in general) -- although I don't really see why not, as I see everyone as made of the same stuff...and barring some extreme limitation, it seems that all can have access to greater awareness (individually or collectively) than we might be swimming in currently or at any given time.

My views are not intended as disrespect for any hardships you feel passionate about. There are stories from all around the world and all throughout time of people who have persevered and created against the odds... so it's not just some "privileged" modern American circumstance. People have powerful abilities anywhere, anytime.

People can be terribly cruel and evil regardless of whatever platforms they claim to stand on. It is horrific. The flip side is that people can be incredibly kind and loving and brilliant. It is inspiring and magnificent. This is why I see a full range of potential for human creativity, and there are no absolute factors determining absolute outcomes. Any of us can be any of those things (I'm guessing)...just as we can imagine or justify all sorts of things to rationalize or believe all kinds of things. In that way, we are like mini gods and fantastic artists, crafting our lives on a backdrop canvas created by a collective. So many possibilities from within ourselves and without.

I am hoping that in 20 years we will be in quite a different state of awareness, such that we will look back on THIS time and think "Wow! WE humans were SO primitive!" And we will shake our heads in disbelief of the archaic notions/patterns that seem so inescapable/certain to us right now.

[henry quirk]

I agree all points, Sculptor.

It is a challenge to see if I can get him to understand that Free Will does not exist. At least Henry writes explicitly and is a deist which is encouraging.

You have about as much a chance of that as I have of gettin' you to understand that you are a free will.

[Nick_A]

Lacewing

Lacewing wrote:
Truths are everywhere, in many forms.
Yes partial truths are everywhere but they all have a place within the ineffable whole truth which you reject
So here's another example of you reframing and then saying what I do.

You say, "Yes partial truths are everywhere". Well, I did not say "partial truths" -- that's your idea. You say "Yes", as if we're in agreement -- or as if you have the more complete view of what we both can see -- and then you state your complete view which you say I "reject". Rather than saying I "disagree"... you say "reject". Because you're framing it as the ONLY complete view, and therefore, my resistance is futile and I am "rejecting" it.

Dishonest, distorted, AND manipulative.

This is the beginning. If you do not believe in the necessity of the conscious ineffable wholeness Plotinus called the ONE which is the source of all lesser truths, then the only other alternative is interacting truths being called wholeness.

The point is that the belief in the supremacy of interacting truths I call partial truths necessitates the rejection of the idea of the ONE within which their ideas reside. I still don't know which hypothesis is the beginning of your philosophy

I have learned both by experience in life and online that the idea of one ultimate truth from which creation has emerged cannot be intellectually rejected so instead becomes emotionally rejected and can even produce the drastic results of the emotional rejection of the alternative to self importance.

If the perfectly just (i.e., righteous) man were to come into the world…“He will be scourged, racked, bound. He will have his eyes burned out. And at last, after suffering every kind of evil, he will be impaled.” Plato's Republic

Intellectual doubt and emotional rejection are not the same and IMO the person who realizes their difference in quality already knows a great deal.

[Immanuel Can]

It is a challenge to see if I can get him to understand that Free Will does not exist.

It's almost like he has the free will to choose to disbelieve you...

[Lacewing]

I have learned both by experience in life and online that the idea of one ultimate truth from which creation has emerged cannot be intellectually rejected

What you and I have "learned/experienced" is different. That difference does not make me emotional and you intellectual.

The idea of an "ultimate truth" that you base everything on apparently requires distortion of anything to the contrary? All you have to do is look at how YOU USE distortion and dishonesty against others, and then maybe you can consider that it is your own self-serving manipulation at work.

[Nick_A]

I have learned both by experience in life and online that the idea of one ultimate truth from which creation has emerged cannot be intellectually rejected

What you and I have "learned/experienced" is different. That difference does not make me emotional and you intellectual.

The idea of an "ultimate truth" that you base everything on apparently requires distortion of anything to the contrary? All you have to do is look at how YOU USE distortion and dishonesty against others, and then maybe you can consider that it is your own self-serving manipulation at work.

This is what I mean. Plato's concept of the GOOD and Plotinus' concept of the ONE cannot be intellectually rejected. You may disagree but it cannot be rejected. The inability to contemplate these ideas leads to emotional rejection and accusations like distortion and dishonesty. You will be incapable of providing examples. It is the way of the world and how it responds to what it doesn't understand and threatens its self importance.

[Lacewing]

…

I've pointed to examples of your distortion, projection, and dishonesty right here on the forum. You repeatedly accuse people of believing and being all kinds of things that are not true. Why don't you address that, and explain why you resort to that?

[Sculptor]

Some people are indeed more like dominoes

If that's so, then you're admitting that some are not: i.e. that free will exists.

Rubbish. Try and use that brain.

Terry Jones is on my mind at the moment. There is no doubt that had I not seen Monty Pythons rip apart the establishment and those endemic cultural assumptions, I would not be so anti-establishment myself, and neither would millions of others.
The experiences of my life determine who and what I am, I'd not have it any other way.

So Terry Jones had free will, but you don't?

Rubbish. Try and use that brain.

"free will" which is more about a political view than a philosophical one.

This isn't correct. You've got the tail wagging the dog, there.

Rubbish. Try and use that brain.

Free will versus Determinism is a metaphysical question. Any "politics" one gets from it are merely derivative of the answer to the metaphysical question.

Free will is an invention of religion; wholly political, and has no metaphysical basis.

[Immanuel Can]

Free will is an invention of religion; wholly political, and has no metaphysical basis.

I guess all the experts are wrong...https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

[Nick_A]

…

I've pointed to examples of your distortion, projection, and dishonesty right here on the forum. You repeatedly accuse people of believing and being all kinds of things that are not true. Why don't you address that, and explain why you resort to that?

It's all in your mind. Give me an example of distortion, projection, and dishonesty. What is there to be dishonest about: Plato's cave? Its deeper meanings are what they are. If you cannot discuss them it is OK. But why does secularism deny with such animosity the great ideas which serve to awaken the world to the reality of the human condition? What good does it do to introduce negativity into philosophy especially for the young who are beginning to psychologically confront the great questions? Yes it is human nature but nothing to be proud of.