No, you're using the language/vocabulary of "theories." I'm not.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 6:00 amI am not using any theories (to my knowledge), and I invented that response to everything YOU say, since you use the language/vocabulary of "theories" and "theorizing", not me.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:17 am Depends on the theory you use, doesn't it?
(You know that you've invited that as a response to every thing you say now, right?)
So it's pertinently obvious you don't know how to use the response
Repressive Tolerance
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Repressive Tolerance
Re: Repressive Tolerance
Immanuel Can is right about monist ontologies' being deterministic. Given that determinism by no means implies prediction, relative freedom lies in the number and power of choices based on probabilities.
Probabilities are obtained from common sense experiences, from science and interpretations of statistics, and from the creating imaginations of free thinkers such as serious artists.
Probabilities are obtained from common sense experiences, from science and interpretations of statistics, and from the creating imaginations of free thinkers such as serious artists.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22281
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Repressive Tolerance
But as per Determinism, "probabilities" are illusory. There is nothing "probable": there is only the inevitable. Our sense of freedom is sheerly (according to Deteminism) an odd but entirely erroneous effect of our lack of knowledge about how things actually work.Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 6:20 pm Immanuel Can is right about monist ontologies' being deterministic. Given that determinism by no means implies prediction, relative freedom lies in the number and power of choices based on probabilities.
Probabilities are obtained from common sense experiences, from science and interpretations of statistics, and from the creating imaginations of free thinkers such as serious artists.
For a Determinist, Picasso's Guernica or Shakespeare's sonnets were as inevitable as the rock that fell off a mountain on Tuesday. Both had nothing to do with actual volition, creativity, personhood or freedom. All that is illusion. They were mere products of prior forces; and the fact that you don't know the prior forces in question doesn't make them less absolute. Not everything that happens, after all, is known by us.
Anyway, that's their argument. I don't believe it, but I do understand their rationale.
Re: Repressive Tolerance
That's not true. I am merely mirroring your vocabulary since you appealed to truth theories, and in particular - the correspondence theory.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:08 pm No, you're using the language/vocabulary of "theories." I'm not.
Need I remind you?
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 4:32 pm For it to be true, at least on correspondence theory.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 5:52 pm It's not selecting the "true" truth theory. I use correspondence because it makes the most sense to me, and it addresses what I'm concerned with. If you'd use something other than correspondence, which presumably you're doing by saying that "murder is wrong" is somehow true, you can explain what truth theory you're using and then we can discuss that.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Repressive Tolerance
The inevitable if it exists is unknown. Probabilities are known, by commonsense or statistical method. The probability of an event can be worked out mathematically.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 6:31 pmBut as per Determinism, "probabilities" are illusory. There is nothing "probable": there is only the inevitable. Our sense of freedom is sheerly (according to Deteminism) an odd but entirely erroneous effect of our lack of knowledge about how things actually work.Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 6:20 pm Immanuel Can is right about monist ontologies' being deterministic. Given that determinism by no means implies prediction, relative freedom lies in the number and power of choices based on probabilities.
Probabilities are obtained from common sense experiences, from science and interpretations of statistics, and from the creating imaginations of free thinkers such as serious artists.
For a Determinist, Picasso's Guernica or Shakespeare's sonnets were as inevitable as the rock that fell off a mountain on Tuesday. Both had nothing to do with actual volition, creativity, personhood or freedom. All that is illusion. They were mere products of prior forces; and the fact that you don't know the prior forces in question doesn't make them less absolute. Not everything that happens, after all, is known by us.
Anyway, that's their argument. I don't believe it, but I do understand their rationale.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22281
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Repressive Tolerance
But saying it's "unknown" doesn't actually change anything. We might know we're predetermined, or we might not know it. Either way, we are or we aren't. And if we are predetermined, and we don't even know we are, we aren't free...we're just ignorant and predetermined.
Freedom doesn't magically appear from our ignorance of the truth about that.
Re: Repressive Tolerance
So what? I learned it from you.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 8:51 pm You didn't only bring up theory in relation to that. You started bringing it up with everything.
If you insist that I am appealing to a truth theory when I use the word truth,
then why aren't you appealing to a wellness; or an objectivity theory when you use the words wellness and objectivity?
Re: Repressive Tolerance
- This is the first I’ve read this thread, but:Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 6:31 pm For a Determinist, Picasso's Guernica or Shakespeare's sonnets were as inevitable as the rock that fell off a mountain on Tuesday. Both had nothing to do with actual volition, creativity, personhood or freedom. All that is illusion. They were mere products of prior forces; and the fact that you don't know the prior forces in question doesn't make them less absolute. Not everything that happens, after all, is known by us.
Anyway, that's their argument. I don't believe it, but I do understand their rationale.
- That doesn’t make sense.
- Picasso in all his complexity is an element comprising the situation in which Guernica was inevitably created.
- Same goes for Shakespeare and his adventures.
- This means that the actual volition, creativity, personhood or freedom that you reference are necessary elements which comprise their compounded art, because these are elements comprising each of the artists.
- So, based on your rationale that the human element is apart from life forces that comprise inevitability, you are correct. If that is also what Determinists have determined, then they are also correct.
- However, based on the fact that the human element is an aspect of all that is known or can be known, then you and these Determinists are incorrect at the beginning.
Now it makes perfect sense, the universe is returned to order, but I'm not responsible for what folks do with it.
You never know what might cause a riot these days.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Repressive Tolerance
Learning requires waiting a bit before trying to argue.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 8:30 amSo what? I learned it from you.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 8:51 pm You didn't only bring up theory in relation to that. You started bringing it up with everything.
Re: Repressive Tolerance
I am not arguing. I am applying your rules reflectively.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 pm Learning requires waiting a bit before trying to argue.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Repressive Tolerance
You're certainly not learning, because no one is talking about rules.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:56 pmI am not arguing. I am applying your rules reflectively.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:54 pm Learning requires waiting a bit before trying to argue.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22281
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Repressive Tolerance
Well, be sure you don't overlook my last line above, W.Walker wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 10:27 am- This is the first I’ve read this thread, but:Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 6:31 pm For a Determinist, Picasso's Guernica or Shakespeare's sonnets were as inevitable as the rock that fell off a mountain on Tuesday. Both had nothing to do with actual volition, creativity, personhood or freedom. All that is illusion. They were mere products of prior forces; and the fact that you don't know the prior forces in question doesn't make them less absolute. Not everything that happens, after all, is known by us.
Anyway, that's their argument. I don't believe it, but I do understand their rationale.
- That doesn’t make sense.
The first thing you need to understand here, then, is that the above summary is not what I believe: it's a summary of what Determinists who follow the logic of their Determinism have to believe. That's quite an important distinction.
So if you feel you want to object, it's got to be either that a) the Determinists are incorrect, or b) that you suppose my summarization of what their logic has to be lacks some feature, or fails to represent the logic of their position in some way.
You can object to them, or you can object to me, in other words: but you can't object to both at the same time, by means of the same argument, since Determinists and I do not share these views in common.
Fair enough?
So now, which objection are you making: a) or b)?
Re: Repressive Tolerance
Total freedom is not possible. Relative freedom is possible. We are ignorant slaves of fortune, some more so than others. Those who are relatively more free are those who acquire information and sound judgement and that sort of person has more and better choices.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 10:33 pmBut saying it's "unknown" doesn't actually change anything. We might know we're predetermined, or we might not know it. Either way, we are or we aren't. And if we are predetermined, and we don't even know we are, we aren't free...we're just ignorant and predetermined.
Freedom doesn't magically appear from our ignorance of the truth about that.
It may be objected that more knowledge and better judgement does not imply goodness.This is true. However there is a larger probability a person will be good if they are well informed and have sound judgement.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22281
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Repressive Tolerance
Not quite the point, but okay.
I wish there were an easy relationship between intelligence and integrity, but I fear that life teaches us there is not. That is not the point.
However, the real point is this: does not knowing your are the thrall of predetermining forces mean that one is no longer a thrall of predetermining forces, and thus volitionally free.
And the answer to that, of course, is "no." If the Determinists were right, it would make absolutely no difference whether you and I knew that Determinism is true, or, on the other hand, whether we were blissfully ignorant of the same fact.
The only thing that would make an actual difference is if Determinism is, in fact, not true. Which, I suggest, is the case.