Repressive Tolerance

[Immanuel Can]

True, freedom is both burden and blessing.

Indeed it is. But most people seem to think it's a burden worth bearing.

I agree will may be construed as desire.

"Be construed" is incorrect. Desire IS an expression of will. The former is a subcategory of the latter, not distinct from it. Just as you say,

However will, for men, is more than basic needs but is basic needs plus acquired beliefs and attitudes.

All of those, basic needs, beliefs, and attitudes are caused .

By what?

There is no reason, apart from religious doctrine, to presume the existence of something called "Free Will".

Actually, there very much is.

Right now, you're presuming free will. How do I know? Because you are arguing. An argument presumes that people can "change their minds" on the basis of nothing more than cognition. If this cognition were merely "caused," they could no more change their minds than they could flap their arms and fly. Whatever they believed would simply always be pre-determined by physical factors. And there's no possibility of arguing a being like that into anything.

So you continue to believe in free will, as your actions demonstrate, even though you may loudly declare you only believe in Determinism. You simply don't believe what you just said you believe. As Jesus put it, "By their fruits you shall know them." That is, by what somebody does, you'll know what they really believe.

[Belinda]

True, freedom is both burden and blessing.

Indeed it is. But most people seem to think it's a burden worth bearing.

I agree will may be construed as desire.

"Be construed" is incorrect. Desire IS an expression of will. The former is a subcategory of the latter, not distinct from it. Just as you say,

However will, for men, is more than basic needs but is basic needs plus acquired beliefs and attitudes.

All of those, basic needs, beliefs, and attitudes are caused .

By what?

There is no reason, apart from religious doctrine, to presume the existence of something called "Free Will".

Actually, there very much is.

Right now, you're presuming free will. How do I know? Because you are arguing. An argument presumes that people can "change their minds" on the basis of nothing more than cognition. If this cognition were merely "caused," they could no more change their minds than they could flap their arms and fly. Whatever they believed would simply always be pre-determined by physical factors. And there's no possibility of arguing a being like that into anything.

So you continue to believe in free will, as your actions demonstrate, even though you may loudly declare you only believe in Determinism. You simply don't believe what you just said you believe. As Jesus put it, "By their fruits you shall know them." That is, by what somebody does, you'll know what they really believe.

Basic needs, beliefs, and attitudes may be caused by a totally comprehending and powerful God, as far as I can possibly know.

IC wrote:

Right now, you're presuming free will. How do I know? Because you are arguing. An argument presumes that people can "change their minds" on the basis of nothing more than cognition. If this cognition were merely "caused," they could no more change their minds than they could flap their arms and fly. Whatever they believed would simply always be pre-determined by physical factors. And there's no possibility of arguing a being like that into anything.

Well argued, Mannie. But being able to change my mind depends on my ability to learn not only from my own experience but also from others' experiences and ideas.
Of others' experiences and ideas some of those may issue direct from God for all anyone can know. I do not know whether we are alone on a storm- tossed sea or whether there is a Sun of Truth to guide and direct. You appear to think you know, but I don't believe you do possess that knowledge despite the beneficent effect of your faith while you laboured in Africa. I am impressed by that but I cannot relinquish my intellectual scepticism.

[Immanuel Can]

The problem is that conservatives believe in freedom of conscience, and Leftists just don't. For Leftists, only thinking the politically-correct thoughts is permissible.

That means that Leftist educational procedures can be single-mindedly propagandizing, whereas classical liberal/conservative ones have to be focused on empowering independent inquirers, critical minds and participatory citizens to think for themselves. That means that the latter have to be cautious and restrained, skills-focused to allow a range of free and independent opinion; whereas the former can simply choose to suppress, manipulate, indoctrinate and deceive without any hesitation or pangs of conscience.

I'm an older guy, but this is not my experience at all. I find both the right and the left have political correctnesses and use authority and social pressures to enforce, and then also the law.

I don't disagree. Human nature is corrupt on both political sides. But there is a difference. When a conservative uses such things as political correctness and authority to advance his agenda, he is violating his own creed. When a Leftist does, he is affirming his own creed.

And that's the point: the conservative who does such thing is inhibited by his bad conscience. He knows he will undermine his own beliefs so long as he continues to act in that way. If he uses means which deprive people of their freedom, their volition, and their classical liberal virtues, then he's destroying the very platform on which he eventually hopes to stand. If he propagandizes them, how can he then say that citizens can be free and make rational choices for themselves? If he steals their property, then how can he affirm their right to property any longer? If he bullies or manipulates people into following him, rather than appealing to their standing as free and rational beings, how can he then say the vote that got him into office is an expression of the public will? His own legitimacy is undermined by such tactics: and while some conservatives may be willing to pay that price, they are "setting fire to their own corn" by doing it.

In contrast, the Leftist is not beset with any such qualms. He believes his creed is the only truth, and free choice by rational citizens does not matter. He sees himself as possessed of a higher understanding of how things really are, and the ordinary folks as very much in need of his "education." Nothing in his view of humanity suggests to him he owes them to make them free, rational and independent, or to guarantee them rights of property -- or even of life -- if such things do not serve the great Collective. The Leftist is thus able to act without conscience. Nothing in his own creed inhibits his range of actions and options. Any strategy that serves his ideological cause is automatically fair. That gives the Leftist a significant practical and strategic edge.

There has been a shift to more dominance of the Left, perhaps, in political correctness, but when I was growing up it was the right (US that is). I could not in school have questioned us policies, patriotism, saluting the flag or I would have face very unpleasant censure, and I watched this happen.

Yes, this is the point. Did any of that make you a free, rational voter? Or did that merely destroy the whole idea of your freedom of conscience?

And that's the problem. An conservative who believes in free conscience, or free speech, or freedom of property, is in no position to violate those things without destroying his own ideology. You are right to see all that as counterproductive: it was.

But how is Leftism any curative to that? What misbehaving conservatives imposed on you in bad conscience and counterproductively to their own creed, the Leftists impose without hesitation, and in complete sympathy with their creed. They will not just make you salute their flag, they will make you kneel in the streets and beg their forgiveness...which they will not give, of course.

So again, it's not that we should encourage political correctness of either type. We need to be encouraging the classical liberal values of freedom, toleration, free speech, free conscience, property ownership, opportunity, neutral justice, and so on, and those are all against political correctness either side. But while the good conservatives can agree to that and settle back in peace, no Leftist of any kind can ever allow that. It would spell the end of Leftism.

I'd respect the right much more if they said, yeah, we used to have the political correctness dominance and we shut people up and worse. Now that we're on the wrong end of that stick we realize we don't think this is the right thing to do.

I totally agree. I wish that some of them didn't even have to wait until they were "on the wrong end of the stick" to get to this point. It was always irrational for them to be advocating any kind of political correctness in the first place. The sooner they figure that out, the better.

But Leftism will never discover that. It has no affinity with ideas like free speech or free conscience. It has only the blinkered ideological drive toward collectivism. The individual has a kind of standing in its thinking, but it's always a standing merely derivative from the collective. The individual is only "good" or " a citizen" or "entitled" to the extend that he/she serves the demands and expectations of the collective. When he/she does not, he/she is entirely dispensable. There are no rights grounded in the individual, according to Leftism. That is, there are no human rights.

And I think the lack of human rights, of your individual freedom of conscience and speech, are what you are objecting to in your own experience, are they not? In the education of your youth, you found there was hypocrisy in the way they forced you to perform gestures or say things you did not want to say or do, no? In that case, what you were objecting too was the violation of classical liberal (i.e. conservative) values by conservatives. But I'm certain you would not become happier if such violations were perpetrated upon you without conscience or apology by Leftists. And that's all you can ever expect from the Left, of course.

So your appeal for fairness there depends on conservative values like freedom of conscience and speech being the right values for a person to have.

[Immanuel Can]

Well argued, Mannie. But being able to change my mind depends on my ability to learn not only from my own experience but also from others' experiences and ideas.

Right, that's what I'm trying to say. There is a "Belinda" inside you, an entity that processes information and chooses her convictions, no? You're not a sort of drone programmed by physical forces such as what chemicals you ingested at breakfast. You're a volitional being.

Of others' experiences and ideas some of those may issue direct from God for all anyone can know.

Well, this is not a picture of God one gets from the Bible. It is, however, the picture of the situation one gets from things like Materialism. In Materialism, it is not God who "issues direct" to you anything...it's all those myriad causal factors that precede all your actions that dictated to you what you would do. There was no choice and no volition there at all, and your belief that there was is a mere (and very odd) epiphenomenon, a weird shadow cast by the causal process itself.

I cannot relinquish my intellectual scepticism.

I don't think you should. Skepticism has great value. But perhaps I can quote C.S. Lewis on the limits of reasonable skepticism:

“You can’t go on 'seeing through' things forever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.”

[Terrapin Station]

Well argued, Mannie. But being able to change my mind depends on my ability to learn not only from my own experience but also from others' experiences and ideas.

Right, that's what I'm trying to say. There is a "Belinda" inside you, an entity that processes information and chooses her convictions, no? You're not a sort of drone programmed by physical forces such as what chemicals you ingested at breakfast. You're a volitional being.

Of others' experiences and ideas some of those may issue direct from God for all anyone can know.

Well, this is not a picture of God one gets from the Bible. It is, however, the picture of the situation one gets from things like Materialism. In Materialism, it is not God who "issues direct" to you anything...it's all those myriad causal factors that precede all your actions that dictated to you what you would do. There was no choice and no volition there at all, and your belief that there was is a mere (and very odd) epiphenomenon, a weird shadow cast by the causal process itself.

I cannot relinquish my intellectual scepticism.

I don't think you should. Skepticism has great value. But perhaps I can quote C.S. Lewis on the limits of reasonable skepticism:

“You can’t go on 'seeing through' things forever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.”

For some reason there's a misconception that "materialists" or physicalists must be strong determinists. That's not the case. Materialists/physicalists can be of the opinion that strong determinism is wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

For some reason there's a misconception that "materialists" or physicalists must be strong determinists. That's not the case. Materialists/physicalists can be of the opinion that strong determinism is wrong.

Well, there are very good reasons for that charge. Any "weak" form of Determinism doesn't actually work, rationally. IMaterialists and Physicalists (among others, of course) get pegged as Determinists rationally: it's the necessary outcome of their suppositions. And if they don't follow those suppositions to their logical and necessary conclusion, and try to "stop" in some form of Compatibilism, that only adds to the faults of their view this additional fault -- that they are not deducing rationally.

In a world composed only of cause-effect material relations and devoid of metaphysics, there is no logical place for free will. One can accept that or deny it; but the cost of denying it will inevitably be either denying that things like consciousness, personhood, volition and reason have any grounds in reality, or else denying that cause-effect material relations are all that exist.

[Terrapin Station]

For some reason there's a misconception that "materialists" or physicalists must be strong determinists. That's not the case. Materialists/physicalists can be of the opinion that strong determinism is wrong.

Well, there are very good reasons for that charge. Any "weak" form of Determinism doesn't actually work, rationally. IMaterialists and Physicalists (among others, of course) get pegged as Determinists rationally: it's the necessary outcome of their suppositions. And if they don't follow those suppositions to their logical and necessary conclusion, and try to "stop" in some form of Compatibilism, that only adds to the faults of their view this additional fault -- that they are not deducing rationally.

In a world composed only of cause-effect material relations and devoid of metaphysics, there is no logical place for free will. One can accept that or deny it; but the cost of denying it will inevitably be either denying that things like consciousness, personhood, volition and reason have any grounds in reality, or else denying that cause-effect material relations are all that exist.

What exactly is the argument for the necessity of strong determinism under a materialist/physicalist ontology supposed to be?

(By the way, I'm a physicalist who isn't a strong determinist.)

[Immanuel Can]

What exactly is the argument for the necessity of strong determinism under a materialist/physicalist ontology supposed to be?

I'm not a Determinist. But I do understand their logic.

All you have to do to see it is to go back to the basic premises of Materialism or Physicalism. Both deny there can be anything but the physical stuff, existing in cause-effect reactions, in the universe.

After that, there is no place for metaphysics.

[Terrapin Station]

What exactly is the argument for the necessity of strong determinism under a materialist/physicalist ontology supposed to be?

I'm not a Determinist. But I do understand their logic.

All you have to do to see it is to go back to the basic premises of Materialism or Physicalism. Both deny there can be anything but the physical stuff, existing in cause-effect reactions, in the universe.

After that, there is no place for metaphysics.

Okay, again, I'm a physicalist. I deny that there is anything but physical stuff. I do NOT say that there isn't anything except singular cause/effect relationships, with no randomness/no effects that are merely probable among multiple possibilities, etc. There's no reason to assume that physical stuff must work that way.

You were claiming that it's a necessity of the view that things are physical, but you'd have to present the argument for that.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can quoted CS Lewis:

“You can’t go on 'seeing through' things forever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.”

That is true. However some ideas are more credible than others. In the olden days people believed what they were told by their betters to believe . Most people in the UK and in western Europe are post-enlightenment. A reasonable faith is a thing.

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, again, I'm a physicalist. I deny that there is anything but physical stuff. I do NOT say that there isn't anything except singular cause/effect relationships, with no randomness/no effects that are merely probable among multiple possibilities, etc. There's no reason to assume that physical stuff must work that way.

Well, it's a bit hard to see how an appeal to randomness will help, isn't it?

After all, it would be easier to be nothing but a cog in a cosmic cause-and-effect "machine" (as per Materialism) than to be a mere pawn of random forces one was not even capable of anticipating or analyzing (as per Quantum Theory or other randomness views).

From a human perspective, aren't we better off if we can expect to find cause-and-effect relationships between things than if (as in QT and randomness explanations) we can't even expect to understand the inexorable forces that are still manipulating us?

[Immanuel Can]

A reasonable faith is a thing.

I certainly think it is.

[Skepdick]

Okay, again, I'm a physicalist. I deny that there is anything but physical stuff. I do NOT say that there isn't anything except singular cause/effect relationships, with no randomness/no effects that are merely probable among multiple possibilities, etc. There's no reason to assume that physical stuff must work that way.

Well, it's a bit hard to see how an appeal to randomness will help, isn't it?

After all, it would be easier to be nothing but a cog in a cosmic cause-and-effect "machine" (as per Materialism) than to be a mere pawn of random forces one was not even capable of anticipating or analyzing (as per Quantum Theory or other randomness views).

From a human perspective, aren't we better off if we can expect to find cause-and-effect relationships between things that if (as in QT and randomness explanations) we can't even expect to understand the inexorable forces that are still manipulating us?

Silly philosophers.

Conflating randomness with non-determinism.

[Terrapin Station]

Okay, again, I'm a physicalist. I deny that there is anything but physical stuff. I do NOT say that there isn't anything except singular cause/effect relationships, with no randomness/no effects that are merely probable among multiple possibilities, etc. There's no reason to assume that physical stuff must work that way.

Well, it's a bit hard to see how an appeal to randomness will help, isn't it?

After all, it would be easier to be nothing but a cog in a cosmic cause-and-effect "machine" (as per Materialism) than to be a mere pawn of random forces one was not even capable of anticipating or analyzing (as per Quantum Theory or other randomness views).

From a human perspective, aren't we better off if we can expect to find cause-and-effect relationships between things that if (as in QT and randomness explanations) we can't even expect to understand the inexorable forces that are still manipulating us?

Silly philosophers.

Conflating randomness with non-determinism.

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?)

[Skepdick]

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?)

I 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.

So it's pertinently obvious you don't know how to use the response