compatibilism

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Belinda »

bobmax wrote: ↑
If there is no free will, your individual self is an illusion.
As well as the self of any other.

So there is life that takes place, where everything happens, but where there is no one.

It's very simple. And for this very reason it is so difficult.

Good luck.

That's true.There is no individual essence, except insofar as the finality of a death and then another person or persons arbitrate as to what the deceased's essence was.

Personal prayer is the attempt to crystallise and hopefully define one's essence . The individual is either persuaded his life is all about himself and his pleasures and wellbeing, or else he is not self centred and lives persuaded that his life is about others' wellbeing. Unfortunately personal prayer serves the former as well as the latter.
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

bobmax wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 6:10 amIf there is no free will, your individual self is an illusion.
Logically, wouldn't that conclusion need a premise like "free will is part on your individual self" or "your individual self is part on your free will" or something similar? Which is it? Or is the conclusion completely illogical?
bobmax
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:38 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by bobmax »

Belinda wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 10:10 am There is no individual essence, except insofar as the finality of a death and then another person or persons arbitrate as to what the deceased's essence was.

Personal prayer is the attempt to crystallise and hopefully define one's essence . The individual is either persuaded his life is all about himself and his pleasures and wellbeing, or else he is not self centred and lives persuaded that his life is about others' wellbeing. Unfortunately personal prayer serves the former as well as the latter.
But isn't this the evolution of love?

Love for yourself.

Then love for the other but as useful to oneself.

Later, love for the other as the Other.

And finally, love for oneself precisely because one loves the Other.
bobmax
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:38 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by bobmax »

BigMike wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 1:34 pm
bobmax wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 6:10 amIf there is no free will, your individual self is an illusion.
Logically, wouldn't that conclusion need a premise like "free will is part on your individual self" or "your individual self is part on your free will" or something similar? Which is it? Or is the conclusion completely illogical?
It is enough to meditate on yourself.

You have no free will...

It is not a question of logic.
Because this "having" is actually a being.

Free will is not something you may or may not have.
Because either you are a free will, that is, an unconditional origin, or you are not.
If so, you are.
If not, you are not.
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

bobmax wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 5:01 pm
BigMike wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 1:34 pm
bobmax wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 6:10 amIf there is no free will, your individual self is an illusion.
Logically, wouldn't that conclusion need a premise like "free will is part on your individual self" or "your individual self is part on your free will" or something similar? Which is it? Or is the conclusion completely illogical?
It is enough to meditate on yourself.
You have no idea what you were talking about, do you? You didn't give it much thought at all. You just spewed some absurdity that you thought sounded intellectually sophisticated.
You have no free will...

It is not a question of logic.
That's what I suspected. It has nothing to do with logic. It is utter nonsense. Completely illogical.
Because this "having" is actually a being.
Is it, now? I'm well aware that English isn't your native tongue. "Having" means "possessing, owning, or holding", and "being" means "existing, occurring, or taking place". Before making use of unfamiliar words, it would be helpful if you looked them up in a dictionary first.
Free will is not something you may or may not have.
Because either you are a free will, that is, an unconditional origin, or you are not.
If so, you are.
If not, you are not.
Ah yes. Tertium non datur. You either are or you are not. You either do or you don't. You either have or you have not. It is either green or it is not green. Words of wisdom. Seriously? Have you no shame, sir, for wasting people's time with your foolishness?
bobmax
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:38 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by bobmax »

BigMike wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 5:58 pm
You keep despising what you don't understand.
Your offenses turn against you.
I leave you to your formulas, hold them tight, that's all you have.

Given the uselessness, I will avoid reading you.
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

bobmax wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 6:16 pm
BigMike wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 5:58 pm
You keep despising what you don't understand.
When I don't understand something, I ask.
Your offenses turn against you.
It is you, in response to my inquiries, that is turning against me. This is your default response when you have nothing to say.

I leave you to your formulas, hold them tight, that's all you have.
Given the uselessness, I will avoid reading you.
What do you have against formulas? You're just reaching for anything you can find to insult me with. I think you made the wrong choice.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Belinda »

bobmax wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 4:46 pm
Belinda wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 10:10 am There is no individual essence, except insofar as the finality of a death and then another person or persons arbitrate as to what the deceased's essence was.

Personal prayer is the attempt to crystallise and hopefully define one's essence . The individual is either persuaded his life is all about himself and his pleasures and wellbeing, or else he is not self centred and lives persuaded that his life is about others' wellbeing. Unfortunately personal prayer serves the former as well as the latter.
But isn't this the evolution of love?

Love for yourself.

Then love for the other but as useful to oneself.

Later, love for the other as the Other.

And finally, love for oneself precisely because one loves the Other.

That is like a developmental explanation of morality. When you say "evolution of love" do you mean the development of the ability to love as a psychological process?
bobmax
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:38 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by bobmax »

Belinda wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 6:37 pm
bobmax wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 4:46 pm
Belinda wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 10:10 am There is no individual essence, except insofar as the finality of a death and then another person or persons arbitrate as to what the deceased's essence was.

Personal prayer is the attempt to crystallise and hopefully define one's essence . The individual is either persuaded his life is all about himself and his pleasures and wellbeing, or else he is not self centred and lives persuaded that his life is about others' wellbeing. Unfortunately personal prayer serves the former as well as the latter.
But isn't this the evolution of love?

Love for yourself.

Then love for the other but as useful to oneself.

Later, love for the other as the Other.

And finally, love for oneself precisely because one loves the Other.

That is like a developmental explanation of morality. When you say "evolution of love" do you mean the development of the ability to love as a psychological process?
I don't think this can be limited to the psychological.

What I have said I have borrowed from Saint Bernard.
When I came across his four moments of the evolution of love I was surprised!
Because, at least in the early stages, it confirmed some of my previous experiences.
You don't go from one level to another without going back.
Love can suddenly explode in you and you are captured in it. But then you go back to your usual selfishness...

But nothing depends on you, that you can do nothing.
And yet it all depends on the love that you are.

If it has not happened to you yet, I wish you that infinite love shatters your shell that encloses it to spread without limits!
I think this is the greatest gift.
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

This forum is going in a strange direction.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Belinda »

bobmax wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 7:26 pm
Belinda wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 6:37 pm
bobmax wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 4:46 pm

But isn't this the evolution of love?

Love for yourself.

Then love for the other but as useful to oneself.

Later, love for the other as the Other.

And finally, love for oneself precisely because one loves the Other.

That is like a developmental explanation of morality. When you say "evolution of love" do you mean the development of the ability to love as a psychological process?
I don't think this can be limited to the psychological.

What I have said I have borrowed from Saint Bernard.
When I came across his four moments of the evolution of love I was surprised!
Because, at least in the early stages, it confirmed some of my previous experiences.
You don't go from one level to another without going back.
Love can suddenly explode in you and you are captured in it. But then you go back to your usual selfishness...

But nothing depends on you, that you can do nothing.
And yet it all depends on the love that you are.

If it has not happened to you yet, I wish you that infinite love shatters your shell that encloses it to spread without limits!
I think this is the greatest gift.
You refer to your "previous experiences". Experiences are either or psychological or physical are as seems more likely, a combination of psychological and physical. Your experiences are no more and no less natural than anyone else's experiences.
I'm sorry that after a comprehensible start your language is become mysterious. I guess Bernard's ideas need more comprehensive interpretation than you apply, above.

After Googling Bernard on the nature of love I found that you are right, despite his and your religious jargon. The language of developmental psychology may also be obscured by jargon. You do Bernard no favour by belittling developmental psychology especially if you have not studied it.
bobmax
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:38 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by bobmax »

Belinda wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 10:01 am
bobmax wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 7:26 pm I don't think this can be limited to the psychological.

What I have said I have borrowed from Saint Bernard.
When I came across his four moments of the evolution of love I was surprised!
Because, at least in the early stages, it confirmed some of my previous experiences.
You don't go from one level to another without going back.
Love can suddenly explode in you and you are captured in it. But then you go back to your usual selfishness...

But nothing depends on you, that you can do nothing.
And yet it all depends on the love that you are.

If it has not happened to you yet, I wish you that infinite love shatters your shell that encloses it to spread without limits!
I think this is the greatest gift.
You refer to your "previous experiences". Experiences are either or psychological or physical are as seems more likely, a combination of psychological and physical. Your experiences are no more and no less natural than anyone else's experiences.
I'm sorry that after a comprehensible start your language is become mysterious. I guess Bernard's ideas need more comprehensive interpretation than you apply, above.

After Googling Bernard on the nature of love I found that you are right, despite his and your religious jargon. The language of developmental psychology may also be obscured by jargon. You do Bernard no favour by belittling developmental psychology especially if you have not studied it.
I think that language is mysterious due to the different meaning it gives to words.

Especially in relation to the word "love".

When you refer to the physical and the psychological you take it for granted that love is something that comes from these areas.
That is, the physical exists, the psychological exists, and love can eventually manifest itself from these.

While this is not the case.
Instead, it is love that generates the physical and the psychological.

Psychology can be very helpful.
However it can become misleading for the existence that seeks the Truth.

As Martin Buber has well pointed out, psychology can make you miss the opportunity to face the limit. By disempowering it by giving it a rational explanation.

The problem with psychology is that it has replaced the soul with the psyche. And in this way we have lost the Spirit.
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

At this point, I am very concerned about the situation.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Belinda »

bobmax wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 11:15 am
Belinda wrote: Tue Sep 20, 2022 10:01 am
bobmax wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 7:26 pm I don't think this can be limited to the psychological.

What I have said I have borrowed from Saint Bernard.
When I came across his four moments of the evolution of love I was surprised!
Because, at least in the early stages, it confirmed some of my previous experiences.
You don't go from one level to another without going back.
Love can suddenly explode in you and you are captured in it. But then you go back to your usual selfishness...

But nothing depends on you, that you can do nothing.
And yet it all depends on the love that you are.

If it has not happened to you yet, I wish you that infinite love shatters your shell that encloses it to spread without limits!
I think this is the greatest gift.
You refer to your "previous experiences". Experiences are either or psychological or physical are as seems more likely, a combination of psychological and physical. Your experiences are no more and no less natural than anyone else's experiences.
I'm sorry that after a comprehensible start your language is become mysterious. I guess Bernard's ideas need more comprehensive interpretation than you apply, above.

After Googling Bernard on the nature of love I found that you are right, despite his and your religious jargon. The language of developmental psychology may also be obscured by jargon. You do Bernard no favour by belittling developmental psychology especially if you have not studied it.
I think that language is mysterious due to the different meaning it gives to words.

Especially in relation to the word "love".

When you refer to the physical and the psychological you take it for granted that love is something that comes from these areas.
That is, the physical exists, the psychological exists, and love can eventually manifest itself from these.

While this is not the case.
Instead, it is love that generates the physical and the psychological.

Psychology can be very helpful.
However it can become misleading for the existence that seeks the Truth.

As Martin Buber has well pointed out, psychology can make you miss the opportunity to face the limit. By disempowering it by giving it a rational explanation.

The problem with psychology is that it has replaced the soul with the psyche. And in this way we have lost the Spirit.
If love is supernatural how might love translate into the natural, temporal , and relative ? In other words, how can natural beings , which we are, receive anything from supernatural being?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

BigMike wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 9:40 pm I find it incomprehensible that some individuals consciously disregard the fact that humans can remember and, as a result, learn, despite being repeatedly reminded of this fact. Unfortunately, these skills deteriorate as people age or as a result of certain neurological conditions that make their brains sluggish and make comprehension difficult or impossible. In fact, we may have witnessed the manifestations of this decline in recent forum posts.
Click.

See, there he goes again. The hardcore determinist finding something incomprehensible as though he had the option to find it comprehensible instead.

Things being unfortunate even though there was never any possibility of them being any way other than as the laws of matter compel all material things to be.

Noting that we may be witnessing something that we were never able to not witness other than as we must.


So: What do I keep missing here in regard to his own rendition of determinism?
Post Reply