the queen is dead

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: the queen is dead

Post by henry quirk »

Causal determinism means that every every event is a necessary event and could mot be otherwise than it was.
Yes, exactly. If I'm causally determined, just a meat machine, then anything, everything, I think, say, or do cannot be other than what it is. I literally have no choice.

Think about what that means.
promethean75
Posts: 4931
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: the queen is dead

Post by promethean75 »

Kay I did.

Now what?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6654
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: the queen is dead

Post by Iwannaplato »

Belinda wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 8:49 am You need to forgive self and others before you can forge ahead with your life. Determinism enables forgiveness.
Determinism enables everything that is: yes, forgiveness, but also mass murder, never forgiving, child rape, chewing on tin foil, hemmaroids. commercials, bullying, we farts........
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5142
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: the queen is dead

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:10 pmBut, if you're sayin' our yesterdays determine our todays: nope.
Let us suppose a world, our world, without human beings. The sun rises, the sun sets. What was set in motion, stays in motion. The rain falls and etches away the mountains. The rivers carry sediment to the sea and it piles up in layers. Then, the earth determinedly erups and those up-turned layers become jagged mountains again.

Life forms. Forests cover the land. There are cells & plants & animals and natural systems. But still: no human beings.

Is that world 100% determined in the sense this word is being used? I take this to mean: set in motion and moving because no 'choice' (not to move) is possible.

Would you agree that in this World (the one I describe) there is no choice and all is 100% determined?

My question actually is: How is it that Man is capable of making choices and decisions that are undetermined? If such a power exists, what is the basis of it? Or where did it come from?

They say that Man was once monkey-like, right? That the monkey evolved into the Man. If so there had to be a point where the monkey-like proto-human, who was a 100% determined creature in a 100% determined world, made a *choice* that was non-determined, right?

It seems to me that in all forms of life, especially the higher forms, there are tell-tale signs of choice and self-determination. Just as there had to have been a moment, along that line of evolution from monkey to man, where the monkey 'made a choice' (outside of strict determinism) so too other creatures do the same.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: the queen is dead

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 4:11 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:10 pmBut, if you're sayin' our yesterdays determine our todays: nope.
Let us suppose a world, our world, without human beings. The sun rises, the sun sets. What was set in motion, stays in motion. The rain falls and etches away the mountains. The rivers carry sediment to the sea and it piles up in layers. Then, the earth determinedly erups and those up-turned layers become jagged mountains again.

Life forms. Forests cover the land. There are cells & plants & animals and natural systems. But still: no human beings.

Is that world 100% determined in the sense this word is being used? I take this to mean: set in motion and moving because no 'choice' (not to move) is possible.

Would you agree that in this World (the one I describe) there is no choice and all is 100% determined?

My question actually is: How is it that Man is capable of making choices and decisions that are undetermined? If such a power exists, what is the basis of it? Or where did it come from?

They say that Man was once monkey-like, right? That the monkey evolved into the Man. If so there had to be a point where the monkey-like proto-human, who was a 100% determined creature in a 100% determined world, made a *choice* that was non-determined, right?

It seems to me that in all forms of life, especially the higher forms, there are tell-tale signs of choice and self-determination. Just as there had to have been a moment, along that line of evolution from monkey to man, where the monkey 'made a choice' (outside of strict determinism) so too other creatures do the same.
Monkeys are modern animals, as are humans. If you are going to use human evolution as an analogy then at least learn the basics.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5142
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: the queen is dead

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 7:22 pmMonkeys are modern animals, as are humans. If you are going to use human evolution as an analogy then at least learn the basics.
Image

It doesn't really matter what name is assigned, the question is When did 'free-will choice' enter the picture, and can those choices (or proto-choices) be said to be non-determined?
promethean75
Posts: 4931
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: the queen is dead

Post by promethean75 »

^^^ There is a thread here for posting member pictures, AJ. So if you want to post pictures of Henry or IC, please put them in the appropriate thread.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: the queen is dead

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 7:36 pm

It doesn't really matter what name is assigned, the question is When did 'free-will choice' enter the picture, and can those choices (or proto-choices) be said to be non-determined?
:lol:
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: the queen is dead

Post by iambiguous »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 10:22 pm
iambiguous wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 5:13 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Sep 15, 2022 8:39 pm Okay, but what all of this is for you [not political] doesn't make what it is for others ["my way or the highway" political] go away.
I don't think it makes other people's views go away.
That's my point. You insist that your views about the queen are not political but they are so fanatically pro or anti the monarchy that anything anyone says about it is deemed political.
I haven't denied that. I simply asserted that they are not political for me. You keep talking about them. But YOU labeled my reaction as poltiical. You keep giving them responsibility for your labeling my reactions much earlier in this thread as political.
That's because out in the world of actual human interactions there's what we claim our motivations and intentions are and there is how others perceive and react to them instead.

Thus in regard to things like race and gender and sexual orientation and personal opinions about monarchy and democracy and the role of government, others either embrace your professed personal opinions, they see them as a threat to their own value judgments or are completely indifferent.

Or, rather, so it seems to me.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 10:22 pmYou are not taking responsibility. You are blaming others and using pejorative terms for them, since they will say anything anyone says is deemed political. So, it seems negative when they do this.
I'm sure it seemed negative to the Jews back in Nazi Germany. And when racists and sexists and homophobes and small government fanatics intent on chopping up the welfare state insist they are only expressing their own personal opinions about these issues, sure, we can leave it at that.

After all, they might not act on these opinions once in power, right?
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 10:22 pmBut YOU did it. You were talking to me. I don't think the relevant reactions of mine were political. YOu seem to think they are fanatical. But for some reason their fanaticism means you will carry their message to me. So, you are either going along with fanatics. Or you are fanatical.
Note where I convinced you I thought your own views on the queen were fanatical. Note the "ridiculous claims". We just construe "personal opinions" differently here.

Besides, my main point is not what any particular individual's personal opinion or political conviction regarding the queen are, but that both personal opinions and political convictions are derived more from the manner in which I construe human identity in the is/ought world as revolving around dasein than around what some insist can be acquired rationally using the tools of philosophy.

What are the most logical answers to give in regard to a monarchy? What are the most epistemologically sound answers to give?

For me in a No God world these answers don't exist. At least not for me "here and now".
promethean75
Posts: 4931
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: the queen is dead

Post by promethean75 »

https://youtu.be/BDp9u5IhTxE

Lol that guard wants to turn his head and look so bad it's killin em.

And be sure not to hurry the fuck up and try to save the guys life. In fact, when you guys pick the stretcher up and start walking imperceptibly faster than normal, walk north about fifteen feet like you don't know where you're going and then turn left (instead of just going straight toward the exit point.) That way you can take even longer getting em to a medic.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: the queen is dead

Post by Age »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 4:11 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:10 pmBut, if you're sayin' our yesterdays determine our todays: nope.
Let us suppose a world, our world, without human beings. The sun rises, the sun sets. What was set in motion, stays in motion. The rain falls and etches away the mountains. The rivers carry sediment to the sea and it piles up in layers. Then, the earth determinedly erups and those up-turned layers become jagged mountains again.

Life forms. Forests cover the land. There are cells & plants & animals and natural systems. But still: no human beings.

Is that world 100% determined in the sense this word is being used? I take this to mean: set in motion and moving because no 'choice' (not to move) is possible.

Would you agree that in this World (the one I describe) there is no choice and all is 100% determined?

My question actually is: How is it that Man is capable of making choices and decisions that are undetermined? If such a power exists, what is the basis of it? Or where did it come from?

They say that Man was once monkey-like, right? That the monkey evolved into the Man. If so there had to be a point where the monkey-like proto-human, who was a 100% determined creature in a 100% determined world, made a *choice* that was non-determined, right?

It seems to me that in all forms of life, especially the higher forms, there are tell-tale signs of choice and self-determination. Just as there had to have been a moment, along that line of evolution from monkey to man, where the monkey 'made a choice' (outside of strict determinism) so too other creatures do the same.
ALL 'things' are pre-determined, if you like. Human beings are NOT capable of making choices and decisions that are undetermined. Human beings, however, are ABLE to make choices, which is JUST what the words 'free will' can refer to.

Obviously, the God, which SOME people go on about, while CREATING EVERY thing IS setting in motion what WILL be-come. So, ALL 'things' are pre-determined. And, this can ONLY be ACHIEVED through 'free will', or the ABILITY to CHOOSE. (The deeper and underlying REASON for this can be and WILL BE explained, later on. But first things first, though.)

Human beings are just but one within the process of evolution. And, the point WHERE human beings evolved out of, or from, the "other" thing was described within that book known as the bible. WHEN that moment took place was WHEN a species, which KNEW what was Right and Wrong in Life, CHOSE to do what it KNEW was Wrong in Life.

The moment when 'one' BEGINS TO EVOLVE INTO the HIGHEST FORM is when 'one' accepts and takes FULL RESPONSIBILITY for 'what they have done', is Truly Honest about 'it', does ALL they can to CHANGE, for the better, and continues to REMAIN Truly OPEN.

And, then WHEN that 'one' is ALWAYS DOING ONLY what is Right in Life, then, and ONLY then, they have ARRIVED AT and REACHED the HIGHEST FORM, or God LEVEL.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: the queen is dead

Post by Age »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 7:36 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 7:22 pmMonkeys are modern animals, as are humans. If you are going to use human evolution as an analogy then at least learn the basics.
Image

It doesn't really matter what name is assigned, the question is When did 'free-will choice' enter the picture, and can those choices (or proto-choices) be said to be non-determined?
The 'free will' CHOICE was made WHEN the analogy with the shiny bright apple/fruit took place. That is; WHEN 'greed' influenced A CHOICE, and that is WHEN it could be said the first 'free willed' CHOICE was made, along the evolutionary ladder.

That CHOICE, nor ANY other CHOICE, can be non-determined, and this is BECAUSE of what WAS pre-determined has ALREADY been SET IN PLACE, or IN MOTION.

And, in case ANY one is STILL NOT YET SURE, 'free will', the ability to CHOOSE, IS and WAS ALL part of the PLAN.

See, because of what results from 'free will', this WAS and IS the ONLY WAY that thee pre-determined outcome COULD and WOULD ARRIVE, BE MADE, and/or CREATED, and come-to-fruition.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6654
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: the queen is dead

Post by Iwannaplato »

iambiguous wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 3:07 am That's because out in the world of actual human interactions there's what we claim our motivations and intentions are and there is how others perceive and react to them instead.
And you perceived mine as political. I don't understand why my first post saying I didn't grieve her passing struck you as political. Sure, I can imagine others would/might take it that way. This is the real world of human reactions. You judged it as political. You seem to give others that responsibility. I keep pointing out that you made that judgment. I'll drop it from here since you can't seem to talk about this as an individual, but point to others as if you must agree with them.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 10:22 pmYou are not taking responsibility. You are blaming others and using pejorative terms for them, since they will say anything anyone says is deemed political. So, it seems negative when they do this.
I'm sure it seemed negative to the Jews back in Nazi Germany. And when racists and sexists and homophobes and small government fanatics intent on chopping up the welfare state insist they are only expressing their own personal opinions about these issues, sure, we can leave it at that.

After all, they might not act on these opinions once in power, right?
that's not a response to what I wrote. My post was about not grieving her death.

I have gone on and made political posts about the Queen in this thread and others, but my original post, which you grouped with all the others was not political to me and I am surprised it is to you. And I am surprised that this relates to what happened to jews in Nazi germany and that you cannot seem to actually write as an individual. Further, I cannot see what difference your lack of objectivism does. IOW you often seem to blame objectivists for their certainty and attitudes. Perhaps you are uncertain about your values, but in any debate I doubt this subtlety will make any different. You'll be on one team occasionally saying that you aren't sure, but all they and your team will notice is that you are on Team X and disparage team Y just like everyone else.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 16, 2022 10:22 pmBut YOU did it. You were talking to me. I don't think the relevant reactions of mine were political. YOu seem to think they are fanatical. But for some reason their fanaticism means you will carry their message to me. So, you are either going along with fanatics. Or you are fanatical.
Note where I convinced you I thought your own views on the queen were fanatical. Note the "ridiculous claims". We just construe "personal opinions" differently here.
The 'they' in the sentence 'You seem to the they are fanatical' refers to other people who will see my post as political. You see them as fanatical. They will see my post as political. They will see....they will see....they will see. But YOU labelled my post as poltical. You didn't need to do that, unless that is what YOU think. They dont' have to control your mind and judgment. Or do they?

I give up. I have tried a few times to clarify. It seems to me you are passing your value judgment on to others. You batched all of our responses as political. When I said I did not consider mine that way, you said others would. I pointed out that you did this yourself. Yes, some likely will. But you labelled it that way. To justify this you point at them. In fact none of them reacted to my first post as political. Only you labelled it that way - as part of labelling all previous posts as that. You didn't have to label it that way. When I point this out, you point at the fanatics. I am not sure why you have to label things like people who you consider fanatics. When I point this out again, you point to the fanatics. Fanatics is a pejorative term. I am not sure why you think you have to label things like people you label pejoratively do. I point this out and get the same response. Like, for example, I thought perhaps you could say, yeah, for me, the fact that you didn't grieve her death isn't political, but others may well think so. But no, it is just what others think that matters. Perhaps if you'd actually worked with my analogy with the Catholic church and masturbation you could have taken a stand there. Yeah, if I masturbate or were to, I wouldn't see this as taking a stand on religion, but others may. But no such concession seemed possible for you AND at no time do you explain why you can't weigh in as an individual. You clearly manage when it has to do with other political issues. You come off as clearly lefty (and yes, I know you don't think you can convince everyone this is the rational view to have, etc. HOWEVER, you manage to make it clear what your values are and what you believe on what nearly everyone would call political issues. But on my post, no, it's what the fanatics would think of it. Oh, well)

So, I think it's best I give up. Not sure what is going on, an experience I often have with you, but that's life.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: the queen is dead

Post by attofishpi »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Sep 12, 2022 5:07 am
attofishpi wrote: Mon Sep 12, 2022 12:42 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sun Sep 11, 2022 7:25 pm

So? What does that have to do with standing up in someone's living room? Or fishpi's nauseating sycophancy and demands for 'respect'? I've never had any respect for people who enjoy slaughtering large and small animals because they have nothing else to do. Who does that? 'Oh, I'm bored because I don't have a real job, so I will just shoot anything that moves, tally ho...'The queen was allegedly so 'rushed off her feet' giving 'service' to 'her people' that she rarely even saw her own children, yet she still had time to decimate the local wildlife for the sheer joy of it? Vile people.

Pay close attention to the idiots in the picture---the only ones that are smiling, the scumbag Africaans that the Queen was having to be polite to (out of her duty - along the lines of what promethean tried to explain to you) - she wasn't rushed off her feet enjoying killing animals, IDIOT!!
'Afrikaaners'? It's a tiger (the ones with stripes). Fool!
LMAO!

About two hrs ago, when the Queen was being carried somewhere, I was thinking back to this conversation, and finally comprehended your point!!

Honestly...I have no idea Y my brain has been farting at me lately...as U know that is very unusual for me.

So.

It's obvious, the tiger is either a very good swimmer..

Or.

The Afrikaaners were given some form of transport to the East *where TIGERS live (until shot dead by nasty South Africans or one of the Royal Family under total behest of being friendly to the human natives...the locals where tigers live that also get pissed off with them too..)

Monty Python are actually to blame for fucking up the Life of Brian...(apart from Brian and God)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kYC47DYLq2I
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: the queen is dead

Post by henry quirk »

My question actually is: How is it that Man is capable of making choices and decisions that are undetermined? If such a power exists, what is the basis of it? Or where did it come from?
That's 3 questions. Becuz man is a free will and not a meat machine, and that's not undetermined, that's self-determined. Man is a composite being, meat and spirit irrevocably intermixed, neither worth a damn without the other. God.

-----
Kay I did.

Now what?
No, you didn't.

Try again.
Post Reply