From the ILP forum...
iambiguous wrote:Here's the part that continues to baffle me. If the only possible world has led one to suffer, hasn't it also led one to either seek or not to seek its reduction?
Is this the compatibilist frame of mind? Yes, there's the only possible reality in the only possible world but "somehow" we can influence and change it?
What do I keep missing here?
Ben JS wrote: I'm a hard determinist so questions directed at compatibilists aren't for me - even if I may seem like one.
Okay, but some hard determinists would be compelled to argue that I direct at you only what I was never able not to direct at you. And that you were never ever able to opt not to point this out to me.
Absolutely nothing that we think, feel, say and do is excluded from the laws of matter. Only we have no capacity that I am aware of to to pin down whether or not this is actually true.
Then [from my frame of mind compelled or not] you go on noting things to be as though you did in fact have the option to note other things...
How is this....
Ben JS wrote: Our actions contribute to the future result, shaped by a chain of events prior. I believe it is our ignorance that gives us the sense of possibility - we do not know, so we cannot determine which possible future is accurate. If a supernatural being free from the chains of cause and effect came into our existence and erased a person - the absence would affect the trajectory of existence. My point? Our lives contribute to the result - we restrict the future, forcing the hand of future events.
What our actions do change and influence, is our expectations - our predictions of the future. Our actions often lead to predictable results. If I walk off a cliff, there's an expectation of a result that follows. If I don't want this result, I should rationally avoid walking off cliffs - or act in another way to change the expected result, i.e. wear a parachute / wingsuit.
One can believe both that the current state of existence is determined by the prior state of existence, and that one's will is not free - while simultaneously acknowledging that one isn't aware of what the prior and current state of existence have determined of the future. Given these, one is left in a position where one can hope and strive towards possible futures that are preferred. If we knew exactly what was going to happen, then there's no room for hope.
...really any different from how a libertarian might put it?
Contributions, beliefs, actions, expectations, acknowledgments...hoping, striving.
What...your brain allows for them in a way that is different from mine and everyone else's in a wholly determined universe?
But, apparently, not really
wholly determined at all for you.
iambiguous wrote:And here you are with a Dalai Lama avatar. Suggesting, what, that an ideal future revolves spiritually around Buddhism?
Ben JS wrote: I'm not a Buddhist. I have deep respect for the Dalai Lama and his teachings / wisdom. It makes me happy to be reminded of him.
I think his teachings regarding compassion, kindness, tolerance and gratitude can increase the quality of life for many when practiced.
Same thing. You have a deep respect for the Dalai Lama because you were never able not to have a deep respect for him. But what kind of respect is it that you were never able not to have? What on Earth are compassion, kindness, tolerance and gratitude if they are only ever what each of us could never not feel as we do?
Nope, one way or another human consciousness has to be explained scientifically and/or philosophically as matter...but a very, very different matter.
After all, why do you suppose so many explain that difference...spiritually, theologically. Some though God, others through...the universe itself? Buddhism is just another spiritual path to "enlightenment".
But in a wholly determined universe as some understand it being enlightened or unenlightened is interchangeable. If, in fact, you were never able not to be either one or the other.
iambiguous wrote:And then the part where you either will or will not consider that your own spiritual path here is but one more subjective/intersubjective embodiment of dasein..."I" given the life you've lived existentially.
Ben JS wrote: My path is my own and I wouldn't ask of another to walk it.
Again though, a preferred path may cross many common landmarks.
Well, from my frame of mind, even given free will, your path -- morally and politically -- reflects the embodiment of the points "I" raise on these threads:
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296
And all I can do is to invite others to peruse those points and then, given particular sets of circumstances in the is/ought world, note for me why they are not applicable to them.
Again, assuming free will.