Quiz-one topic

[mererdog]

On 2/25/2018 at 6:33 AM, cuchulain said:

 Where you decide the part about fate shouldn't be included in the definition

Please look again. That is not what I said. My position has been consistent, though perhaps not artfully expressed.

I said that free will is a refutation of fate. This means that free will is largely defined by being able to make choices, as opposed to simply doing what fate has chosen for us. As such, a definition of free will that makes no reference to fate is inherently misleading- like a definition of death that makes no reference to life.

The definition you originally cited used the phrase "without constraint." And you are completely correct that, under that definition, coercion destroys free will, because coerced actions are not without constraint. Under the definition I cited, however, the phrase used is "without the constraint of fate or necessity". Since coercion does not qualify as fate, and since I have shown that it does not create a necessity to act, the definition that I cited serves as support for my position that free will choices can be made while under duress.

This would simply be a frivolous semantic argument, except for the fact that free will is a term of art within philosophy and this is a discussion of philosophy. To use only common definitions when trying to understand a term of art does not work. It leads to people saying things like "Well, the Theory of Evolution is just a theory, and I have my own theories." 

Edited February 26, 2018 by mererdog

[cuchulain]

On ‎2‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 9:24 AM, mererdog said:

Please look again. That is not what I said. My position has been consistent, though perhaps not artfully expressed.

I said that free will is a refutation of fate. This means that free will is largely defined by being able to make choices, as opposed to simply doing what fate has chosen for us. As such, a definition of free will that makes no reference to fate is inherently misleading- like a definition of death that makes no reference to life.

The definition you originally cited used the phrase "without constraint." And you are completely correct that, under that definition, coercion destroys free will, because coerced actions are not without constraint. Under the definition I cited, however, the phrase used is "without the constraint of fate or necessity". Since coercion does not qualify as fate, and since I have shown that it does not create a necessity to act, the definition that I cited serves as support for my position that free will choices can be made while under duress.

This would simply be a frivolous semantic argument, except for the fact that free will is a term of art within philosophy and this is a discussion of philosophy. To use only common definitions when trying to understand a term of art does not work. It leads to people saying things like "Well, the Theory of Evolution is just a theory, and I have my own theories." 

Prove fate.  OR, conversely, falsify fate.  If you cannot falsify fate, or disprove it, OR prove it...then as a concept, you basically say that the entire argument for free will is in reality an argument for fate instead...which logical fallacy is that, where you swap what the argument is really about for something that you CAN defeat?  Beyond that, your determination is reliant upon fate.  Either fate exists and nobody has free will, or fate does not exist and everything is always free will.  In which case, the entire discussion is a moot point.  Either we were fated to believe as we do, or we believe it of our own accord...but either way we act the same and still don't know.

 

The basic premise you objected to was that slaves had free will.  So, since you asserted that slavery was a choice of free will, I will now ask you for the proof of free will against fate.

[mererdog]

On 2/27/2018 at 1:05 PM, cuchulain said:

Either fate exists and nobody has free will, or fate does not exist and everything is always free will. 

Let me start by saying that your demands for proof are noted and ignored. You are becoming increasingly antagonistic seeming. I'm here for conversation, not to measure manhoods. Let me know if your goals differ, so I can bow out. If I am wrong in my conclusion that you are being intentionally hostile and rude, I apologize for the misunderstanding on my part. I try not to judge. It is not always easy.

 

That said, you omit the possibility that some things are free will and some things are fate. That some things happen to us and some things happen because of us. This is not a simple subject built on a dichotomy.

I do not believe in the supernatural concept of fate, but I do believe in materialistic fate- Physical Laws and constants, necessities caused by organic chemistry and biology- stuff like that. At the same time, I believe in the human capacity to choose.

The wind blows. We can sail with it, or we can tack against it. If I am pushed off a cliff, I cannot choose to fly. I can, however, choose to sing on the way down. When my temper flares, I can choose to not hurt those I love.

I can choose to run into the burning building. I can choose seppuku over disgrace. I can choose to tell the mugger to go ** himself. I can choose to fight with my every ounce of strength until my dying breath. I can choose to never be a slave, and to prove all claims that I am to be a lie. These may not be the safe choices, or even the right choices, but they are choices that I can make. 

Edited March 2, 2018 by mererdog

[cuchulain]

1 hour ago, mererdog said:

Let me start by saying that your demands for proof are noted and ignored. You are becoming increasingly antagonistic seeming. I'm here for conversation, not to measure manhoods. Let me know if your goals differ, so I can bow out. If I am wrong in my conclusion that you are being intentionally hostile and rude, I apologize for the misunderstanding on my part. I try not to judge. It is not always easy.

 

That said, you omit the possibility that some things are free will and some things are fate. That some things happen to us and some things happen because of us. This is not a simple subject built on a dichotomy.

I do not believe in the supernatural concept of fate, but I do believe in materialistic fate- Physical Laws and constants, necessities caused by organic chemistry and biology- stuff like that. At the same time, I believe in the human capacity to choose.

The wind blows. We can sail with it, or we can tack against it. If I am pushed off a cliff, I cannot choose to fly. I can, however, choose to sing on the way down. When my temper flares, I can choose to not hurt those I love.

I can choose to run into the burning building. I can choose seppuku over disgrace. I can choose to tell the mugger to go ** himself. I can choose to fight with my every ounce of strength until my dying breath. I can choose to never be a slave, and to prove all claims that I am to be a lie. These may not be the safe choices, or even the right choices, but they are choices that I can make. 

asking for proof of a claim(free will) is antagonistic?  i'm done.  you apparently arent interested in proving your claim.  you seem to be antagonistic to me, making an issue of definitions, then telling me you dislike the definition you yourself were using, then making issue of me not using the accurate definition AFTER you cited it as flawed...you're all over the board on this one.  but refusing to prove a claim you made and insisting I am being unreasonable?  that's a stretch, and i agree...time to be done with your antics.

[mererdog]

I apologize for seeming antagonistic. It was not my intent. I do see, in hindsight, how it could seem that way.

I'm not able to prove the claim to you. My intention was to talk about the claim, not to prove it. Perhaps, in the process, you would become convinced that the claim is true. Perhaps, in the process, I would become convinced the claim is false. Neither was my goal. The goal was to have a conversation- to compare and contrast our positions, thereby coming to a greater understanding of each other.

 

Edited March 7, 2018 by mererdog