Quiz-one topic


VonNoble
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Quite true.  And I hope I wasn't appearing as though that was what I was trying to demonstrate.  

 

On an aside...it baffles me, that I have to debate changing definitions on something as simple as free will.  It's in the dictionary.  Why try to make out like slavery is a choice?  I just don't grasp it...

 

Slavery is not a choice.  Unless we think that being beaten to death is an optional alternative.  I despise hat kind of ideological purity.  It's easy enough to have absolute standards, in the abstract.  Not so easy, when the decision must be made by an actual enslaved person.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 3:09 PM, Brother Kaman said:

 Making a choice to be enslaved or to die free is a free will decision just as driving within the speed limit to avoid a traffic ticket is a free will decision.

 

A traffic ticket can be survived.  Resisting slavery can mean slow death by torture.  Not all consequences are equal.  Or endurable.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, VonNoble said:

This is my question too.   I do not yet have an anwser.   If I am forced to live did I I’d do I have free will choice?

von

 

We are making this overly complicated.  We have free will.  There are stronger forces that counter free will.  Free will can be overcome.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

We are making this overly complicated.  We have free will.  There are stronger forces that counter free will.  Free will can be overcome.  

Okay...simply put... two questions 

1.  Is free will a state of mind or a physical option or other

 

2). If we are born with free will in a nutshell when is our situation “not” free will

 

I lied)....sorry ... there is a third question....:blink:...if it boils down to choices-what happens when you can’t find one?

von

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, VonNoble said:

Okay...simply put... two questions 

1.  Is free will a state of mind or a physical option or other

 

2). If we are born with free will in a nutshell when is our situation “not” free will

 

I lied)....sorry ... there is a third question....:blink:...if it boils down to choices-what happens when you can’t find one?

von

 

 

Usually, questions about Free Will are based on imponderable metaphysics.  "Do I have free will?  Or do I only have the illusion, of free will? 

 

Not everything is definable.  Some things resist definition.  For instance, "life".  We can define the characteristics of life.  Living things have reproduction, movement, digestion, elimination, etc.  We can't actually define "life." We can still make a distinction between things that are alive, things that are dead, and things like rocks, that are neither living nor dead.  I think this is what we are up against, when we talk about free will, we are up against similar problems.

 

Your question number one, is the kind of thing that a philosopher would ask.  Questions like -- "If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?".  It's the kind of thing that we can argue about forever and never answer.  Since I don't even understand the distinctions you are making; I really don't want to answer.

 

Question number  two.  Born with free will?  What free will are we born with?  What free will does a baby have?  It can't even decide if it's going to wet itself.  This is not free will.  Really, we must watch out for those invisible assumptions.  We make lots of silly assumptions about free will.  Assumptions like "God given" free will.  No.  I don't think it's valid to speak of being born with free will.

 

Question number three.  Not choosing is a choice.  At least, as a general principle.  I'm sure that there are exceptions that I can't think of.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Usually, questions about Free Will are based on imponderable metaphysics.  "Do I have free will?  Or do I only have the illusion, of free will? 

 

Not everything is definable.  Some things resist definition.  For instance, "life".  We can define the characteristics of life.  Living things have reproduction, movement, digestion, elimination, etc.  We can't actually define "life." We can still make a distinction between things that are alive, things that are dead, and things like rocks, that are neither living nor dead.  I think this is what we are up against, when we talk about free will, we are up against similar problems.

 

Your question number one, is the kind of thing that a philosopher would ask.  Questions like -- "If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?".  It's the kind of thing that we can argue about forever and never answer.  Since I don't even understand the distinctions you are making; I really don't want to answer.

 

Question number  two.  Born with free will?  What free will are we born with?  What free will does a baby have?  It can't even decide if it's going to wet itself.  This is not free will.  Really, we must watch out for those invisible assumptions.  We make lots of silly assumptions about free will.  Assumptions like "God given" free will.  No.  I don't think it's valid to speak of being born with free will.

 

Question number three.  Not choosing is a choice.  At least, as a general principle.  I'm sure that there are exceptions that I can't think of.  

I am okay with all of that thanks.   It just seemed for awhile in this thread that there were absolutes eluding me. 

I am okay with not having an answer for every question. 

Thanks for taking the time to respond. 

 

von

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, VonNoble said:

I am okay with all of that thanks.   It just seemed for awhile in this thread that there were absolutes eluding me. 

I am okay with not having an answer for every question. 

Thanks for taking the time to respond. 

 

von

 

 

:lol:

 

It goes with my Agnostic outlook.  Often, "I don't Know" is the best answer.  

 

:D   

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/16/2018 at 7:28 AM, cuchulain said:

free will.  the power of acting without constraint or at one's own discretion.

constraint.  a limitation.

discretion.  the freedom to decide what should be done.

argument ad baculum. argument through force or threat to bring about acceptance of conclusion.

i dont see a reasonable path to accept a decision based on coercion of a persons free will, because coercion is the opposite of free will, disallowing their freedom to decide what should be done via the fallacy argument ad baculum, or threatening force if a condition(slavery) is not accepted.  

More than one definition of the term exists, just as more than one dictionary exists. I consider that particular definition to be faulty. Actions exist as the interaction of our will and our environment. To define free will the way you propose ignores that interactive nature of existance. Intention and outcome are different, right?

 

Your mind can be free when your body is not. Your body can only be free if your mind is. I consider these to be important truths. Free will is a refutation of the concept of fate, not an assumption that we are all-powerful.

Edited by mererdog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Unless we think that being beaten to death is an optional alternative. 

It is. The proof is in all the people who have chosen to sacrifice themselves in this and other ways. If we do not recognise that it is a choice, we rob heroes of the recognition they deserve. After all, if self-sacrifice is not a true choice, there can be no glory in choosing to sacrifice yourself for a worthy cause. If there is no possibility of makong a bad choice, no choice can be good. If there is no possibility of negative consequences for our choices, our choices don't really matter.

Edited by mererdog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again with definition problems?  I used Merriam Webster.  If we are going to have a debate about something, or a discussion of any note, it seems it would be helpful to use a commonly accepted definition...just a thought.  AND...it is a logical fallacy to alter the definition of something AFTER you have started a debate about it, you know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, cuchulain said:

...it is a logical fallacy to alter the definition of something AFTER you have started a debate about it, you know?

Most people do not define the terms they use unless they assume the usage may not be understood. As such, most terms dont get defined until after someone has expressed a misunderstanding.

When I use the term "free will," I use a meaning more closely represented by this definition from the Oxford English Dictionary

"The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion."

Even that definition lacks the nuance needed to properly describe the term.

You can look at this for more depth. A sample-

"Philosophers who distinguish freedom of action and freedom of will do so because our success in carrying out our ends depends in part on factors wholly beyond our control. Furthermore, there are always external constraints on the range of options we can meaningfully try to undertake. As the presence or absence of these conditions and constraints are not (usually) our responsibility, it is plausible that the central loci of our responsibility are our choices, or 'willings.'"

Edited by mererdog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mererdog said:

Most people do not define the terms they use unless they assume the usage may not be understood. As such, most terms dont get defined until after someone has expressed a misunderstanding.

When I use the term "free will," I use a meaning more closely represented by this definition from the Oxford English Dictionary

"The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion."

 

I'm really trying here...but if you go back and look, that is the EXACT DEFINITION I GAVE AND YOU QUIBBLED OVER!  Define circular argument?

Edited by cuchulain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it useless to debate free will in the context of a moral argument. If we do not have free will (ie we cannot make a meaningful choice), then there is no moral action - what we do is inevitable.

 

It may be a point of interest in other contexts, but in a moral debate, free will is a necessary assumption.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/22/2018 at 1:04 PM, cuchulain said:

I'm really trying here...but if you go back and look, that is the EXACT DEFINITION I GAVE AND YOU QUIBBLED OVER!  Define circular argument?

It is slightly different. The words "fate" and "necessity" did not apear in yours. Those words provide a level of specificity that prevents coercion from being a factor in the definition.

Your cited definition, cut and pasted from your post- 

"free will.  the power of acting without constraint or at one's own discretion."

Edited by mererdog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, mererdog said:

It is slightly different. The words "fate" and "necessity" did not apear in yours. Those words provide a level of specificity that prevents coercion from being a factor in the definition.

Your cited definition, cut and pasted from your post- 

"free will.  the power of acting without constraint or at one's own discretion."

define quibble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Seeker said:

If we do not have free will (ie we cannot make a meaningful choice), then there is no moral action - what we do is inevitable.

Right. Fate and responsibility are incompatible concepts. The problem is that some things are inevitable, or at least beyond our control. So even if free will is generally taken as a given, we still have to answer the question  "Do these specific circumstances impose limits severe enough to prevent the exercise of freed will?" Most people would shorthand that as "Did I really have a choice?" or "Is this really my fault?"

Edited by mererdog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 6:04 AM, mererdog said:

More than one definition of the term exists, just as more than one dictionary exists. I consider that particular definition to be faulty. Actions exist as the interaction of our will and our environment. To define free will the way you propose ignores that interactive nature of existance. Intention and outcome are different, right?

 

Your mind can be free when your body is not. Your body can only be free if your mind is. I consider these to be important truths. Free will is a refutation of the concept of fate, not an assumption that we are all-powerful.

Quibbling.  See this part, mererdog?  Where you decide the part about fate shouldn't be included in the definition, but then later...you tell me I failed to include that same part?  Quibbling.  Not pooh pooh fallacy...but rather, using the exact same definition YOU YOURSELF GAVE, then getting bogged down in the details that YOU YOURSELF FELT WOULD BE BEST LEFT OUT, as if it were my own fault.  Quibbling.  Or maybe...trolling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share