A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Again, talents is just one aspect of personality. People fall in love with people, not just their bodies, not just a single talent...a whole person, with sex organs, AND lots of aspects and thoughts and opinions and traits.

You missed his whole point. It is correct to say that no matter what turns someone on, sex becomes central if romantic love is what a person is looking for. By definition, that's what romantic (erotic) love is. If one did not get turned on no matter how nice someone was, or what a great personality someone had, or none of those things altered one's sexual desire, the person who did not have those sexual feelings would not desire getting married for the purpose marriage was intended.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never blew this off. Conscience will develop in an environment that is nurturing. This has everything to do with the environment in which we are born along with our genetic predispostion. Not every child will become a murderer in an abusive environment, because each child is different to a degree genetically, but an abusive environment sets the stage for unhealthy and often violent behavior.

And how will a sense of guilt develop in someone who has never faced unpleasant social consequences for any action that causes harm? Why would people not be able to choose to live with guilt as their punishment?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You missed his whole point. It is correct to say that no matter what turns someone on, sex becomes central if romantic love is what a person is looking for.

It's not correct to say that, if you are applying it to all people. Sex may be central, or may be periphery...a wonderful bonus if you will.

By definition, that's what romantic (erotic) love is.

By who's definition? Why do you think erotic and romantic are synonyms? Love is simply a deep affection (caring and tenderness). That may or may not include an erotic component and may or may not include a romantic element. (Romance comes from a type of story involving chivalry and heroism and mystery elements and is tied to those traits)

Neither you nor Lessans get to define other people's feelings or how they are prioritized in their own lives and relationships.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If one did not get turned on no matter how nice someone was, or what a great personality someone had, or none of those things altered one's sexual desire, the person who did not have those sexual feelings would not desire getting married for the purpose marriage was intended.

The purpose intended by who? Marriage was intended to aquire or protect resources, wealth, or social standing for most of recorded human history. It still carries aspects of that.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered you and I refuse to answer it again unless you admit that there's something wrong with the definition. IT'S NOT USEFUL.

Not useful for what?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Not useful for what?

Obviously you weren't following the discussion. A definition is useful if it can be applied to reality. If it cannot, it is not useful in a real world sense. To repeat: It can be useful in a philosophical sense but it will have no impact on reality, which is what we all want our definitions to be reflective of. That is why I say the definition is not useful.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A definition is useful if it can be applied to reality. If it cannot, it is not useful in a real world sense.

Being applicable to reality also a subjective call, as it is based on what one perceives to be reality.

Compatibilists obviously think their definition is more useful, in this case being defined as applicable to reality, than other definitions.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered you and I refuse to answer it again unless you admit that there's something wrong with the definition. IT'S NOT USEFUL.

It seems that Peacegirl is working underthe assumption that there is something other than an arbitrary connection between a word and the definition. The definition is assigned to a word by convention, in other words everyone (or almost everyone) agrees to the accepted definition and the dialogue can continue. Peacegirl's error is not that she disagrees with the word, but she disagrees with the accepted definition, she disagrees with the concept that that word represents. A more accurate course of action for Lessans and Peacegirl would be to determine exactly what they mean and find the existing term that expresses that concept and not to try and alter an existing word/concept. Peacegirl needs to understand that she just does not agree with the existing concepts and thinks they are wrong, it is not the case that the definitions are incorrect for a particular word, it's just that she thinks the concepts are wrong. She just needs to clearly state her concepts, as she understands them and stop fussing about a term and trying to adjust the definition to suit her concepts.

[LadyShea]

Exactly thedoc. Lessans also seemed to think that eliminating words would somehow eliminate the concepts those words represent.

It's not like someone simply decided one day to make up a concept that does not have a associated existence in reality, and assign a word to it.

Beautiful describes a subjective set of feelings...those feelings exist whether the word beautiful exists or doesn't.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never blew this off. Conscience will develop in an environment that is nurturing. This has everything to do with the environment in which we are born along with our genetic predispostion. Not every child will become a murderer in an abusive environment, because each child is different to a degree genetically, but an abusive environment sets the stage for unhealthy and often violent behavior.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And how will a sense of guilt develop in someone who has never faced unpleasant social consequences for any action that causes harm? Why would people not be able to choose to live with guilt as their punishment?

That's just the point. The thought of feeling guilty over something that one cannot justify having done, causes pause before the action is taken. It gives one no choice but to prevent it in comparision to living with the guilt (which is part of conscience). In other words, the alternative of having to live with this pain is less satisfying than the alternative which is to prevent the act from ever taking place. The constant realization that one will not be blamed for an action that could never be justified is the driving force that prevents the very act that could not be prevented in a free will environment.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Exactly thedoc. Lessans also seemed to think that eliminating words would somehow eliminate the concepts those words represent.

It's not like someone simply decided one day to make up a concept that does not have a associated existence in reality, and assign a word to it.

Beautiful describes a subjective set of feelings...those feelings exist whether the word beautiful exists or doesn't.

That is exactly what has happened LadyShea. There is no corresponding accuracy that these words represent, and yet they have hurt so many people (half of the population in some form) because they are judged as being physiognomically or intellectually inferior.

[LadyShea]

If the thought of being blamed by others isn't less satisfying enough to stop an action, why would the thought of guilt (which is simply self blame) be less satisfying enough to stop an action?

In other words, the alternative of having to live with this pain is less satisfying than the alternative which is to prevent the act from ever taking place. The constant realization that one will not be blamed for an action that could never be justified is the driving force that prevents the very act that could not be prevented in a free will environment

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is exactly what has happened LadyShea. There is no corresponding accuracy that these words represent

The concept of aesthetically pleasing is real. The concept that any individual will find various examples of things more or less aesthetically pleasing when compared to each other is real. Beautiful is simply a descriptor used to denote that the individual finds something highly aesthetically pleasing compared to other examples.

What was it you were fond of saying about your continued use of the phrase "traveling images"? A Shortcut.

The word beautiful is a shortcut to describing a real concept.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is exactly what has happened LadyShea. There is no corresponding accuracy that these words represent, and yet they have hurt so many people (half of the population in some form) because they are judged as being physiognomically or intellectually inferior.

Peacegirl, This is wrong, the words DO accurately represent the reality of peoples preception of the world. The words have hurt no-one, it is the use of those words that have the capacity to hurt. The reality, the meaning, and the use of the ideas that the words represent will continue even if the words are eliminated. There is no causal connection between the word and the meaning or concept it represents, just eliminating the word will not eliminate the concept that it represents. People will just find another word to express that concept, and the concepts will not go away. These are deep seated ideas and feelings that have been part of the humn condition from the beginning, they are part of being human. Peacegirl, what Lessans and you are proposing is to create a race of artificial human beings that cannot be created from the existing stock, if you were able to carve away everything that you and Lessans didn't like there would only be a shadow of a person left, with no spark of humanity, only a few basic instincts to eat and procreate.

[koan]

A formal education is not required to speak intelligently on a subject but there will be no intelligence unless the person educates themselves. A lot of what Lessans was thinking about has been studied and debated for a long time. Every person who has responded to this thread can make a better argument towards Determinism, why we shouldn't blame others, the origins of inequality, and how to create a more egalitarian society, than what has been prescribed by Lessans book. The concepts behind what he is saying are defensible (except for the stuff about eyes) but he simply doesn't defend them with legitimate arguments. That's why people have laughed at him.

We don't think inequality is a good thing. We don't necessarily hinge our world view on free will. A lot of people are working hard to try and right the inequality in society. The problem is that Lessans arguments are ridiculous. He could have assembled a better cure for the world if he'd researched the world better first.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Again, talents is just one aspect of personality. People fall in love with people, not just their bodies, not just a single talent...a whole person, with sex organs, AND lots of aspects and thoughts and opinions and traits.

People can love other people for many different reasons and be enamoured, but marriage is a separate issue that is related to procreation and sexual desire in order to achieve that end. You cannot tell me that marriage and sex are unrelated, or just a peripheral aspect.

You missed his whole point. It is correct to say that no matter what turns someone on, sex becomes central if romantic love is what a person is looking for.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's not correct to say that, if you are applying it to all people. Sex may be central, or may be periphery...a wonderful bonus if you will.

No LadyShea, sex is not a wonderful bonus. It is of major importance in all species because sex is what brings new life. You cannot tell me in all honesty that this is just icing on the cake.

By definition, that's what romantic (erotic) love is.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

By who's definition? Why do you think erotic and romantic are synonyms?

That's why I clarified "romantic". It is the eros kind of love that involves sexual desire. Again, this doesn't mean someone cannot love other aspects of someone, but it is a major factor in marriage and one of the major reasons for dissatisfaction and divorce, second to finances.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Love is simply a deep affection (caring and tenderness). That may or may not include an erotic component and may or may not include a romantic element. (Romance comes from a type of story involving chivalry and heroism and mystery elements and is tied to those traits)

Mystery elements? I think you're reading too many Harlequin novels. Love is a deep affection, that is true. I love my family more than anything in this world. I love my animals and my friends very much also, but I'm talking about male/female love, or homosexual love that brings two people together because you connect on a sexual level as well as other levels.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Neither you nor Lessans get to define other people's feelings or how they are prioritized in their own lives and relationships.

Lessans made an accurate observation. I am not prioritizing people's relationships but if you look carefully you will see that what draws two people together for the purpose of marriage is not personality alone. It's sexual attraction. Later in marriage, a couple may stay together for other reasons especially after the children are grown and the biological urge has passed, or if there are other arrangements made that is acceptable to both parties.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If one did not get turned on no matter how nice someone was, or what a great personality someone had, or none of those things altered one's sexual desire, the person who did not have those sexual feelings would not desire getting married for the purpose marriage was intended.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The purpose intended by who? Marriage was intended to aquire or protect resources, wealth, or social standing for most of recorded human history. It still carries aspects of that.

You are right that marriage in the legal sense was created to protect but it's still a formality. I'm talking about marriage as a coming together as man and wife to bring up their young. Women need a nest to have their babies and the father plays an important role, which is what marriage symbolizes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by koan

A formal education is not required to speak intelligently on a subject but there will be no intelligence unless the person educates themselves.

Who is saying otherwise koan? Why would you bring this up if you didn't think I was saying something different?

Originally Posted by koan

A lot of what Lessans was thinking about has been studied and debated for a long time.

And? This in no way means someone couldn't come along and make a discovery on this topic. The conclusion you are drawing isn't even reasonable, let alone logical. You are accusing him of not having a discovery because other people studied and debated this subject for a long time. So what? Just because other people didn't discovery it already, doesn't make him wrong. That reasoning is false, and it's showing your extreme bias.

Originally Posted by koan

Every person who has responded to this thread can make a better argument towards Determinism, why we shouldn't blame others, the origins of inequality, and how to create a more egalitarian society, than what has been prescribed by Lessans book.

Oh really? Show me where? Show me where anyone accepts determinism and the implications that must follow. People are threatened by the implications so they refuse to hear where the implications lead. They think that in order for there to be order in our world, we must hold people responsible for their actions. What they don't understand is that a no blame society compels people to hold themselves responsible for their own actions, thus creating the very thing that we could not accomplish in a free will society.

Originally Posted by koan

The concepts behind what he is saying are defensible (except for the stuff about eyes) but he simply doesn't defend them with legitimate arguments. That's why people have laughed at him.

Since you know what his concepts are, what are they? Why does he claim that man's will is not free, and what is his discovery koan? If you can't answer this without referring to the .pdf, you have no argument.

Originally Posted by koan

We don't think inequality is a good thing. We don't necessarily hinge our world view on free will. A lot of people are working hard to try and right the inequality in society. The problem is that Lessans arguments are ridiculous. He could have assembled a better cure for the world if he'd researched the world better first.

Where are Lessans' arguments ridiculous if you don't even understand what his arguments are? Be honest. You don't understand the first thing about this discovery, do you? I would much rather talk to someone who admits they don't know for sure, than someone who is arrogant and says they do when they don't. You can't just come in here and state his arguments are ridiculous without giving your reasons. You're making yourself look foolish. And finally, who said that people aren't working hard to find answers? I never said he was the only one. People are doing wonderful things to help make our world a better place, but you can't dismiss the fact that his knowledge is superior if it can prevent war, crime, hatred and poverty on a global scale.

[koan]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Being applicable to reality also a subjective call, as it is based on what one perceives to be reality.

Compatibilists obviously think their definition is more useful, in this case being defined as applicable to reality, than other definitions.

No LadyShea. It can be useful if one is trying to create a worldview that incorporates both positions (which is contradictory no matter what Spacemonkey says), but it's not useful if one wants a definition that represents the truth.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by koan

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Exactly thedoc. Lessans also seemed to think that eliminating words would somehow eliminate the concepts those words represent.

It's not like someone simply decided one day to make up a concept that does not have a associated existence in reality, and assign a word to it.

Beautiful describes a subjective set of feelings...those feelings exist whether the word beautiful exists or doesn't.

We have personal likes and dislikes but that is a far cry from using these terms. When you use the word "beautiful" you set up a general standard and those that fall below this standard are viewed as less attractive or "ugly." People didn't know how the eyes worked which allowed this conditioning process to take place where people would then say "I see this beauty and ugliness with my very eyes." This has caused an injustice that cannot easily be removed until the words doing the harm are removed. Young people have inferiority complexes because they see themselves as less pretty than the average person and therefore inferior in physiogomic value. That is exactly what is happening unbeknownst to lexicographers and those who think that beauty and ugliness exist externally when there is no external reality.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We have personal likes and dislikes but that is a far cry from using these terms. When you use the word "beautiful" you set up a general standard and those that fall below this standard are viewed as less attractive or "ugly." ThiPeople didn't know how the eyes worked which allowed this conditioning process to take place where people would then say "I see this beauty and ugliness with my very eyes." This has caused an injustice that cannot easily be removed until the words doing the harm are removed. Young people have inferiority complexes because they see themselves as less pretty than the average person and therefore inferior in physiogomic value. That is exactly what is happening unbeknownst to lexicographers and those who think that beauty and ugliness exist externally when there is no external reality.

Peacegirl, you and Lessans are so mixed up in thinking that the words are somehow the cause of the conditioning. The conditioning happens in the mind and the words are added later after the conditioning has happened. The words are not doing the harm, people do the harm in the way they use the words, the harm is in the concepts that people have attatcned the words to, WORDS DO NOT CAUSE HARM ! ! ! ! Lessans got it wrong he had no idea what he was talking about because he never looked into what others had said and written on the subjects. Lessans was totally ignorant of everything that had been learned, through dialogue, on many of these topics, and "The Fall of the Roman Empire" is not really relavent to todays world. Society and peoples beliefs have changed and the lessons from that history do not speak to todays society.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No LadyShea. It can be useful if one is trying to create a worldview that incorporates both positions (which is contradictory no matter what Spacemonkey says), but it's not useful if one wants a definition that represents the truth.

Words do not create a 'world view', the world view is a concept and a set of ideas that the words are attatched to or created to fit that world view. The words are arbitrary labels and are useful and true to the concepts they represent, you can disagree with the concepts and world views, and these are what you must address, rather than fussing about removing the words thinking that the concepts will disapear as well. Address the ideas and concepts, attacking the words is just 'Tilting at Windmills', it is the concepts and ideas that hold the meanings you seem to disagree with. You might believe the ideas and concepts do not reflect reality, and that is what you must adress, the words are an irrevelant afterthought.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No LadyShea. It can be useful if one is trying to create a worldview that incorporates both positions (which is contradictory no matter what Spacemonkey says), but it's not useful if one wants a definition that represents the truth.

And now you're back to making faith claims. You don't like compatibilism, so there just must be a contradiction in there somewhere! It doesn't seem to matter to you at all that you can't actually meet my arguments or do anything at all to actually produce this alleged contradiction for us.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true. Now I want an apology. I am loath to talk to you because I can feel your resentment. You are not going to win because Lessans was right, and you can't stand it.

LOL. Calm down. What I said was true. LadyShea never said what you thought she said. She never said anything about any supportive vote at all prior to the comments of yours I was asking you to explain. The post you say she made NEVER EXISTED. So what am I meant to be apologizing for?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered you and I refuse to answer it again unless you admit that there's something wrong with the definition. IT'S NOT USEFUL. The definition you are giving reverts right back to freedom of the will. Freedom from compulsion is not the only thing that's necessary to make one blameworthy. If he can't choose otherwise (beyond the compulsion compatibilists excuse), he is not blameworthy. Who sets the standard that says you could have chosen differently; that you weren't compelled because you have no overriding condition whereby you can't change your actions with new antecedent conditions? It may look free, but that's not enough to prove that one is actually free. It's an illusion. This is an attempt to reconcile these two positions, but coming from the position that I know is correct, I can see the flaw. This has been an attempt to justify blame and punish and yet keep the determinist position because threats of punishment have been the only deterrent up until now that could prevent people from hurting others. But it doesn't always work. This God given principle does work and will prevent the very thing man's laws and threats could never do.

There is nothing wrong with the definitions I gave you. Why is the compatibilist definition not useful? You say later that this means it cannot be applied to reality. But it can. We can distinguish between psychological compulsion and mere causal determination. We can choose to hold people blameworthy just so long as they are not coerced or compelled in this sense. Nothing at all prevents us from applying these definitions to reality.

I don't know why you say the definition I gave reverts right back to freedom of the will. It is a definition of freedom of the will. It is the compatibilist notion of freedom of the will - yet we already proved that it is different from the contra-causal notion of free will, so surely you don't mean it reverts back to that?

You ask who determines the standard for what kind of ability to choose otherwise will be relevant for being 'free' (in the sense of being blameworthy). And the answer is that WE do. That is the core point you seem to be missing. Whether or not people are blameworthy when they meet the compatibilist definition of freedom is NOT a factual issue. There is no fact of the matter to be uncovered. Blameworthiness is itself a value judgement, and not an empirical fact - it is something for us to decide rather than to uncover. And I have given you my reasoned explanation for why the compatibilist distinction is the one morally relevant for determining blameworthiness (i.e. a good place to choose to set the boundary), yet you have not replied to or addressed my point.

As things stand, you have failed to show any contradiction in compatibilism, and you have failed to provide any rational reason for thinking it to be wrong. You are right that you have replied before to the portion I bumped. I was trying to make things easier for you, as (due to your habit of splitting sections up to add comments wherever you please) my last post on compatibilism - which you did not reply to - was rather long. But I will bump it for you anyway, highlighting the most important section.