A revolution in thought

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Off the top of my head they might desire power and control and not care who they kill or step on to get it.

You forgot lebensraum.

Originally Posted by Crumb

No I don't see why you can't go further. Even if we don't agree with the premise we can accept it for the sake of you moving on. Move on already, give ups step to we are drooling for it.

Clearly you are not even reading the responses you are getting though because multiple people (including LadyShea iirc) have told you that they already didn't believe in free will before you even showed up here. So why the hell don't you just explain the next step to everyone? We are not dumb we can follow if you can explain. But don't expect people not to disagree with you.

This is the sticking point. It is clear that for peacegirl understanding = agreement. If you don't agree with those things that she holds to be undeniably true that can only be because you have not understood them.

Another observation: It is pointless to attempt to sumarize Lessens' ideas if that entails using language that is different from Lessens'. This observation helps to explain why none of LadyShea's summaries are satisfactory, as they all involve, to a lesser or greater degree, a restatement of Lessens' ideas. It also helps to explain why peacegirl is unable to provide a summary of his ideas in her own words. The only language that is adequate to the task of expressing Lessens' ideas is the language that Lessens' used to express those ideas. In much the same way as my English translation of the Quran is not the real Quran, so any "translation" of Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times is not the real Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times. In short, it is a sacred text.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so full of yourself, . . .

Yet you are the one throwing the temper-tantrum over the inconvenient fact that you have offered nothing but unsupported--and even rebutted--claims and a lot of fallacies.

. . . I hope people don't follow your lead.

You hope in vain. Nevertheless, I claim no special talent in recognizing the obvious which a number of other posters have recognized as well.

--J.D.

[Vivisectus]

In order to hurt another, either deliberately or carelessly, man
must be able to derive greater, not less, satisfaction which means
that self-preservation demands and justifies this; that he was
previously hurt in some way and finds it preferable to strike back
‘an eye for an eye,’ which he can also justify, or else he knows
absolutely and positively that he would be blamed by the person he
hurt and others if they knew.

This passage sums up the key passage of the book - WHY there will be no more conflict come the revolution. I am not aware of anything supporting this assertion. It is simply a claim THAT things are so, with not a shred of supporting evidence to show WHY it is.

I am sorry Peacegirl, but what you have there is more like a religion. It requires you to accept certain tenets on faith, promising to then make them reality if you and enough other people believe and follow these tenets. You are obviously it's first (and apparently only) convert.

It is nice enough, and very much an idea of it's time, but it follows the same route that Scientology takes - exaggerated claims that are not supported, repetition, and the pious exhortation that if it doesn't make sense, then that is because you have some mental blockage, and that you should "go back to source" - IE read the book until you agree.

[Doctor X]

Clearly you just do not understand, Vivisectus




I will pray for you. . . .

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And how is it possible for them to desire striking when they know they would be killing innocent people for which there would be no blame or retaliation?

Off the top of my head they might desire power and control and not care who they kill or step on to get it.

Originally Posted by Angukuk

You forgot lebensraum.

Yes, in the world of free will they would. It would give them a perfect opportunity to take advantage of a good thing. But you need to understand the change that will prevent this desire to take advantage.

Originally Posted by Crumb

No I don't see why you can't go further. Even if we don't agree with the premise we can accept it for the sake of you moving on. Move on already, give ups step to we are drooling for it.

Clearly you are not even reading the responses you are getting though because multiple people (including LadyShea iirc) have told you that they already didn't believe in free will before you even showed up here. So why the hell don't you just explain the next step to everyone? We are not dumb we can follow if you can explain. But don't expect people not to disagree with you.

Originally Posted by Angukuk

This is the sticking point. It is clear that for peacegirl understanding = agreement. If you don't agree with those things that she holds to be undeniably true that can only be because you have not understood them.

I want to use this as an analogy. What if Edison (since we now know he actually made a discovery) was given the same reception? Don't you think he would have said, "You just don't understand yet?" Why is that such a terrible thing to say when it's the truth, but you just don't see it yet?

Originally Posted by Angukuk

Another observation: It is pointless to attempt to sumarize Lessens' ideas if that entails using language that is different from Lessens'. This observation helps to explain why none of LadyShea's summaries are satisfactory, as they all involve, to a lesser or greater degree, a restatement of Lessens' ideas. It also helps to explain why peacegirl is unable to provide a summary of his ideas in her own words. The only language that is adequate to the task of expressing Lessens' ideas is the language that Lessens' used to express those ideas. In much the same way as my English translation of the Quran is not the real Quran, so any "translation" of Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times is not the real Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times. In short, it is a sacred text.

That may be your observation, but it is incomplete. LadyShea's summaries are fine, but they don't explain enough given that the definition of determinism I am using would contradict both principles. Now that you understand Lessans' definition which is that man is always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, the other principle is not in contradiction. If this book turns out to be genuine, then, yes, it would be considered sacred but not in a religious sense.

[peacegirl]

In order to move forward (if that's even possible) I want people to carefully this excerpt (if you have already, read it again as a review) which is the last part of Chapter One. If this is not clear in people's minds then you will continue to disagree with what is absolutely undeniable.

In other words, if someone was to say — “I didn’t really want
to hurt that person but couldn’t help myself under the
circumstances,” which demonstrates that though he believes in
freedom of the will he admits he was not free to act otherwise, that
he was forced by his environment to do what he really didn’t want
to do, or should he make any effort to shift his responsibility for
this hurt to heredity, God, his parents, the fact that his will is not
free, or something else as the cause, he is obviously lying to others
and being dishonest with himself because absolutely nothing is
forcing him against his will to do what he doesn’t want to do, for
over this, as was just shown, he has mathematical control.

“It’s amazing, all my life I have believed man’s will is free but
for the first time I can actually see that his will is not free.”

Another friend commented, “You may be satisfied but I’m not.
The definition of determinism is the philosophical and ethical
doctrine that man’s choices, decisions and actions are decided by
antecedent causes, inherited or environmental, acting upon his
character. According to this definition we are not given a choice
because we are being caused to do what we do by a previous event
or circumstance. But I know for a fact that nothing can make me
do what I make up my mind not to do — just as you mentioned a
moment ago. If I don’t want to do something, nothing, not
environment, heredity, or anything else you care to throw in can
make me do it because over this I have mathematical control.
Since I can’t be made to do anything against my will, doesn’t this
make my will free? And isn’t it a contradiction to say that man’s
will is not free yet nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want
to do?”

“How about that, he brought out something I never would have
thought of.”

All he said was that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t
make him drink, which is undeniable, however, though it is a
mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another
what he makes up his mind not to do — this is an extremely crucial
point — he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every
moment of his existence to do everything he does. This reveals, as
your friend pointed out, that man has mathematical control over the
former but absolutely none over the latter because he must
constantly move in the direction of greater satisfaction. It is true
that nothing in the past can cause what occurs in the present, for all
we ever have is the present; the past and future are only words that
describe a deceptive relation. Consequently, determinism was
faced with an almost impossible task because it assumed that
heredity and environment caused man to choose evil, and the
proponents of free will believed the opposite, that man was not
caused or compelled, ‘he did it of his own accord; he wanted to do
it, he didn’t have to.’

The term ‘free will’ contains an assumption
or fallacy for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do
anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will.
This is one of those logical, not mathematical conclusions. The
expression, ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when
it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing
compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise
had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted
because of the general ignorance that prevailed for although it is
correct in the sense that a person did something because he wanted
to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact I shall use
the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which only
means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words
have deceived everyone?

Because of this misinterpretation of the expression ‘man’s will
is free,’ great confusion continues to exist in any discussion
surrounding this issue for although it is true man has to make
choices, he must always prefer that which he considers good not
evil for himself when the former is offered as an alternative. The
words cause and compel are the perception of an improper or
fallacious relation because in order to be developed and have
meaning it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’
be born as their opposite, as tall gives meaning to short.

Nothing
causes man to build cities, develop scientific achievements, write
books, compose music, go to war, argue and fight, commit terrible
crimes, pray to God, for these things are mankind already at a
particular stage of his development, just as children were sacrificed
at an earlier stage. These activities or motions are the natural
entelechy of man who is always developing, correcting his
mistakes, and moving in the direction of greater satisfaction by
better removing the dissatisfaction of the moment, which is a
normal compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no
control.

Looking back in hindsight allows man to evaluate his
progress and make corrections when necessary since he is always
learning from previous experience. The fact that will is not free
demonstrates that man has been unconsciously developing at a
mathematical rate and during every moment of his progress was
doing what he had to do because he had no free choice. But this
does not mean that he was caused to do anything against his will,
for the word ‘cause’, like choice and past, is very misleading as it
implies that something other than man himself is responsible for
his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two, it is that already.

As long as history has been recorded, these two opposing
principles were never reconciled until now. The amazing thing is
that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies, and desires,
theology’s promulgation of free will, the millions that criticized
determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to be.
It was impossible for man to have acted differently because the
mankind system is obeying this invariable law which makes the
motion of all life just as harmonious as the solar system — because
we are these laws.

“Can you clarify this a little bit more?”

“Certainly. In other words, no one is compelling a person to
work at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country against his
will. He actually wants to do the very things he dislikes simply
because the alternative is considered worse and he must choose
something to do among the various things in his environment, or
else commit suicide. Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and
his followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of
death which was judged, according to their circumstances, the
lesser of two evils? Therefore, when any person says he was
compelled to do what he did against his will, that he didn’t want to
but had to — and innumerable of our expressions say this — he is
obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and
others because everything man does to another is done only
because he wants to do it, done to be humorous, of his own free
will, which only means that his preference gave him greater
satisfaction at that moment of time, for one reason or another.”

“His reasoning is perfect. I can’t find a flaw although I thought
I did. I think I understand now. Just because I cannot be made to
do something against my will does not mean my will is free
because my desire not to do it appeared the better reason, which
gave me no free choice since I got greater satisfaction. Nor does
the expression, ‘I did it of my own free will, nobody made me do
it,’ mean that I actually did it of my own free will — although I did
it because I wanted to — because my desire to do it appeared the
better reason which gave me no free choice since I got greater
satisfaction.”

“He does understand.”

“Does this mean you are also in complete agreement so I can
proceed?”

“Yes it does.”

Then let me summarize by taking careful note of this simple
reasoning that proves conclusively (except for the implications
already referred to) that will is not free. Man has two possibilities
that are reduced to the common denominator of one. Either he
does not have a choice because none is involved, as with aging,
and then it is obvious that he is under the compulsion of living
regardless of what his particular motion at any moment might be;
or he has a choice, and then is given two or more alternatives of
which he is compelled, by his nature, to prefer the one that appears
to offer the greatest satisfaction whether it is the lesser of two evils,
the greater of two goods, or a good over an evil. Therefore, it is
absolutely impossible for will to be free because man never has a
free choice, though it must be remembered that the words good and
evil are judgments of what others think is right and wrong, not
symbols of reality.

The truth is that the words good and evil can
only have reference to what is a benefit or a hurt to oneself.
Killing someone may be good in comparison to the evil of having
that person kill me. The reason someone commits suicide is not
because he is compelled to do this against his will, but only
because the alternative of continuing to live under certain
conditions is considered worse. He was not happy to take his own
life but under the conditions he was compelled to prefer, by his
very nature, the lesser of two evils which gave him greater
satisfaction. Consequently, when he does not desire to take his own
life because he considers this the worse alternative as a solution to
his problems, he is still faced with making a decision, whatever it
is, which means that he is compelled to choose an alternative that
is more satisfying.

For example, in the morning when the alarm
clock goes off he has three possibilities; commit suicide so he
never has to get up, go back to sleep, or get up and face the day.
Since suicide is out of the question under these conditions, he is
left with two alternatives. Even though he doesn’t like his job and
hates the thought of going to work, he needs money, and since he
can’t stand having creditors on his back or being threatened with
lawsuits, it is the lesser of two evils to get up and go to work. He
is not happy or satisfied to do this when he doesn’t like his job, but
he finds greater satisfaction doing one thing than another. Dog
food is good to a starving man when the other alternatives are
horse manure or death, just as the prices on a menu may cause him
to prefer eating something he likes less because the other
alternative of paying too high a price for what he likes more is still
considered worse under his particular circumstances.

The law of
self-preservation demands that he do what he believes will help
him stay alive and make his life easier, and if he is hard-pressed to
get what he needs to survive he may be willing to cheat, steal, kill
and do any number of things which he considers good for himself
in comparison to the evil of finding himself worse off if he doesn’t
do these things. All this simply proves is that man is compelled to
move in the direction of satisfaction during every moment of his
existence. It does not yet remove the implications. The expression
‘I did it of my own free will’ has been seriously misunderstood, for
although it is impossible to do anything of one’s own free will, HE
DOES EVERYTHING BECAUSE HE WANTS TO since
absolutely nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to.

Think about this once again. Was it humanly possible to make
Gandhi and his followers do what they did not want to do when
unafraid of death which was judged, according to their
circumstances, the lesser of two evils? In their eyes, death was the
better choice if the alternative was to lose their freedom. Many
people are confused over this one point. Just because no one on
this earth can make you do anything against your will does not
mean your will is free. Gandhi wanted freedom for his people and
it was against his will to stop his nonviolent movement even
though he constantly faced the possibility of death...but this doesn’t
mean his will was free, it just means that it gave him greater
satisfaction to face death than to forego his fight for freedom.

Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what
he did against his will, that he really didn’t want to but had to
because he was being tortured, he is obviously confused and
unconsciously dishonest with himself and others because he could
die before being forced to do something against his will. What he
actually means was that he didn’t like being tortured because the
pain was unbearable so rather than continue suffering this way he
preferred as the lesser of two evils to tell his captors what they
wanted to know, but he did this because he wanted to not because
some external force made him do this against his will. If by talking
he would know that someone he loved would be instantly killed,
pain and death might have been judged the lesser of two evils.
This is an extremely crucial point because though it is true that will
is not free, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ON THIS EARTH CAN
MAKE MAN DO ANYTHING AGAINST HIS WILL. He might
not like what he did — but he wanted to do it because the
alternative gave him no free or better choice. It is extremely
important that you clear this up in your mind before proceeding.

This knowledge was not available before now, and what is
revealed as each individual becomes conscious of his true nature
is something fantastic to behold for it not only gives ample proof
that evil is no accident, but it will also put an end to every
conceivable kind of hurt that exists in human relations. There will
take place a virtual miracle of transformation as each person
consciously realizes WHAT IT MEANS that his will is not free,
which has not yet been revealed. And now I shall demonstrate
how these two undeniable laws or principles — that nothing can
compel man to do anything against his will because over this his
nature allows absolute control; and that his will is not free because
his nature also compels him to prefer of available alternatives the
one that offers greater satisfaction — will reveal a third invariable
law — the discovery to which reference has been made.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Free won't = the ability to hold off doing something after you've developed the intention to do it.

I don't think this is at all confusing to anyone here.

No, that's not what it means. It is that nothing can cause us to do anything against our will. Holding off doing something one intends to do (sort of like impulse control) does not mean the same thing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also, you've had years to develop a synopsis, and I am helping you. Do my points A and B need revising? I am happy to remove the free won't part if it helps us move along.

No matter how you slice it, condensing this knowledge causes major confusion. Look what's happening even when I am spelling everything out. This would cause the naysayers to laugh their heads off even more.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This passage sums up the key passage of the book - WHY there will be no more conflict come the revolution. I am not aware of anything supporting this assertion. It is simply a claim THAT things are so, with not a shred of supporting evidence to show WHY it is.

I am sorry Peacegirl, but what you have there is more like a religion. It requires you to accept certain tenets on faith, promising to then make them reality if you and enough other people believe and follow these tenets. You are obviously it's first (and apparently only) convert.

It is nice enough, and very much an idea of it's time, but it follows the same route that Scientology takes - exaggerated claims that are not supported, repetition, and the pious exhortation that if it doesn't make sense, then that is because you have some mental blockage, and that you should "go back to source" - IE read the book until you agree.

Then please move on because I only want truly interested people here, not people who are here to show me what a convert I am and how strong my faith is. I don't want to have to defend the book at every turn. It's exhausting.

[LadyShea]

Don't you think [Edison] would have said, "You just don't understand yet?" Why is that such a terrible thing to say when it's the truth, but you just don't see it yet?

The big difference is that Edison had a working light bulb to use for demonstration.

No matter how you slice it, condensing this knowledge causes major confusion.

No, it doesn't. The walls of text with the fake dialog and repetition and obfuscating the simple points are causing the confusion.

Disagreement is not always attributable to confusion.

Look what's happening even when I am spelling everything out.

As Angukuk pointed out, you refuse to "spell everything out" using language other than that used in the book. There is something really, really weird and creepy about your refusal to use synonyms or come up with analogies other than those used by Lessans.

This would cause the naysayers to laugh their heads off even more.

A) you don't know that and B) why not go for broke since they are laughing already?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then please move on because I only want truly interested people here, not people who are here to show me what a convert I am and how strong my faith is. I don't want to have to defend the book at every turn. It's exhausting.

Unfortunately that's what you signed up for, sweetie, when you chose to become an evangelist.

[wildernesse]

There does not seem to be a truly interested person (besides yourself) posting in this thread. Why don't you take a break from this thread and talk to us about something else--like what you're having for dinner or what movies you have seen recently or what is going on in your life right now?

It would probably be a more productive use of your time.

[Elouise]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that's not what it means. It is that nothing can cause us to do anything against our will. Holding off doing something one intends to do (sort of like impulse control) does not mean the same thing.

re the part I've bolded: I agree with both these points.

wrt the first point, if we agree that we have no free will, then of course we must agree that nothing can cause us to do anything against it.

[Elouise]

I wouldn't call that 'free won't' though. The use of the word 'free' is the key here, and it doesn't work either way. No free will, no free won't.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't you think [Edison] would have said, "You just don't understand yet?" Why is that such a terrible thing to say when it's the truth, but you just don't see it yet?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The big difference is that Edison had a working light bulb to use for demonstration.

That wasn't the point I was making. The point was that Edison had a discovery, and if someone said I don't agree and it can't be true, what could he have said other than, "You have not yet understood." The fact that this discovery does not entail a physical object does not negate the fact that the reasoning is undeniable, if understood.

No matter how you slice it, condensing this knowledge causes major confusion.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, it doesn't. The walls of text with the fake dialog and repetition and obfuscating the simple points are causing the confusion.

How can you say this when your synopsis was incorrect? I know you are trying to help me, but this is the very reason I could not shorten such a difficult proof. This debate has been going on for centuries, and I'm supposed to give a two sentence summary? When you think about it, it's not fair to me as someone who is representing this author.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Disagreement is not always attributable to confusion.

True, but in this case disagreement is definitely attributable to confusion, or misunderstanding, or just not taking the time to study what I've posted with an open mind.

Look what's happening even when I am spelling everything out.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As Angukuk pointed out, you refuse to "spell everything out" using language other than that used in the book. There is something really, really weird and creepy about your refusal to use synonyms or come up with analogies other than those used by Lessans.

Are you serious? I have paraphrased just about everything. I have not resorted to the book except to clarify a concept once I've explained it in my own words. Just because I used the example of the bathtub and dog food does not indicate I don't understand the subject or cannot put it in my own words. I just used an analogy with Edison. That wasn't in the book. You are all grasping at straws because everyone probably believes there has to be some flaw or major loophole. In your minds this discovery cannot be valid.

This would cause the naysayers to laugh their heads off even more.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

A) you don't know that and B) why not go for broke since they are laughing already?

What do you think I've been doing LadyShea? I have spelled out what is important in Chapter One. If people are still telling me that these two principles which form the basis of his discovery, are untrue, there is no point in continuing, and that's okay. I am not desperate to get anyone's approval.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Elouise

re the part I've bolded: I agree with both these points.

wrt the first point, if we agree that we have no free will, then of course we must agree that nothing can cause us to do anything against it.

I'm glad you agree with me, but any philosopher will tell you that the two principles are contradictory. How can one have no free will and not be caused to do what one does or doesn't do? This is where Lessans' definition comes into the picture which, by the way, is 100% accurate. They will tell you that being able to do what one wants to do (or doesn't want to do) IS the definition of free will. Unless you clearly understand why there is no contradiction between these two principles, we cannot move ahead. It would be like trying to understand an equation with the first half deleted.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People have the desire to hurt others for three main reasons. I already posted this, but maybe you didn't see it.

In order to hurt another, either deliberately or carelessly, man
must be able to derive greater, not less, satisfaction which means
that self-preservation demands and justifies this; that he was
previously hurt in some way and finds it preferable to strike back
‘an eye for an eye,’ which he can also justify, or else he knows
absolutely and positively that he would be blamed by the person he
hurt and others if they knew.

The underlined is unintelligible; but that aside, what do you think can be said about a self which is preserved by an act of revenge?

Of course there is a difference, but that's not the issue right now.

Evidently what is paramount at the moment is to evade the question.

It is important to be unconditionally accepted by the people you love.

And that's the most important thing in your life?

Why keep everyone in suspense?

It's not news to many here. It generally elicits a response similar to what you're getting, but for a different reason.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The truth is that the words good and evil can
only have reference to what is a benefit or a hurt to oneself.

This is certainly true for selfish people. Why anyone who professes to believe in such a patent absurdity would compound his or her error by further professing to have any insight into the human condition is an interesting question.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Unfortunately that's what you signed up for, sweetie, when you chose to become an evangelist.

If you believe that I am preaching, or that I'm trying to sway people without any proof, then this has been a waste of time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People have the desire to hurt others for three main reasons. I already posted this, but maybe you didn't see it.

In order to hurt another, either deliberately or carelessly, man
must be able to derive greater, not less, satisfaction which means
that self-preservation demands and justifies this; that he was
previously hurt in some way and finds it preferable to strike back
‘an eye for an eye,’ which he can also justify, or else he knows
absolutely and positively that he would be blamed by the person he
hurt and others if they knew.

Originally Posted by yguy

The underlined is unintelligible; but that aside, what do you think can be said about a self which is preserved by an act of revenge?

The problem is that I took this passage from Chapter Two that was not discussed yet. Can you explain what you mean by 'a self that is preserved by an act of revenge?' Do you mean exacting revenge in order to stay alive or preserve oneself in order to avoid getting hurt?

Of course there is a difference, but that's not the issue right now.

Originally Posted by yguy

Evidently what is paramount at the moment is to evade the question.

What you are asking has nothing to do with the topic we're discussing.

You're trying very hard to focus on something unrelated to make me look questionable. I wonder what they call that in philosophy.

Why keep everyone in suspense?

Originally Posted by yguy

It's not news to many here. It generally elicits a response similar to what you're getting, but for a different reason.

You are the one being evasive.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The truth is that the words good and evil can
only have reference to what is a benefit or a hurt to oneself.

Originally Posted by yguy

This is certainly true for selfish people. Why anyone who professes to believe in such a patent absurdity would compound his or her error by further professing to have any insight into the human condition is an interesting question.

You are misunderstanding this as well. Where is it selfish to think dog food is good if starvation is the only other alternative? That is what he meant by good and bad are relative. If I have a choice of steak or dog food, then obviously I would choose the steak. If I wouldn't share the steak with someone who is right next me starving, then you could call that selfish.

[The Lone Ranger]

It's not at all difficult to explain (nor to understand) how an incandescent light bulb works. Indeed, many people had built working bulbs before Edison. His innovation was that he (through trial and error) came up with the notion of using carbonized filaments. Thus he invented the first practical electric light. There was nothing about it that involved then-unknown principles.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you want help from me, you are going to have to ask specific questions...

What a hoot! This from someone who can't even provide a succinct, specific summary of what the author's actual argument is!

[erimir]

It's also funny that peacegirl references evolutionary history. Presumably she thinks that the ideas of evolution can support Lessans's theories.

But suppose we exist in this post-peacegirl's stuff world, where there is no war or anger or hitting people.

But wait! This one guy has a mutation in his brain! It makes peacegirl's philosophy not work! Even though he knows that he is ultimately responsible, and that no one will blame or punish him, he decides to simply TAKE what he wants, and kill whoever gets in the way. So, he goes around doing this, stealing from people. Nobody does anything to him or tries to stop him, because they don't blame him and they don't punish people.

This man uses his extra resources to support a larger family, thus passing on his mutation at a higher rate than the genetics of the general population.

We could also suppose that he would also rape women, again without consequences of punishment, and in this way passes on his genetics to many children that way as well.

His children, who are numerous (compared to the number of children most people have) go on to behave in similar ways, outbreeding the "normals", and overtime you would expect this man's genetics to become quite prevalent, as long as they suffer no punishment for their behavior. And thus over the years, we end up with a society much like our own, where murder and rape and theft do in fact happen all the time. And if the "normals" don't abandon peacegirl's philosophy, they will simply die out, leaving an even more brutal society behind.

And thus you can see both why peacegirl's philosophy is absurd and why evolutionary theory can't support it it any way - because peacegirl wants you to believe that humans won't do things that improve their evolutionary fitness, because for some reason it won't give them satisfaction in this new world. But you can all tell, then, that people who do improve their fitness (even if it goes against peacegirl's philosophy), and whatever psychological traits they have (to the extent that they're genetic) will get passed on at a higher rate.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where is it unintelligible? It's very clear to me.

If your purpose here is to make things clear to yourself, it may be that you are doing a bangup job.

Can you explain what you mean by 'a self that is preserved by an act of revenge?' Do you mean exacting revenge in order to stay alive or preserve oneself in order to avoid getting hurt?

No, I mean revenge for its own sake.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course there is a difference, but that's not the issue right now.

Originally Posted by yguy

Evidently what is paramount at the moment is to evade the question.

I'm not evading anything.

Lady, I don't know who the hell you think you're kidding.

What you are asking has nothing to do with the topic we're discussing.

On the contrary, those are very pertinent questions, and very simple to answer for anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of human nature, which you surely ought to if you present yourself has having special knowledge of the human condition.

You're trying very hard to focus on something unrelated to make me look questionable.

You have made yourself look questionable, by making questionable statements and becoming defensive when they are challenged.

Your saying it's baloney without any reason means nothing. I believe it's you that's being evasive.

No, if I were being evasive I would pretend to answer the question, or claim it is irrelevant, as you have, rather than merely decline to answer.

Where is it selfish to think dog food is good if starvation is the only other alternative?

Who said it was?

If I wouldn't share the steak with someone who is right next me starving, then you could call that selfish.

How about if sharing the steak puts me in danger of starvation? If I don't share in that situation, am I being selfish, or merely acting so as to give me the greatest satisfaction?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

There does not seem to be a truly interested person (besides yourself) posting in this thread. Why don't you take a break from this thread and talk to us about something else--like what you're having for dinner or what movies you have seen recently or what is going on in your life right now?

It would probably be a more productive use of your time.

Wildernesse, if no one is interested in this thread, then what are people here for? As far as what I'm having for dinner, I'm eating with my son who is in from New York with his fiance and my precious grandson.

[peacegirl]

[quote=yguy;929910]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where is it unintelligible? It's very clear to me.

Originally Posted by yguy

If your purpose here is to make things clear to yourself, it may be that you are doing a bangup job.

Because I've been pulling excerpts that are out of place, it might sound unintelligible to you. At least you tried to understand it; that gives me hope. This excerpt is actually in Chapter Two which we didn't even get to yet. Do you see why it might sound unintelligible?

Can you explain what you mean by 'a self that is preserved by an act of revenge?' Do you mean exacting revenge in order to stay alive or preserve oneself in order to avoid getting hurt?

Originally Posted by yguy

No, I mean revenge for its own sake.

Of course. People that have been hurt want revenge, especially if they've been seriously wronged.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course there is a difference, but that's not the issue right now.

Originally Posted by yguy

Evidently what is paramount at the moment is to evade the question.

I'm not evading anything.

On the contrary, those are very pertinent questions, and very simple to answer for anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of human nature, which you surely ought to if you present yourself has having special knowledge of the human condition.

Originally Posted by yguy

You have made yourself look questionable, by making questionable statements and becoming defensive when they are challenged.

If there is a question I am fine with that, but I can't help but become defensive when you tell me this is a bunch of baloney.

Your saying it's baloney without any reason means nothing. I believe it's you that's being evasive.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, if I were being evasive I would pretend to answer the question, or claim it is irrelevant, as you have, rather than merely decline to answer.

I will say it again, being accepted by the most important people in your life is an important part of having a healthy self-image. This is not scientific, but I think there is strong evidence to support this.

Where is it selfish to think dog food is good if starvation is the only other alternative?

Originally Posted by yguy

Who said it was?

You, I thought.

If I wouldn't share the steak with someone who is right next me starving, then you could call that selfish.

Originally Posted by yguy

How about if sharing the steak puts me in danger of starvation? If I don't share in that situation, am I being selfish, or merely acting so as to give me the greatest satisfaction?

Most people would want to share their food in a situation like this. I don't want to put a label on someone, but it would be unusual not to want to help another when they know they are the only ones that could prevent a person from dying or suffering.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It's not at all difficult to explain (nor to understand) how an incandescent light bulb works. Indeed, many people had built working bulbs before Edison. His innovation was that he (through trial and error) came up with the notion of using carbonized filaments. Thus he invented the first practical electric light. There was nothing about it that involved then-unknown principles.

What I read was that he almost didn't get to demonstrate his discovery because people were impatient. They didn't understand how it was possible to create the first practical lightbulb? Luckily, his demonstration worked in the time span they gave him.