Are you going to throw out his entire life's work because of this? Of course you will!
It is a pity for a man to waste his life on a misconception, and have his daughter make a fool of him. I suppose it could be worse, but I can't think how.
__________________ The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
I have already explained his use of the term "free will" and why it is fine to use if it means "of my own desire". You don't remember, do you?
Sure I remember. Per the Corrupted Text, there's nothing wrong with saying "I did it of my own free will" since the speaker is really saying "I did it because I wanted to," which is an accurate statement. However, the will isn't actually free since the desire to do the act in question, i.e., the "wanted to" part, was a product of the greater satisfaction principle.
Right.
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?
<snip>
“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 of the matter 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.
peacegirl, we reject your Corrupted Text because it is Corrupt. We shall interpret the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime, and we shall do so without blame from you.
Unrelated? peacegirl, this is exactly what my Revolution in Thought thread is for! Here, we have a top scientist (not a political scientist) investigating and affirming the Authentic Text's claim that Einstein was right.
Unrelated? peacegirl, this is exactly what my Revolution in Thought thread is for! Here, we have a top scientist (not a political scientist) investigating and affirming the Authentic Text's claim that Einstein was right.
You are trying very hard to continue making a joke of this thread, but it's not going to happen.
You are trying very hard to continue making a joke of this thread, but it's not going to happen.
peacegirl, I am the True Steward of the Authentic Text. This is my thread, and I will use it to bring the Authentic Text to a world in need.
I know that you reject the Authentic Text as some kind of joke so that you can hawk your Corrupted Text for lucre online at $41.00 a pop. Though this is a hurt to the Authentic Text, I do not blame you for it, because I allow for the source.
You are trying very hard to continue making a joke of this thread, but it's not going to happen.
peacegirl, I am the True Steward of the Authentic Text. This is my thread, and I will use it to bring the Authentic Text to a world in need.
I know that you reject the Authentic Text as some kind of joke so that you can hawk your Corrupted Text for lucre online at $41.00 a pop. Though this is a hurt to the Authentic Text, I do not blame you for it, because I allow for the source.
Now this is impressive, brilliant even! From Ms. Williamson's first book:
Quote:
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do.
David Dunning and Jason Kruger published their initial paper in 1999. Marianne Williamson published the above quote in 1992, a full seven years earlier.
Williamson not only recognized the Dunning-Kruger effect before Dunning and Kruger did but also found a way to cash in by providing affirmation, in the strongest terms, of the Dunning-Kruger incompetent's erroneous but deeply-held beliefs about himself. "Your [100% imaginary] brilliance, competence and talent exists because God wants it to exist! You deserve to be [imaginarily] brilliant, competent and talented because God Himself says so!"
The whole enterprise is more than a little wormy, but ya gotta respect the strategy and success.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
Now this is impressive, brilliant even! From Ms. Williamson's first book:
Quote:
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do.
David Dunning and Jason Kruger published their initial paper in 1999. Marianne Williamson published the above quote in 1992, a full seven years earlier.
Williamson not only recognized the Dunning-Kruger effect before Dunning and Kruger did but also found a way to cash in by providing affirmation, in the strongest terms, of the Dunning-Kruger incompetent's erroneous but deeply-held beliefs about himself. "Your [100% imaginary] brilliance, competence and talent exists because God wants it to exist! You deserve to be [imaginarily] brilliant, competent and talented because God Himself says so!"
The whole enterprise is more than a little wormy, but ya gotta respect the strategy and success.
You don't even understand what was meant by that quote. She was not cashing in on the Dunning Kruger effect. Everything is not the way you interpret it Maturin.
Flo, still drinking whiskey and channelling Bill the Butcher:
“And I want you to go out there, peacegirl — you, nobody else — none of your little minions. I want you to go out there … and I want you … to punish the person … who’s responsible … for murdering my poor little Adolf.”
Everything is not the way you interpret it Maturin.
Nothing is the way you interpret it, peacegirl.
What a great user title that would be: "A Stephen Maturin Interpretation"
Just remember that society doesn't move because the majority gets it. It moves because a small group of people (considered outrageous radicals by the status quo of their time) have a better idea. Marianne Williamson
Everything is not the way you interpret it Maturin.
Nothing is the way you interpret it, peacegirl.
What a great user title that would be: "A Stephen Maturin Interpretation"
Just remember that society doesn't move because the majority gets it. It moves because a small group of people (considered outrageous radicals by the status quo of their time) have a better idea. Marianne Williamson
Everything is not the way you interpret it Maturin.
Nothing is the way you interpret it, peacegirl.
What a great user title that would be: "A Stephen Maturin Interpretation"
Just remember that society doesn't move because the majority gets it. It moves because a small group of people (considered outrageous radicals by the status quo of their time) have a better idea. Marianne Williamson
Everything is not the way you interpret it Maturin.
Nothing is the way you interpret it, peacegirl.
What a great user title that would be: "A Stephen Maturin Interpretation"
Just remember that society doesn't move because the majority gets it. It moves because a small group of people (considered outrageous radicals by the status quo of their time) have a better idea. Marianne Williamson
Of course. But you're no Marianne Williamson.
Nope, but my father was.
And yet you presume to mutilate and censor and fabricate his words, all so you can hawk your Corrupted Text for lucre