Most people believe the statement "nothing can force someone to do what they don't want to do" means their will is free.
Fine, we don't have free will. So how would you concisely state point B and then please move on to point C.
This could be the basis of your synopsis for future endeavors.
And please, please, please stop with the assumptions regarding "most people". You are talking to specific people, individual people, you can ask us questions to see if we need clarification of where we are. Your friend Most People stayed home today, so quit talking to him.
It is rather depressing to see people spending tens of thousands of hours on projects that are doomed from the outset because one or more of their pillars are invalid assumptions.
Well . . . you DO get a great collection of Silly Hats:
which . . .
. . . people try to steal!
--J.D.
This guy looks like he thinks he's God himself. But, this is what the Roman Catholic Church is all about, with its own brand of Luciferianism ...
__________________
Death (and living) is all in our heads. It is a creation of our own imagination. So, maybe we just "imagine" that we die?
Right. At that moment your anger at this person compelled you to hurt him. Maybe you didn't mean to kill him; maybe you just wanted to scare him but it went too far, and now you feel remorse. But there is no doubt that subject x (you) wanted to do action a (hurt this person) at that point in time.
Then all feelings of remorse are fraudulent. Right?
Not at all.
How is it possible to be honestly remorseful about doing exactly what you intended to do?
That's just the point.
Then how about answering the question?
Quote:
If we can create the conditions that prevent people from desiring to hurt others, then our problem is solved.
If you know how to do that, you surely must know why people have such a desire, so how about cluing us all in?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
[...]
By the way, you are right in that the words you just spoke to intentionally hurt me did bring you greater satisfaction.
Are you really unaware that there are different kinds of satisfaction, and that there is a qualitative difference between the satisfaction one gets from saving a child from drowning and that which you believe the poster got from his abusive reply? And if you are aware of that difference, how do you account for it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The most important thing in life is being accepted,
Really? That's the most important thing in your life?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
To repeat: Nothing can cause a person to hurt another unless he wants to hurt them; the environment just creates the conditions that arouse his desire. Does that help?
Definitely not, because it's absolute baloney.
I could tell you why; but at this point I see no reason to believe you're any more open-minded than any of your detractors, so I'll reserve that until such time as I see evidence to the contrary.
Oh my GAWD, why does there need to be a consensus?
Tell davidm whatever it is you have to say and see what happens. You can't be any worse off, right?
It seems a bit incredable to me that this thread has gone on for 25 pages with no end in sight. Every counter argument for Peacegirl's position is met with something no more sophisticated than "No it's not" or "Yes it is" depending on the particular post. The other common response is "It's in the Book" which reminds me,
Most people believe the statement "nothing can force someone to do what they don't want to do" means their will is free.
Fine, we don't have free will. So how would you concisely state point B and then please move on to point C.
This could be the basis of your synopsis for future endeavors.
And please, please, please stop with the assumptions regarding "most people". You are talking to specific people, individual people, you can ask us questions to see if we need clarification of where we are. Your friend Most People stayed home today, so quit talking to him.
You already know the two principles: Man's will is not free and nothing can make man do anything against his will. I am not talking about physical force. To help clarify this because these two sentences will have no meaning otherwise, I will add an excerpt that may help.
Let me repeat this crucial point because it is the source of so
much confusion: Although man’s will is not free there is
absolutely nothing, not environment, heredity, God, or anything
else that causes him to do what he doesn’t want to do. The
environment does not cause him to commit a crime, it just presents
conditions under which his desire is aroused, consequently, he
can’t blame what is not responsible, but remember his particular
environment is different because he himself is different otherwise
everybody would desire to commit a crime. Once he chooses to act
on his desire whether it is a minor or more serious crime he doesn’t
come right out and say, “I hurt that person not because I was
compelled to do it against my will but only because I wanted to do
it” because the standards of right and wrong prevent him from
deriving any satisfaction out of such honesty when this will only
evoke blame, criticism, and punishment of some sort for his
desires. Therefore, he is compelled to justify those actions
considered wrong with excuses, extenuating circumstances, and the
shifting of guilt to someone or something else as the cause, to
absorb part if not all the responsibility which allowed him to
absolve his conscience in a world of judgment and to hurt others
in many cases with impunity since he could demonstrate why he
was compelled to do what he really didn’t want to do.
You see it
happen all the time, even when a child says, “Look what you made
me do” when you know you didn’t make him do anything. Spilling
a glass of milk because he was careless, and not wishing to be
blamed, the boy searches quickly for an excuse to shift the
responsibility to something that does not include him. Why else
would the boy blame his own carelessness on somebody or
something else if not to avoid the criticism of his parents? It is
also true that the boy’s awareness that he would be blamed and
punished for carelessness — which is exactly what took place —
makes him think very carefully about all that he does to prevent the
blame and punishment he doesn’t want. A great confusion exists
because it is assumed that if man does something to hurt another
he could always excuse his actions by saying, “I couldn’t help
myself because my will is not free.” This is another aspect of the
implications which turned philosophers off from a thorough
investigation. In the following dialogue, my friend asks for
clarification regarding certain critical points.
“You read my mind. I really don’t know how you plan to solve
this enigmatic corollary but it seems to me that this knowledge
would give man a perfect excuse for taking advantage of others
without any fear of consequences. If the boy knows for a fact that
his will is not free, why couldn’t he use this as an excuse in an
attempt to shift his responsibility or use any other excuse he feels
will sound believable for the same reason?”
This last question is a superficial perception of inaccurate
reasoning because it is mathematically impossible to shift
responsibility, to excuse or justify getting away with something,
when you know in advance that you will not be blamed regardless
of what you do, because the world knows your will is not free.
Because of this general confusion with words through which you
have been compelled to see a distorted reality, it appears at first
glance that the dethronement of free will would allow man to shift
his responsibility all the more and take advantage of not being
blamed to excuse or justify any desires heretofore kept under
control by the fear of punishment and public opinion which judged
his actions in accordance with standards of right and wrong; but
this is a superficial perception of inaccurate reasoning simply
because it is mathematically impossible to shift your responsibility,
to excuse or justify getting away with something, when you know
that you will not be blamed for what you do.
In other words, it is
only possible to attempt a shift of your responsibility for hurting
someone, or for doing what is judged improper, when you are held
responsible by a code of standards that criticizes you in advance for
doing something considered wrong by others. In fact, the very act
of justifying or excusing your behavior is an indication that the
person or people to whom you are presenting this justification must
judge the behavior unacceptable in some way, otherwise, there
would be no need for it. They are interested to know why you
could do such a thing which compels you for satisfaction to think
up a reasonable excuse to extenuate the circumstances and mitigate
their unfavorable opinion of your action. If you do what others
judge to be right is it necessary to lie or offer excuses or say that
your will is not free and you couldn’t help yourself, when no one
is saying you could help yourself? Let me elaborate for greater
understanding.
Davidm, you seem to be stuck on a false logic. Until you recognize that this is not a tautology, you will continue to say that he is wrong. You can do that, but you will miss out on a major discovery. What more can I say?
Some people derive the greatest satisfaction from knowing the truth, and try to live their lives accordingly. Others don't. So what? Isn't this the basis for free will and, in fact evil?
And yet, unless we are presented with the dilemma, and required to struggle with it, how do we discern the difference? ... not from the standpoint of experience anyway.
By the way, this truth versus falsity idea (primarily because there is such an abundance of truth) can be applied to just about any scenario ... even yours.
__________________
Death (and living) is all in our heads. It is a creation of our own imagination. So, maybe we just "imagine" that we die?
Right. At that moment your anger at this person compelled you to hurt him. Maybe you didn't mean to kill him; maybe you just wanted to scare him but it went too far, and now you feel remorse. But there is no doubt that subject x (you) wanted to do action a (hurt this person) at that point in time.
Then all feelings of remorse are fraudulent. Right?
Not at all.
How is it possible to be honestly remorseful about doing exactly what you intended to do?
That's just the point.
Then how about answering the question?
Quote:
If we can create the conditions that prevent people from desiring to hurt others, then our problem is solved.
If you know how to do that, you surely must know why people have such a desire, so how about cluing us all in?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
[...]
By the way, you are right in that the words you just spoke to intentionally hurt me did bring you greater satisfaction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yguy
Are you really unaware that there are different kinds of satisfaction, and that there is a qualitative difference between the satisfaction one gets from saving a child from drowning and that which you believe the poster got from his abusive reply? And if you are aware of that difference, how do you account for it?
Of course there is a difference, but that's not the issue right now. I'm just trying to establish that regardless of one's motivation, or the quality of one's choices, they are always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction.
Quote:
The most important thing in life is being accepted
Quote:
Originally Posted by yguy
Really? That's the most important thing in your life?
It is important to be unconditionally accepted by the people you love.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
To repeat: Nothing can cause a person to hurt another unless he wants to hurt them; the environment just creates the conditions that arouse his desire. Does that help?
Quote:
Originally Posted by yguy
Definitely not, because it's absolute baloney.
I could tell you why; but at this point I see no reason to believe you're any more open-minded than any of your detractors, so I'll reserve that until such time as I see evidence to the contrary.
Davidm, you seem to be stuck on a false logic. Until you recognize that this is not a tautology, you will continue to say that he is wrong. You can do that, but you will miss out on a major discovery. What more can I say?
Some people derive the greatest satisfaction from knowing the truth, and try to live their lives accordingly. Others don't. So what? Isn't this the basis for free will and, in fact evil?
Evil is not really evil when seen in total perspective. In other words, everyone is moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, and sometimes they derive satisfaction from hurting others. Once an action occurs, it could not have been otherwise, but that does not mean that we can't prevent this hurt to another before it occurs. This discovery does not condone evil (hurtful) behavior; it prevents it.
To show you how confused is the understanding of someone
who doesn’t grasp these principles, a local columnist interested in
my ideas, so he called them, made the statement that I believe that
man should not be blamed for anything he does which is true only
when man knows what it means that his will is not free. If he
doesn’t know, he is compelled to blame by his very nature. Christ
also received incursions of thought from this same principle which
compelled him to turn the other cheek and remark as he was being
nailed to the cross, “They know not what they do,” forgiving his
enemies even in the moment of death. How was it possible for him
to blame them when he knew that they were not responsible? But
they knew what they were doing and he could not stop them even
by turning the other cheek.
Religion was compelled to believe that
God was not responsible for the evil in the world, whereas Spinoza
and Christ believed correctly that there was no such thing as evil
when seen in total perspective. But how was it possible, except for
people like Christ and Spinoza, to forgive those who trespassed
against them? And how was it possible for those who became
victims of this necessary evil to look at it in total perspective? Is
it any wonder man cried out to God for understanding? The time
has arrived to clear up all the confusion and reconcile these two
opposite principles, which requires that you keep an open mind and
proceed with the investigation. Let me show you how this
apparent impasse can be rephrased in terms of possibility.
If someone is not being hurt in any way, is it possible for him
to retaliate or turn the other cheek? Isn’t it obvious that in order to
do either he must first be hurt? But if he is already being hurt and
by turning the other cheek makes matters worse for himself, then
he is given no choice but to retaliate because this is demanded by
the laws of his nature. Here is the source of the confusion. Our
basic principle or corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, call it what you
will, is not going to accomplish the impossible. It is not going to
prevent man from desiring to hurt others when not to makes
matters worse for himself, but it will prevent the desire to strike the
very first blow. Once you have been hurt, it is normal and natural
to seek some form of retaliation for this is a source of satisfaction
which is the direction life is compelled to take. Therefore this
knowledge cannot possibly prevent the hate and blame which man
has been compelled to live with all these years as a consequence of
crimes committed and many other forms of hurt, yet God’s
mathematical law cannot be denied for man is truly not to blame
for anything he does notwithstanding, so a still deeper analysis is
required. Down through history no one has ever known what it
means that man’s will is not free and how it can benefit the world,
but you will be shown the answer very shortly. There is absolutely
no way this new world, a world without war, crime, and all forms
of hurt to man by man can be stopped from coming into existence.
When it will occur, however, depends on when this knowledge can
be brought to light.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iacchus
And yet, unless we are presented with the dilemma, and required to struggle with it, how do we discern the difference? ... not from the standpoint of experience anyway.
Discernment is part of the struggle of being human. Each person is different to a degree. Some people would sacrifice their own life to save someone else; others wouldn't. Some people have no problem downing others; others would never think of doing that. But these individual differences do not interfere with this law preventing them from desiring to hurt anyone with a first blow.
By the way, this truth versus falsity idea (primarily because there is such an abundance of truth) can be applied to just about any scenario ... even yours.
In other words, what you're saying, is unless people subscribe to your particular brand of truth, and adhere to it, that this is the basis for all the evil and suffering in the world. And, it most certainly is, for those who have bought into it, especially when they get singled out for believing differently. (I think they call it persecution.) While I can assure you this is nothing new. It's been around practically forever, ever since the invention of religion in fact ... i.e., and not necessarily by man.
__________________
Death (and living) is all in our heads. It is a creation of our own imagination. So, maybe we just "imagine" that we die?
Point A: Humans always (invariably, without fail) choose the option that brings the greatest satisfaction under the circumstances
Point B: Humans cannot be forced to do what they do not want to do. ie: they have free won't
When you say i.e. free won't, that is idiosyncratic. People won't understand that. I'm leading up to the discovery. Do you see how difficult this is? I'm talking about the prevention of war and crime, and all I hear is to hurry and give everyone a quick synopsis.
Once it is realized, as a matter of
positive knowledge, that man will not be held responsible for what
he does since his will is not free, regardless of what is done (don’t
jump to conclusions, just follow the reasoning — my problem is
difficult enough as it is), it becomes mathematically impossible for
you to blame someone or something else as the cause for what you
know you have done simply because you know that no one is
blaming you. Being constantly criticized by the standards that
prevailed man was compelled, as a motion in the direction of
satisfaction, to be dishonest with everyone, including himself,
while refusing to accept that which was his responsibility. He
blamed various factors or causes for the many things he desired to
do that were considered wrong, because he didn’t like being in the
wrong.
But the very moment the dethronement of free will makes
it known that no one henceforth will be held responsible for what
he does since his will is not free, regardless of what is done, and
there will be no more criticism or blame regardless of his actions,
man is also prevented from making someone else the scapegoat for
what he does, prevented from excusing or justifying his own
actions since he is not being given an opportunity to do so, which
compels him, completely beyond control, but of his own free will
or desire, not only to assume full responsibility for everything he
does, but to be absolutely honest with himself and others.
How is
it humanly possible for you to desire lying to me or to yourself
when your actions are not being judged or blamed, in other words,
when you are not being given an opportunity to lie, and how is it
possible for you to make any effort to shift your responsibility
when no one holds you responsible? In the world of free will man
was able to absolve his conscience in a world of right and wrong
and get away with murder the very things our new knowledge that
man’s will is not free positively prevents.
It should be obvious that all your judgments of what is right
and wrong in human conduct are based upon an ethical standard
such as the Ten Commandments which came into existence out of
God’s will, as did everything else, and consequently you have
come to believe through a fallacious association of symbols that
these words which judge the actions of others are accurate. How
was it possible for the Ten Commandments to come into existence
unless religion believed in free will? But in reality when murder
is committed it is neither wrong nor right, just what someone at a
certain point in his life considered better for himself under
circumstances which included the judgment of others and the risks
involved; and when the government or personal revenge retaliates
by taking this person’s life, this too, was neither right nor wrong,
just what gave greater satisfaction.
Neither the government or the
murderer are to blame for what each judged better under their
particular set of circumstances; but whether they will decide to
think and react as before will depend not on any moral values, not
on habit, not on custom, not on any standards of right and wrong,
but solely on whether the conditions under which they were
previously motivated remain the same; and they do not remain as
before because the knowledge that man’s will is not free reveals
facts never before understood. We can now see how the confusion
of words and the inability to perceive certain type relations have
compelled many thinkers who could not get beyond this impasse
to assume, as Durant did, that if man knew his will was not free it
would give him a perfect opportunity to take advantage of this
knowledge.
“I am still not satisfied with the explanation. If it
was not for our penal code what is to prevent man from taking
more easily what he wants when the risk of retaliation is no more
a condition to be considered? Furthermore, what is to stop him
from satisfying his desires to his heart’s content when he knows
there will be no consequences or explanations necessary? In the
previous example it is obvious that the boy who spilled the milk
cannot desire to shift the blame when he knows his parents are not
going to question what he did, but why should this prevent him
from spilling the milk every day if it gives him a certain
satisfaction to watch it seep into the rug? Besides, if the father just
spent $1000 for carpeting, how is it humanly possible for him to
say absolutely nothing when the milk was not carelessly but
deliberately spilled?”
“These are thoughtful questions but they are like asking if it is
mathematically impossible for man to do something, what would
you do if it is done? How is it possible for B (the father) to
retaliate when it is impossible for B to be hurt? Contained in this
question is an assumption that deliberate and careless hurt will
continue. As we proceed with this investigation you will
understand more clearly why the desire to hurt another will be
completely prevented by this natural law.”
“Even though I cannot disagree with anything you said so far,
I still don’t understand how or why this should prevent man from
stealing more easily what he wants when the risk of retaliation is
no more a condition to be considered; and how is it humanly
possible for those he steals from and hurts in other ways to excuse
his conduct?”
“We are right back where we were before, the fiery dragon —
but not for long. Now tell me, would you agree that if I did
something to hurt you, you would be justified to retaliate?”
“I certainly would be justified.”
“And we also have agreed that this is the principle of ‘an eye
for an eye,’ correct?”
“Correct.”
“Which means that this principle, ‘an eye for an eye,’ does not
concern itself with preventing the first blow from being struck but
only with justifying punishment or retaliation, is this also true?”
“Yes it is.”
“And the principle of ‘turning the other cheek’; doesn’t this
concern itself with preventing the second cheek from being struck,
not the first cheek?”
“That is absolutely true.”
“Therefore, our only concern is in preventing the desire to
strike this first blow, for then, if this can be accomplished, our
problem is solved. If the first cheek is not struck, there is no need
to retaliate or turn the other side of our face. Is this hard to
understand?”
“It’s very easy, in fact. I am not a college graduate, and I can
even see that relation.”
“Let us further understand that in order for you to strike this
first blow of hurt, assuming that what is and what is not a hurt has
already been established (don’t jump to conclusions), you would
have to be taking a certain amount of risk, that is, you would be
risking the possibility of retaliation or punishment, is that correct?”
“Not if I planned a perfect crime.”
“The most you can do with your plans is reduce the element of
risk, but the fact that somebody was hurt by what you did does not
take away his desire to strike a blow of retaliation. He doesn’t
know who to blame but if he did, you could expect that he would
desire to strike back. Consequently, his desire to retaliate ‘an eye
for an eye’ is an undeniable condition of our present world as is
also your awareness that there is this element of risk involved,
however small. This means that whenever you do anything at all
that is risky you are prepared to pay a price for the satisfaction of
certain desires. You may risk going to jail, getting hanged or
electrocuted, shot, beaten up, losing your eye and tooth, being
criticized, reprimanded, spanked, scolded, ostracized, or what have
you, but this is the price you are willing to pay, if caught. Can you
disagree with this?”
“I still say, supposing there is no risk; supposing I was able to
plan a perfect crime and never get caught?”
“I am not denying the possibility but you can never know for
certain, therefore the element of risk must exist when you do
anything that hurts another.”
“Then I agree.”
Now that we have a basic understanding as to why man’s will
is not free because it is his nature that he must always move in the
direction of greater satisfaction, as well as the undeniable fact that
nothing can make man do to another what he makes up his mind
not to do — for over this he has absolute control — let us observe
what miracle happens when these two laws are brought together to
reveal a third law. Pay close attention because I am about to slay
the fiery dragon with my trusty sword which will reveal my
discovery, reconcile the two opposite principles ‘an eye for an eye’
and ‘turn the other cheek,’ and open the door to this new world.
By the way, this truth versus falsity idea (primarily because there is such an abundance of truth) can be applied to just about any scenario ... even yours.
In other words, what you're saying, is unless people subscribe to your particular brand of truth, and adhere to it, that this is the basis for all the evil and suffering in the world. And, it most certainly is, for those who have bought into it, especially when they get singled out for believing differently. (I think they call it persecution.) While I can assure you this is nothing new. It's been around practically forever, ever since the invention of religion ... i.e., and not necessarily by man.
No, I'm not saying they have to adhere to anything. But, for the sake of argument, if you know that the trajectory to the moon is accurate because scientists figured out how to do this, then the knowledge must be applied in order for it to work. Why would an astronaut argue that they must adhere to this truth in order to get where they want to go? They wouldn't argue that they to adhere to any truth so they are going to try a different trajectory? I'm only showing people how this trajectory, this truth, when applied, can get us where we want to go? In the foreword he writes:
Well, would you like to see what happens when science, the
perception and extension of undeniable observations, takes over
the problems of human conflict as the result of a fantastic
discovery? Would you like to see that the mankind system has
been obeying an invariable law just as mathematically harmonious
as that which inheres in the solar system; a law that allowed a
prophesy to be made thousands of years ago and verified in the 20th
century? Would you like to learn, though this book has nothing
whatever to do with religion or philosophy, that your faith in God
will finally be rewarded with a virtual miracle, one that will shortly
deliver us from all evil? If you are sincerely interested in seeing
this fantastic transition to a new way of life which must come
about the moment this discovery is thoroughly understood, all I ask
is that you do not judge what you are about to read in terms of your
present knowledge but do everything in your power to understand
what is written by following the mathematical relations implicitly
expressed throughout. Please remember that any truth revealed in
a mathematical manner does not require your approval for its
validity, although it does necessitate your understanding for
recognition and development. And now my friends, if you care to
come along, let us embark; the hour is getting late.
No, I'm not saying they have to adhere to anything. But, for the sake of argument, if you know that the trajectory to the moon is accurate because scientists figured out how to do this, then the knowledge must be applied in order for it to work. Why would an astronaut argue that they must adhere to this truth in order to get where they want to go? They wouldn't argue that they to adhere to any truth so they are going to try a different trajectory? I'm only showing people how this trajectory, this truth, when applied, can get us where we want to go?
So, the belief in God and/or religion is erroneous then? Indeed, how does one know, unless they can see it for themselves and apply it to their own lives? That's the genuine litmus test isn't it? Mind you, it has little or nothing to do with the masses who go along "blindly," and subject themselves to a myriad of (perhaps so not so well-intentioned) authority figures. While obviously the one may be true, while the other speaks of its exploitation and abuse.
__________________
Death (and living) is all in our heads. It is a creation of our own imagination. So, maybe we just "imagine" that we die?
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.
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.
If you take out the superfluos words in this paragraph you have a synopsis. Why have we had to drag it out of you?
Quote:
Now that we have a basic understanding as to why man’s will
is not free because it is his nature that he must always move in the
direction of greater satisfaction, as well as the undeniable fact that
nothing can make man do to another what he makes up his mind
not to do — for over this he has absolute control — let us observe
what miracle happens when these two laws are brought together to
reveal a third law. Pay close attention because I am about to slay
the fiery dragon with my trusty sword which will reveal my
discovery, reconcile the two opposite principles ‘an eye for an eye’
and ‘turn the other cheek,’ and open the door to this new world.
Edited for summarizing
Point 1: It is human nature that one must always move in the direction of greater satisfaction,
Point 2: nothing can make man do to another what he makes up his mind
not to do
Problems with Chapter 2 are that the author claimed his imaginary friend did something 'of his own free will' and then claimed that 'he did not have free will'. He also was confused on the definition of 'blame'. He said that someone would not be blamed for doing the right thing, but in reality the person would get credit for it, and the point is that in this case, blame is the same as responsability, credit is the same as responsability, so blame and credit are the same in this case. The only difference is the connotation that credit is usually positive and blame is usually negative, but in reality the terms are interchangable. So someone could be rightly be blamed for doing the right thing and at times I have heard this, usually in jest, but it is still accurate. Also I saw no mathmatics in the 2nd chapter even though the author kept claiming mathmatical proof of his statements, and there was no equation presented, just 2 different aspects of his claim.
No, I'm not saying they have to adhere to anything. But, for the sake of argument, if you know that the trajectory to the moon is accurate because scientists figured out how to do this, then the knowledge must be applied in order for it to work. Why would an astronaut argue that they must adhere to this truth in order to get where they want to go? They wouldn't argue that they to adhere to any truth so they are going to try a different trajectory? I'm only showing people how this trajectory, this truth, when applied, can get us where we want to go?
So, the belief in God and/or religion is erroneous then? Indeed, how does one know, unless they can see it for themselves and apply it to their own lives? That's the genuine litmus test isn't it? Mind you, it has little or nothing to do with the masses who go along "blindly," and subject themselves to a myriad of (perhaps so not so well-intentioned) authority figures. While obviously the one may be true, while the other speaks of its exploitation and abuse.
This knowledge doesn't tell people what to do or what to believe, so there is no basis for comparison.
Problems with Chapter 2 are that the author claimed his imaginary friend did something 'of his own free will' and then claimed that 'he did not have free will'. He also was confused on the definition of 'blame'. He said that someone would not be blamed for doing the right thing, but in reality the person would get credit for it, and the point is that in this case, blame is the same as responsability, credit is the same as responsability, so blame and credit are the same in this case. The only difference is the connotation that credit is usually positive and blame is usually negative, but in reality the terms are interchangable. So someone could be rightly be blamed for doing the right thing and at times I have heard this, usually in jest, but it is still accurate. Also I saw no mathmatics in the 2nd chapter even though the author kept claiming mathmatical proof of his statements, and there was no equation presented, just 2 different aspects of his claim.
You are really confused, I'm sorry to say. Some of what you just said makes absolutely no sense to me at all. You are much too quick to find flaws without any real understanding. If you want help from me, you are going to have to ask specific questions, not come off like you are in a position to judge this work based on reading a couple of paragraphs. I also said early on in this thread that the two-sided equation was not math per se, but it is an equation nevertheless because it involves two sides.
Of course you don't get this, because you didn't read Chapter Two.
Actually I did read chapter 2, you need to stop making false assumptions or you will be placed in the same catigory as the author.
If you did read Chapter Two, you read it with the attitude that you are going to find errors and that's exactly what you did. You did not read to understand. I can tell by your short summary that you understood nothing.
If you take out the superfluos words in this paragraph you have a synopsis. Why have we had to drag it out of you?
Quote:
Now that we have a basic understanding as to why man’s will
is not free because it is his nature that he must always move in the
direction of greater satisfaction, as well as the undeniable fact that
nothing can make man do to another what he makes up his mind
not to do — for over this he has absolute control — let us observe
what miracle happens when these two laws are brought together to
reveal a third law. Pay close attention because I am about to slay
the fiery dragon with my trusty sword which will reveal my
discovery, reconcile the two opposite principles ‘an eye for an eye’
and ‘turn the other cheek,’ and open the door to this new world.
Edited for summarizing
Point 1: It is human nature that one must always move in the direction of greater satisfaction,
Point 2: nothing can make man do to another what he makes up his mind
not to do
Why? Because that would never be enough if there wasn't some kind of understanding as to why these two principles are true.
The thing is that you can interest more people in an argument in which they stipulate to your points and discuss conclusions from those points without requiring those people to admit to the truth of the points.
People, perhaps especially those who populate philosophy boards, are likely to enjoy exercising their minds and chasing different principles to their theoretical ends. That does not mean that they must agree with those principles.
Perhaps after they have had the fun of the chase, they would like where they ended up and be more invested in putting those principles into practice or believing in the truth of those statements. If you keep stalling them from the fun part by demanding they accept things as truths, then you end up with bored and annoyed people.
If you did read Chapter Two, you read it with the attitude that you are going to find errors and that's exactly what you did. You did not read to understand. I can tell by your short summary that you understood nothing.
I see now, If I read it and agree with you then I understand it, If I read it and disagree then I don't understand. Its a very simple litmus test for you isn't it. All I need to do is agree with you and you'll be happy and praise me for my understanding. OK here goes, I agree with everything you say, and everything in the book, when do we start? Obviously now, since I agreed I understand, right.
If you take out the superfluos words in this paragraph you have a synopsis. Why have we had to drag it out of you?
Quote:
Now that we have a basic understanding as to why man’s will
is not free because it is his nature that he must always move in the
direction of greater satisfaction, as well as the undeniable fact that
nothing can make man do to another what he makes up his mind
not to do — for over this he has absolute control — let us observe
what miracle happens when these two laws are brought together to
reveal a third law. Pay close attention because I am about to slay
the fiery dragon with my trusty sword which will reveal my
discovery, reconcile the two opposite principles ‘an eye for an eye’
and ‘turn the other cheek,’ and open the door to this new world.
Edited for summarizing
Point 1: It is human nature that one must always move in the direction of greater satisfaction,
Point 2: nothing can make man do to another what he makes up his mind
not to do
Why? Because that would never be enough if there wasn't some kind of understanding as to why these two principles are true.
A synopsis is to grab interest, gauge interest, and see where your readers stand. Someone who is interested wants to know more.
Also, as many have told you, the writing style of the book is not good. I think many readers are too distracted or even annoyed to get to the meat of what the author is saying. Bullet points help focus for discussion as well and avoid sticking points such as various understandings of "free will" and "determinism".
Sorry to tell you that, but it did bring me the greatest satisfaction to post this at this point in time.
So go to other threads where the people are much more intelligent. I won't be offended. This is exactly why these forums are not the right place for me. The group dynamics cause extreme bias (even though some people are trying to hold their own), and it becomes a free for all. By the way, you are right in that the words you just spoke to intentionally hurt me did bring you greater satisfaction.
Indirectly I was also trying to help you and/or the board, however.
You've got a 27 page thread that you've made 240 posts in, and you're no closer to getting anyone to believe in your philosophy. Everything I've seen suggests that you don't understand philosophy, you don't really have a good understanding of the theories you're advocating (otherwise you'd be able to explain them), the theories themselves don't follow from their premises, and you're a true believer who won't admit to any flaw whatsoever in the theories you're advocating, and brush off all criticism as the critic not understanding, not reading the book, or using the wrong definition of words.
You're wasting your time, you're wasting LadyShea's time, and you're wasting the time of anyone else who tries to engage with you.
So, if you would leave, you would both stop wasting everyone's time, and also possibly move onto greener, more gullible pastures, where you would get greater satisfaction by impressing dim bulbs with your happy talk. It's a win-win.
Re: A revolution in thought
Linear Mode
