(November 12, 2014 at 9:53 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Should i not hate those that seek to strip others of their rights?

Hate the stripping not the stripper.

As Schopenhauer argued in his brilliant "Prize Essay on the Freedom of the Will," "I can do what I will: I can, if I will, give everything I have to the poor and thus become poor myself—if I will! But I cannot will this, because the opposing motives have much too much power over me for me to be able to. On the other hand, if I had a different character, even to the extent that I were a saint, then I would be able to will it. But then I could not keep from willing it, and hence I would have to do so."

(November 12, 2014 at 9:53 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote:

(November 12, 2014 at 8:53 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Anger is sometimes useful, hate almost always useless, in my opinion.

In my opinion no. Should i not hate those that seek to strip others of their rights?

I don't hate them. I disagree with them. I work to counter their behavior.

But I refuse to let them steer my emotions like that. So I don't hate them.

(November 18, 2014 at 11:59 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: As Schopenhauer argued in his brilliant "Prize Essay on the Freedom of the Will," "I can do what I will: I can, if I will, give everything I have to the poor and thus become poor myself—if I will! But I cannot will this, because the opposing motives have much too much power over me for me to be able to. On the other hand, if I had a different character, even to the extent that I were a saint, then I would be able to will it. But then I could not keep from willing it, and hence I would have to do so."

So will as the expression of one's nature, rather than as the arbitrary ability to overcome it?

(November 18, 2014 at 3:16 pm)bennyboy Wrote: So will as the expression of one's nature, rather than as the arbitrary ability to overcome it?

That's my basic understanding from reading his works. Schopenhauer envisions Will as Kant's 'Ding an sich,' comparable to the Atman of the Upanishands or the Logos of ancient Greece and Hellenistic Judaism; it is the centripedal force or principle of order in nature made manifest through representation, including our intellectual understanding. In Schopenhauer's view, Will, or nature, is free in the sense that it continually creates and destroys independent of any overarching guidance; such would merely be another, more powerful Will. However, it does so through constraints imposed by the manifest representation (reality, whether material or immaterial), which includes such fundamental concepts as causality, and subsequently, our competing wishes and instincts. This conflict is felt within us, who feel free and are yet constrained, as we are an embodiment of Will revealed through Representation.

(November 13, 2014 at 8:39 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Does it rob us of agency, or of the illusion of agency? I think that's the philosophical question behind all of this.

If we can confirm that all thoughts and behaviors are deterministic, then agency is really just a label for certain categories of brain function; it's hard to feel moral outrage in this case, or to build a legal system that focuses on the repayment of evil with punishment (aka righteous evil).

-and yet fairly easy to continue incarcerating people. I've always thought that just a little bit less "magic" in the justice system would be nice. We know that there is a prepeonderence of crime in the demographics of the poor. We enact programs to alleviate this with the notion that it will decrease crime (and it does seem to) - so clearly..we understand that crime isn't strictly a matter of fully and freely choosing. If it were, the skew in demographics would be difficult to explain.....

Meanwhile, our prisons (and police forces) seem to be filled with people who have a punishment fetish - and that's working out just swell, eh?

My objection doesn't cover every criminal (or every crime), but alot of them that it doesn't cover we decide are those that can't actually help themselves anyway, compulsives..the ones that do it for the fun of it, because they have little ticks (that most of us at least like to think we don't share....).

(hehehe, about the moral outrage bit Benny, why would it be hard to feel moral outrage? Wouldn't my feelings also be deterministic? Seems it would be just as easy to feel moral outrage either way :wink: )

(November 18, 2014 at 5:19 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: That's my basic understanding from reading his works. Schopenhauer envisions Will as Kant's 'Ding an sich,' comparable to the Atman of the Upanishands or the Logos of ancient Greece and Hellenistic Judaism; it is the centripedal force or principle of order in nature made manifest through representation, including our intellectual understanding. In Schopenhauer's view, Will, or nature, is free in the sense that it continually creates and destroys independent of any overarching guidance; such would merely be another, more powerful Will. However, it does so through constraints imposed by the manifest representation (reality, whether material or immaterial), which includes such fundamental concepts as causality, and subsequently, our competing wishes and instincts. This conflict is felt within us, who feel free and are yet constrained, as we are an embodiment of Will revealed through Representation.

I don't buy this argument for 2 main reasons:

1) It assumes that once one will wins, the others are discarded. I remember plenty of experiences where I kept on changing my mind on what to do. In one case, I was deciding on whether or not to take a job or go to school. I changed my mind back and forth for days until I hit the deadline to respond. Only then did was my decision was forced. If no deadline existed, I would of spend a lot longer deciding.

2) "Out of character" decisions exist. I'm not the cases when others would consider the decision out of character, but only when the person that made the decision considers it out of character. In these cases, they seem very contrary to any battle of the wills. It seem like the decision was random, and when asked why they made such a decision the answers range from "I don't know" to "just felt like it."

---

(November 18, 2014 at 6:13 pm)Beccs Wrote:

---

---

A little from column A and a little from column B.

(November 18, 2014 at 6:09 pm)Rhythm Wrote: (hehehe, about the moral outrage bit Benny, why would it be hard to feel moral outrage? Wouldn't my feelings also be deterministic? Seems it would be just as easy to feel moral outrage either way :wink: )

Yeah, I take it back. I should have said that is is difficult to rationally justify ACTING on moral outrage.

(November 18, 2014 at 8:10 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(November 18, 2014 at 6:09 pm)Rhythm Wrote: (hehehe, about the moral outrage bit Benny, why would it be hard to feel moral outrage? Wouldn't my feelings also be deterministic? Seems it would be just as easy to feel moral outrage either way :wink: )

Yeah, I take it back. I should have said that is is difficult to rationally justify ACTING on moral outrage.

We're atheists and have no morals.

Problem solved.