|
R'lyeh rule
|
 RE: R'lyeh rule
February 17, 2016 at 5:35 pm
(This post was last modified: February 17, 2016 at 5:36 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
Wow I apologize I literally misread that as saying "always" several times. Why oh why do I always have to do that (
 ).
 (February 17, 2016 at 5:35 pm)Evie Wrote: Wow I apologize I literally misread that as saying "always" several times. Why oh why do I always have to do that ( It's ok, no need to apologize. How are you to blame exactly for your own misreading? Besides, I think we both agree we don't have any "free will", so...  (February 17, 2016 at 3:01 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: I'm not looking to flame a bunch of people right now, exactly. Bold mine. I'm just saying. The implication is perfectly clear. Disclaimer: I am only responsible for what I say, not what you choose to understand.
RE: R'lyeh rule
February 17, 2016 at 5:39 pm
(This post was last modified: February 17, 2016 at 5:41 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
@ EP
Lol........ You seem with very inconsistent with your attitude towards apologies, but oh well. Yeah, no free will, I'm also not a fatalist. TBH I was just being polite  I should have just said, many, many apple-oh-gees and been done with it. Please accept my apple-oh-gees. I hope that my scummyiness has not inconweenienced you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY41eD4lS28 (February 17, 2016 at 5:38 pm)Nymphadora Wrote:(February 17, 2016 at 3:01 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: I'm not looking to flame a bunch of people right now, exactly. Nope, you're reading too much into it. There was no implication intended. I meant exactly what I said, namely I wasn't interested in flaming anyone at the time. I couldn't speak for the future for obvious reasons, and besides, you're allowed to to flame in R'lyeh, so I don't get what your point here is. (February 17, 2016 at 5:39 pm)Evie Wrote: @ EPI am inconsistent for the purpose of friendliness/politeness. I don't think you can think there's no free will and not be a fatalist at the same time, the two positions are mutually exclusive. I know you were, that's why I was as well - see above. Ok, I wanted to flame you right now, just for the humorous effect, but not the place. 
Of course you don't get it. You choose to be obnoxious and then feign ignorance at an implication everyone else clearly has the forethought to understand. And in this case I honestly don't give a rats ass if you understand it or not. I was speaking to everyone else.
Disclaimer: I am only responsible for what I say, not what you choose to understand.
(February 17, 2016 at 5:47 pm)Nymphadora Wrote: Of course you don't get it. You choose to be obnoxious and then feign ignorance at an implication everyone else clearly has the forethought to understand. And in this case I honestly don't give a rats ass if you understand it or not. I was speaking to everyone else. What don't I get? What I meant, myself? I'm confused. How can I not know what I meant? (February 17, 2016 at 5:45 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: I don't think you can think there's no free will and not be a fatalist at the same time, the two positions are mutually exclusive. That's not correct at all. Allow SH to explain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKv2pWZkgrI RE: R'lyeh rule
February 17, 2016 at 5:57 pm
(This post was last modified: February 17, 2016 at 5:59 pm by Excited Penguin.)
Sam Harris' obvious contextual use of the word fatalism(to explain something entirely different than what I'm referring to) aside, here are the definitions for fatalism and determinism. Tell me in which way don't they match.
Fatalism - the belief that all events are predetermined and therefore inevitable. Determinism - the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions. Thus, if you don't believe in free will, you can't possibly think anything is in your control - since you don't have any free will. Notice I'm not arguing that you should just sit still all day and do nothing because of this, because exactly like Harris said, this would be practically impossible to do and would be a choice in itself. I think one has to keep in mind that Harris isn't always addressing a sophisticated enough audience(at least not intentionally), in fact he's almost certainly doing just the opposite most of the time. This allows for some ambiguity in interpreting him, at times. Let's take this to my Brainstorm thread, if you please. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
