The Pathos of Distance

THIS IS AN ANNOYING LOG-IN POP UP JUST FOR YOU
The Pathos of Distance

- Agile Minds in Perpetuum -


    Parelipomena

    Share
    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 758
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Parelipomena

    Post by Satyr on Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:11 pm

    Iambiguous should come and take over.
    He also rejects the 'I'...and thinks all truths are agreed or enforced rules of thinking and judging.


    _________________
    Know Thyself

    Z13

    Posts : 394
    Join date : 2018-04-16

    Re: Parelipomena

    Post by Z13 on Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:50 am

    response to your 'metaphor' audio:

    if denying the existence of freewill is motivated by the desire to relieve oneself of responsibility, a double conceptual confusion is at work.

    first, by presupposing there is such a thing as a 'will' that can be free or not in the first place, and second in the assumption that if this 'will' isn't free, one is no longer responsible for what they do.

    the first confusion stems from a nonsensical concept, then the second stems froms a misunderstanding of what the word 'responsible' can mean and what it entails.

    if by responsible we mean 'accountable', then such accountability would exist whether or not there is freewill; meaning, one still faces consequences for one's actions in either case. so to make a distinction between 'guilt' and 'innocence' is philosophically and metaphysically pointless, as it would make no difference in practice. in law, on the other hand, such distinctions are made, but only by exploiting the nonsensical philosophical conception of freewill. an example would be, because the defendant was 'not in his right state of mind', or 'acting under duress', or 'unaware of the moral implications of his actions'. all these pretend as if a mental state is only free if it is in a specific kind of condition, which is nonsense. no mental state is ever 'free', regardless of what condition it is in.

    now usually a person who believes there is 'freewill' does so for one of two reasons. either he lacks the intelligence to understand how there cannot be freewill, or, he has the intelligence but hasn't yet figured it out, and incidentally uses the idea of freewill as an excuse to be able to hate and resent whatever it is in the actions of others that he finds morally reprehensible.

    here, an additonal error in reasoning is operating. that of the belief in real qualities such as 'moral good' and 'moral bad', or, in the case of a moral relativist, an unwarranted hatred is aimed at anyone who doesn't share his values. in this case he is making a moral judgement against a thing he just got done stating is relative, and therefore should be exempt from his hatred.

    a side note on one of the confusions of the theory of freewill. to say 'someone could have acted differently' would only mean 'had antecedent conditions been different, he could have acted differently.' but since the antecedent conditions are determined, the folllowing act arising from such conditions would also be determined.

    a bit of irony for your 'psychoanalysis' of me: i might prefer that freewill exists so that i could justify hating those police, lawyers, judges, correction officers, probation officers, and everyone else who contributes to the unjustisfied punishments, restrictions and penalities i am enduring after being wrongfully convicted of crimes i did not commit.

    but i understand that these cockroaches could not have acted differently than they did, so i do not hate or resent them. though this fact does not pardon what has happened. on account of the fundamental violation of the government's civil contract with me, i am no longer constrained by its laws and conventions. that is to say, what i do or don't do does not follow from my observation of the law, anymore. it depends soley on the possibility and likelyhood of whether or not i can get away with it. whereas formerly, i would consider such things as 'the greater good of society' before i acted.

    now, the welfare of the society (which is a possession of the government that betrayed me) no longer matters to me.

    so you might see that, in fact, it would be easier to justify my actions if i believed there was freewill; i would be able to place 'blame' and 'responsibility' on those cockroaches. unfortunately, believing in freewill is not a simple matter of deciding to believe in it because i find it convenient (as you do, so that you can hate and despise with excuse). rather it is the evidence against the theory of freewill that compels me to not accept it. this is an intellectual matter and has nothing to do with my 'preferences' or how useful such a theory would be.

    note also: i never denied guilt for the crimes i did commit, only for the crimes i did not commit, but was charged with and convicted of. so this has never been a matter of me trying to find an excuse which would exempt me from being guilty of crimes i committed, which seems to be the confusion you have.

    i have explained this countless times in the past to you. more evidence that along with the incessent nonsense you post everyday, you don't pay attention to anything anyone else says. this is not your fault. you are simply unable to learn anymore.





      Current date/time is Sat Aug 18, 2018 10:20 pm