Philosophy Discussion

[quote=“Bentware, post:20, topic:423”]
That is the opposite of what the economic part of what Libertarianism means. Find out what that means before you post things about it.[/quote]

Uhhhh, you turned what I said around backwards.

[quote=“Saturday, post:13, topic:423”]
If we don’t have free will, then it’s pretty clear that we need to help everyone as much as we possibly can.[/quote]
IE socialism or other political philosophies similar.

ie, individual freedom of choice to do anything economically trumps all because everyone should be able to help themselves and if they don’t, then they must have chosen not to or at the very least, not chosen to or at the very very least, is not the responsibility of others.

In this scenario the sociopath will win. People missing the full human range of emotions will win. Enron will be the new model for business.
Libertarianism is a live and let die party. Brains won’t be the best thing to have ruthlessness will be. How can I tell people they shouldn’t steal when banks and stores steal. I don’t like your version of humanity.

[quote=“Crayfish, post:16, topic:423”]
Whether the future can be predicted given its current state is another interesting philosophical discussion. [/quote]

I suppose some things can be predicted if they follow particular rules. For example, weather forecasting, the position of the planets etc. But even these seem to be subject to random inteference sometimes.

So perhaps the general flow of the future can be outlined, but we must leave room for variation? As for people, well there are certain social behaviours that could be predicted in any given scenario, but there is no guarantee a human being will actually do what your theory says they will.

Personally, I like to think of the future as being a series of possibilities (sort of the parallel Earth idea, but collapsing into a single reality that I experience). I also like to think this gives me at least a little influence by choosing to shift my life one way or another. I suppose that describes the concept of “free will” as well as anything else.

1 Like

I have to agree with you @Bentware : the assumption given by @Saturday is flawed. You cannot dissociate economic (aka market) freedom from social or public freedom in a global nation ideology.
Unregulated markets means jungle law: the strongest, or in our case richest / ruthless prevails. Anything is permitted. Do you have anything permitted in social life ? Do you have strictly no restriction on your speech or behavior in public ? No, laws define what is possible and what’s not. Same should go for the economy.

In a totally unregulated market, a few rich men keeps the poor as poor as possible. How can you help yourself when you barely survive ? The american “self-made man” is statistically an odd and unprobable possibility.

Accepting free will as a fact does not suppose accepting individualism, which is quite different. It only assumes that your actions are your own and not that of a superior will, like God. To better illustrate the contrary of free will, take Catholicism (everything happens for a reason only God knows … though he may also punish you for your actions :slight_smile: ) and Hinduism (most of my current events happen because of some anterior action, same or previous life, and I cannot always bend the incoming event … because karma ! :slight_smile: ).

I see however that the free-will discussion goes wildly on politics, which rarely applies even one philosophy cohenrently.
I’ll go deeper in that discussion when I’ll have some more free time.

The true questions are closer to this:

  • Are we pure machines, but so complicated with so many variables we can’t predict it ? If it is so, it might be possible one day to analyse deeply enough to predict human behavior / organism / … quite accuaretly. Until then, we may say that “it was unevitable though unknown”.
  • Is there something above flesh that will never be predicted (aka soul) ?
  • If yes, is this “soul” our own or is their something above unfathomable that orientates / controls this soul ?

So what if were machines. Why should that change anything? I’m going to be me regardless of what others want me to be. Regardless of whether I’m machine, a figment of someone elses (can’t find the correct spelling) imagination. If my life is predestined I’ll assume I did the predestining (wow that’s a real world) . If I find out things aren’t what I thought they were I am still going to be me. Life is to be lived, stop thinking your selves out of it.

Uhhh, sociopaths do win. Enron is not a new model for business at all. Enron’s model of business and really, free market methodologies as long as they’ve existed have always operated ruthlessly. We can talk about the Savings and Loan debacle, or the 2008 economic crash caused by Citibank, Freddie Mac, ect. The least empathetic parties generally win. It’s been confirmed by psych study after psych study, those that are considered more focused on only their own well being, even people that are straight up rude, succeed in the business workplace far more than nice people.

Now that being said, it’s rather hard for me to demonstrate why selfishness would be the go-to mindset in a world with free will because it is obvious to me that we don’t live in a world with free will. I can’t really imagine what a world with complete free will ie incompatibilism, ie metaphysical libertarianism could possibly look like any more than I could imagine a sphere with 3 sides. It would probably be the equivalent of being a god, a universe where one could experience all possibilities simultaneously or perhaps a universe where the past, present, and future were the same.

I suppose I have some similarities to a compatibilist. Although mostly I don’t think people have defined “free will” any better than people have defined “God”.

A word with two different meanings, great. Do us a favor and use a different word. Culture a dumb word that can be used to mean two opposing things “I hate there culture but I have no problem with there culture.” To mean “I hate the way they do things but I have no problem with there genotype”.[quote=“Saturday, post:26, topic:423”]
Uhhh, sociopaths do win
[/quote]

Do you really know any? Tom Riddle (Harry Potter books) would be one. I don’t want to live in that world.

… You already do live in this world. That’s why I went to the trouble of typing that long paragraph above. The people on the executive boards of those companies are sociopaths.

[quote=“Bentware, post:27, topic:423”]
Do us a favor and use a different word.[/quote]
You can make one up if you like.

Nope.
Catholics actually believe in free will. Basically, they believe that God created the universe, then humans, then helped them a bit at first but now has a far more laid down approach. Kind of like a child who grew up and became adults. They still do believe in miracles (like a parent that still helps their adult child when in dire need), though.
(I personally think this is bonkers, because come on, as a species, we are still clearly problem teenagers.)
But you’ll note that they believe humans have free will since the beginning - that’s one of the points of the whole “forbidden fruit” thing.

It was actually (yet) a(nother) point of friction during the Reform. Some Protestants were like “Well, God is all-powerful, so He decides everything. So I’m not really responsible for my acts. Oh, and since it’s already predetermined if I go to Heavens or Hell, I don’t have to make any effort”. (This was called Predetermination IIRC). To which Catholics responded “That’s bullshit. We have free will, and you just want an excuse to do what you want”. To which said Protestants responded “You can talk, you indulgence-selling jerk!”, and things went downhill from there.

That’s actually a recurring problem. People assume (preferably detrimental) things about Christians, and particularly Catholics, based on incomplete or deformed knowledge, and extrapolate from there. I actually ask my Catholic friends about that kind of stuff, but I feel in the minority.
Not knowing Hinduist people, though, I can’t comment on that.

Wait, so they have a dogmatic position based on “I’m sure it works that way!” and deduce proprieties of the Universe from that? Kind of reminds me of some other “scientific” theories…
That they may be right (it seems that the Universe is non-deterministic indeed) is beside the point.

Well, not exactly. It is true that most systems tend to let the most ruthless, power- (and/or or money-)additcted into power, but that’s not a constant. And there is continuous (if often misguided and/or insufficient) to try and change that through the ages.
After all, those kind of persons are often inefficient as rulers, so there is also pressure against them. For example, democracies (despite their many failings) are more efficient than tyrannies, and tend to take over. Inversely, totalitarian regimes are surprisingly fragile over the decades.
My personal nightmare about that is that a “worse” system end up dominating because of a short-term advantage (the 1984 scenario), or that a future system manages to be both more efficient and more ruthless (the… ah… Wolfenstein scenario? I don’t have good examples in mind right now. Call to Power 2’s Technocracy government type? But no-one knows CtP2, despite it being the best game with “Civilization” in the title.)

Personally, I do believe that the best only working system we’ve had so far is Hobbes’ Hegemon, a benevolent and competent dictator - at least in times of crisis (which is, most of the time actually). The problem is, one that has the will, competence and occasion to rise into power is absurdly rare, and when someone looks like one, they almost always arent, being ruthless/incompetent dictators instead - so you shouldn’t even try and follow one.
I mean, to keep it with the news, Juan Carlos of Spain may count - and what did he do? stay into power just long enough to bring democracy back. See, a good Hegemon wouldn’t want power, and being in position of power means having the power to step down.
So yeah, whatever happens, don’t count on that.

1 Like

My mistake, @ThornEel, I was indeed rather refering to obstacles and problems that God put in front of us rather than free will.
As for Hinduism, I was not entirely right: though their ideas clearly give destiny as the red line for living beings, the current acts also determine what will come next, so there may be some notion of free will.

Some philosophers believe in that (Voltaire for instance). Others, like Kant, intimately think humans as corruptible over time. To give a clear example: see humans as growing plants. They need a tutor to grow straight (in the sense of morality, good will). Alas, no living being is straight by itself (aliens maybe ? :slight_smile: ), so humans need each others as tutor to grow straight, and cannot solely rely on a single plant to “show the way”.

You only need to see how many scandals regularly erupt in political, industrial or financial matters (and yet it’s only the tip of the iceberg) to be convinced taht most of these guys are not fit to govern … but they do in fact.

And once again, let’s be careful about what we call “democracy” around here, because there are many forms of it, not only our western type that specifies the elected king amongst not-your-everyday guy.

By the way, could someone give me some link to “Hobbes’ Hegemon” ? I only see Hobbes’ description of the “Leviathan” which is not the same as an “enlighted despotism”. Besides, I do remember (and read so far) that the concept of “enlighted despotism” was either an early idea of greeks or much more developped in the “Enlightement” period.

[quote=“ThornEel, post:29, topic:423”]
Catholics actually believe in free will.[/quote]

Having attended The Catholic University of America, the only university in the United States directly under the control of the Vatican, I can affirm that this is true. There’s a good reason for it too, at least at first glance. In order to justify the evils in the world committed by people and still allow God to be a good God, people must be able to defy his commandments and example. Otherwise, all of the evils committed by evil people in the world would have ultimately been because God who created the universe had predestined them to do so, leaving an evil or at least not entirely good creator. Free will is actually required in (mainstream) Christianity, even Protestants, to solve the problem of evil in the world. Of course there are some people like the Westboro Baptist Church that actually doesn’t believe God is good but rather fairly wrathful.

[quote=“ThornEel, post:29, topic:423”]
Wait, so they have a dogmatic position based on “I’m sure it works that way!”[/quote]
I am not one, so I’m not an expert in it. But I assume that their conclusions are drawn from observations about choice as well as some logical deductions like any other philosophical assertion. But the mainstream view of academic and professional philosophers is compatibilism.

[quote=“ThornEel, post:29, topic:423”]
It is true that most systems tend to let the most ruthless, power- (and/or or money-)additcted into power, but that’s not a constant. And there is continuous (if often misguided and/or insufficient) to try and change that through the ages.[/quote]

Sure I agree it’s not true in all circumstances. Look at Bill Gates for example, he is genuinely a nice person. He is using his wealth to help the world. And he created a product that was actually useful (all jokes aside). Steve Jobs, not a nice guy, however, he did at least create useful products. Andrew Fastow terrible person by all accounts- a sociopath by all accounts. The executive boards of almost all the major financial institutions are sociopaths. They are knowingly hurting a lot of people, and still do it to make their 1% status a .01% status. Our societies in the West are ruled by these financial institutions more than they are ruled by any other power including religious institutions and governments, especially because, at least in the United States, the people put into power are selected by the wealthiest.

Here’s a good TED talk about the corruption in the financial sector:

Here’s a good TED talk about the corruption of the election process for the United States government:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim

I guess no one can answer my last question? :stuck_out_tongue:

[quote=“Saturday, post:31, topic:423”]
Free will is actually required in (mainstream) Christianity, even Protestants, to solve the problem of evil in the world.
[/quote]

To be more specific, Protestants do believe in free will. However that will is defined by the nature of the person. Basically (I mean basically), if a person is bad, that person does bad things. Even when the ‘bad’ person does something ‘good’, the ‘good’ thing is tainted by the ‘bad’ in one way or another.

So in that sense, a person does have free will, but is limited by the person.

Only if a person were to become a Christian, according to Protestantism, the person has free will to do both ‘bad’ and ‘good’, ‘good’ defined as good according to highest authority (God).

Compare that to Catholicism and certain branches of Christianity (i.e., Arminianism), who say that people a completely free will to do both good and bad regardless of whether or not you are on God’s ‘good side’.

Just for the record, after studying them and Christianity, IMO Westboro Baptist Church represents Christianity like Star Citizen represents hard-core FPS. In fact, I’d even consider them something like a cult. Sadly, though, when people think of Christianity, this is often the first thing they think of.

[quote=“Arkenbrien, post:33, topic:423”]
However that will is defined by the nature of the person.[/quote]

Really? Interesting. In Catholic metaphysics, something’s or someone’s nature can only be determined by observation. How does someone know whether someone was, in their nature, bad, when they did a good thing? Can someone be a bad natured person their entire life and yet do mostly good things until the day they die, and they are still a bad natured person? Can someone be a good natured person their entire lives and yet do mostly bad things until the day they die and they are still a good natured person? Catholicism defines nature as “an attribute reflected either most or all of the time”.

If someone’s free will is diminished or non-existent until they become Christian, is it the case then where people that are bad and never become Christian are not at fault because they didn’t have the free will to choose those bad things and didn’t have the free will to choose to become Christian?

[quote=“Arkenbrien, post:33, topic:423”]
In fact, I’d even consider them something like a cult.[/quote]
A common view of obsessive parties that are not mainstream. Protestantism was considered the equivalent of a cult or rather worse when Martin Luther was first dissenting against Catholicism. Americans were considered terrorists during the revolutionary war. At least the WBC has never killed anyone themselves. I had the opportunity to meet and troll them on The Mall during Obama’s inauguration. Good times.

Well, not to go too far into religious discussion, according to Protestantism, good and evil are defined by God’s law (i.e., the 10 commandments). We are all ‘good’ people according to ourselves, especially compared to Hitler, Stalin, or even our next door neighbors (you won’t believe what they did to our yard…).

The problem with good and evil is that it is all relevant and arbitrary. I don’t think Hitler was thinking what he was doing was wrong or evil. In fact, you get the sense he thought he was doing the world some good.

Morality, or the definition of good and evil, if left to humans, will be according to human sense of good and evil. Why? Well, we’re all human here, unless Hitler was an alien :stuck_out_tongue: . This is a problem when asking if someone is a good or bad person.

That is why Protestants must look elsewhere for a standard of good and evil. Being Christian, it’s only natural that they see if God has a standard. It turns out He does, and it basically comes down to the point of the Ten Commandments. So, according to Protestantism, everybody is ‘bad’, because at one point or another they have failed in keeping the law. Everything takes off from there. Protestants will say to repent, believe, and be saved.

You have a point there, however I think the standard of Christianity should be the Christian Bible (as opposed to an establishment), and WBC is basically a blatant misuse/abuse of it. Establishment helps, but take everything with a grain of salt (or two), is what I say.


I feel like I’m about to be banned, so that’s all I’m going to say on that subject. :stuck_out_tongue:

If you want, you can PM me.

Sorry, I intended to answer it sooner…

Actually, my knowledge of Hobbes is a bit more rusty/incomplete than I would like to, but IIRC the Hegemon is from his book “the Leviathan” indeed.
The difference I make between a Hegemon and an Enlightened dictator is that the Hegemon isn’t simply knowledgable and instructed, but turely transcended his human condition - not by Ascending to a Higher Plane of Existence or something like that, but by going beyond human failings like greed, power-hunger, close-mindedness, insanity… People like that exist, some are called saints. It’s simply that one with actual competence to run things (the other necessary component) and the occasion to rise into power is vanishingly rare.
For example, Maximilien de Robespierre was an enlightened leader : an instructed, idealist heir of the Age of Enlightenement, utterly incorruptible and with an iron-clad belief in the Republic (who chose death instead of keeping power by force). He even wrote a text against death sentence during his youth.
The result, the Reign of Terror, was possibly the only Republican totalitarian regime (though his regime was closer to later Communist ones) in history.

Of course, things aren’t that clear-cut. You can have someone otherwise flawed still being a good and efficient leader, depending on the situation.
To stay with France, if History is to be believed (i.e. take it with a big fat grain of salt), Henry IV was a pretty good king, who managed to keep the Religion-war-torn France together and bring some peace back, with a genuine will to improve the population’s condition. Also it is well recorded that he had a quick wit and solid humour.
What is also well recorded is that he was also a hell of a man-whore. (Some say that it was actually related, as being a soldier and chasing anything with two X chromosomes, he actually interacted with many social classes, so he had a better appreciation of their problems)

Also note that I don’t think this is the only good system that could work. Many self-perpetuating altruistic-based systems were described, and some would actually work pretty well. The problem is, none of those come with instructions about how to install them in the first place.
With a Hegemon, at least, there is a set of instruction :
1 : Miraculously find a Hegemon adapted to the current situation.
2 : Have the Hegemon rise into power.
3 : Profit!

Thanks for clearing that up. I hope no bans approach. There is no right/wrong or value judgement or anything like that detectable in this conversation I hope (except maybe against WBC), I was just trying to understand it as Protestants do. I’m not even Catholic for the record. I understand what you’re saying. Thanks =)

No prob. :slight_smile:

What in the actual fookin shit is this thread.

It’s a general thread about (using the term loosely) philosophy… as the title suggests…