everything is beyond our control.

[danielzzr]

I think that everything we do in life is because we were lucky/unluky to do it in the first place. this is because everything you do is a direct result of what others do to you, and you do not have control of what others do to you, or what others do to people that do something to you, therefore, people should not take merit of anything they do.
for example: my father shouldnt take merit of the fact he owns a house.
my proffesors shouldnt be proud of the fact they have a PHd
you should not take merit of anything that you do, since you did it because you were lucky.

so, you might say with respect to example two "well maybe he had a little bit of luck, but he also put a lot of effort towards getting his PHd"
well, no, because that happened as a direct result of a lot of different events that were beyond his control. therefore any achivements can be expressed as the sum of a lot of different and very small lucky/unlucky events.

just like 2*3 can be written as : (1+1) + (1+1) + (1+1)

or 4^3 (four to the power of 3)= (1+1+1+1) + (1+1+1+1) + (1+1+1+1) + (1+1+1+1) + (1+1+1+1) + (1+1+1+1) + (1+1+1+1) + (1+1+1+1) + (1+1+1+1) + (1+1+1+1) + (1+1+1+1) + (1+1+1+1) + (1+1+1+1) + (1+1+1+1) + (1+1+1+1) + (1+1+1+1)
any even is the result of very small lucky/unlucky events that were beyond your control.

any perspectives on this?

 

[Kungfuzed]

Don't tell my employer that. I want a paycheck for my work and credit for what I do.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Ah! You're talking about determinism...

I have to admit, this bothered me when I first learned about it in philosophy class. It's hard to argue against. It crushes the idea of free will.

My perspective on it starts from Descartes' "I think, therefore I am." Despite any epistomological doubt you may have, there is no doubt that you doubt. So, you at least have a subjective mind, according to that reasoning.

If you assume that the objective world influences your subjective mind--which as a determinist you do--then your subjective mind acts as a kind of force that is fed by all those effects from the objective world. It still makes your subjective mind--in a sense, you!--a subjective force seperate from the objective. Since the influence goes both ways (your subjective mind is the objective force of another subjective being), your objectively-fed subjective mind can further influence the world, thus making it a meritable contributor to this fabric of causes and effects.

It may not disprove the point that people are not truly in control because of determinism, but it sheds a more positive light on it.

 

[IanAlmighty]

You're absolutely right, Dan. Nothing is in anyone's control from that perspective. That's not how I look at the world though, for one simple reason. As I've stated before, if no one believed in free will or choice, then no one would take responsibility for their actions and there would be no society.
I just don't think about it, not out of denial, but out of my own will to succeed in life.

 

[Sunstone]

If you are going to assert that "everything is beyond our control", then surely you must have some notion of what "our" refers to in the statement "everything is beyond our control"? So, what do you mean by this "our"?

Are we talking here about the whole individual? Or are we only talking here about that part of us we usually identify as "I". Are we discussing "will" or consciousness, or something else? Who or what is the "our" in the statement "everything is beyond our control"?

 

[Dreamwolf]

I believe that what luck we have is the luck we make. No, you can not control what people do to you, but you can control what you do to that person. Example: If you do something to make them mad, chances are they are gonna want revenge. If you do something nice for them then tada! they might want to help you. You can also control your responce to what people do to you, you can choose to forget wanting revenge and move on (I tend to have problems with that myself).

 

[gnomon]

Actually inviduals exhibit a great amount of control. Everything we do is not a result of the actions of others but a response to external or internal stimuli. I'm happy in the fact that I didn't pull the trigger of the gun especially in the light of the decision being solely my own. No one intervened.

I'm sorry but the OP is extraordinarily vague and lacks cohesion. I would prefer the author actually put forth an argument with some base definitions rather than a mere reference to look and trying to connect it to a mathematical reduction.

And I know a number of people who exercise tremendous control over how others react to them.