Freewill Revisited

[stvdv]

Should you need the opinion of modern humans you think it best to trust ancient people you identify with as saints. Doctors that would use leeches rather than antibiotics and logicians that would use their ancient worldview as compared to ours. Granted they had some good ideas we should follow up on, but they are not faultless saints. (They never even watched tom & jerry)

You generalize. I said that the author of this book was a great Saint. You are talking about someone whom you do not know (anything about)..unwise

 

[Koldo]

Everything we do requires our will, so if we use our will to acquire more knowledge, we can then use our will and act according to the new knowledge we acquired.

Absolutely. The question then becomes: In what sense could we have chosen otherwise in the past if our will was only aligned with what we chose ?

 

[Koldo]

That is your opinion. All I know is that the author of this book is a great Saint. I trust His opinion better than I trust your opinion.

When it comes down to philosophical matters you should use your reason to make your own conclusions rather than trust what someone told you. Don't be a sheep.

 

[Curious George]

When it comes down to philosophical matters you should use your reason to make your own conclusions rather than trust what someone told you. Don't be a sheep.

That requires freewill.

 

[Koldo]

That requires freewill.

Not at all. It just requires you to want to think for yourself.

 

[stvdv]

Spoiler: The Indian "Bible" the Yoga Vasistha says something valuable about this IMO

The lazy man is worse than a donkey. One should never yield to laziness but strive to attain liberation, seeing that life is ebbing away every moment. Every day one must think of the impermanent body and struggle to conquer the animal nature. He must take recourse to association with good and virtuous people. One should not revel in the filth known as sense-pleasures, even as a worm revels in pus. By good deeds, good will return to you; by bad deeds, bad will return. Nowhere is there any God, fortune or fate. One who ignores his present ability for self-effort for fear of his past bad actions, might as well fear his own two arms, thinking them dangling vipers.

One who thinks that fate or God is directing him, is brainless and the goddess of fortune abandons him. Hence, by self-effort, discrimination, good association and study of the scriptures, acquire wisdom. Then realize that self-effort will end — in the direct realization of the truth. But ignoring, or going against the traditional injunctions, will not work. One should not try to create a gemstone from an ordinary pebble. Those who do not believe in the long practiced and experienced truths of the wise, but depend upon God, luck or destiny, are fools called the "living dead." If lazy dullness, this dreadful source of evil, were not found on this earth, who would ever be illiterate or poor? It is because lazy ones rely, life after life, on God or fortune that this earth is full of people who live like animals, miserable and poverty-stricken.

I am afraid it didn't occur to the not so wise author of that quote that self-effort, good association and acquiring wisdom, for instance, are fate.

You are not so wise to call someone you know nothing about "not so wise author". I call that prejudice. Discard something without any knowledge.

That is your opinion. All I know is that the author of this book is a great Saint. I trust His opinion better than I trust your opinion.

Hence I do not trust your opinion. That is just based on "nothing"

When it comes down to philosophical matters you should use your reason to make your own conclusions rather than trust what someone told you. Don't be a sheep.

I indeed use my own reason (I read and studied the book). Your reply was without any reason/knowledge. Who is the sheep here?
I just shared a nice quote (to Trailblazer) "the Yoga Vasistha says something valuable about this" adding "In my humble opinion".
You just tried to break it down, without the use of "in my humble opinion" AND more importantly with total lack of knowledge
Then I gave you a simple way out, reminding you to say "In my opinion". But you ignored that truth conveniently and kept on attacking me.

This I call "ignorance" with some "arrogance" dressing. And twisting it around calling me "sheep" is far from what I call wise.

 

[Koldo]

You are not so wise to call someone you know nothing about "not so wise author". I call that prejudice. Discard something without any knowledge.

I am judging the excerpt you quoted. It is not a wise statement. Therefore, the author is not so wise.
This is not prejudice.

Hence I do not trust your opinion. That is just based on "nothing"

How did you come to the conclusion it is based on nothing ?

I indeed use my own reason (I read and studied the book). Your reply was without any reason/knowledge. Who is the sheep here?
I just shared a nice quote (to Trailblazer) "the Yoga Vasistha says something valuable about this" adding "In my humble opinion".
You just tried to break it down, without the use of "in my humble opinion" AND more importantly with total lack of knowledge

Are you accusing me of cutting off the part where you said "In my humble opinion" when I quoted you ?
You should check your posts again, you haven't typed "In my humble opinion" in them.
I expect an apology from you.

Then I gave you a simple way out, reminding you to say "In my opinion".

Of course it is my opinion. Everything we say is our opinion.

But you ignored that truth conveniently and kept on attacking me.

This I call "ignorance" with some "arrogance" dressing. And twisting it around calling me "sheep" is far from what I call wise.

Considering you call that author wise, I don't want to be called wise by you. Thanks.

EDIT: Regarding the sheep part, you have made an appeal to someone's authority in a philosophical discussion. This is a sheep-like commentary.

 

[stvdv]

I am judging the excerpt you quoted. It is not a wise statement. Therefore, the author is not so wise. This is not prejudice.
How did you come to the conclusion it is based on nothing ?
Are you accusing me of cutting off the part where you said "In my humble opinion" when I quoted you ?
You should check your posts again, you haven't typed "In my humble opinion" in them.
I expect an apology from you.
Of course it is my opinion. Everything we say is our opinion.
Considering you call that author wise, I don't want to be called wise by you. Thanks.
EDIT: Regarding the sheep part, you have made an appeal to someone's authority in a philosophical discussion. This is a sheep-like commentary.

Regarding the sheep part. The issue here is that you state something as a fact, where it only is your opinion.
You cannot make a statement "this is a fact" in spiritual matters when it's your opinion. Just stay humble and say IMHO. Are you new on RF?

Your line: Of course it is my opinion. Everything we say is our opinion.
Okay that line of yours makes it all clear. You did not read or misunderstood RF rule 8

Don't twist that I don't say IMHO. I do say it plenty. Did you missed my green IMHO under all my mails?

And the quote I shared, I even added 1 extra IMHO. You want me to make it "triple IMHO"

I only tell you to use it once. Not double or triple. Once will be fine. I use double/triple/quadruple, just because I like it.

 

[Koldo]

Regarding the sheep part. The issue here is that you state something as a fact, where it only is your opinion.
You cannot make a statement "this is a fact" in spiritual matters when it's your opinion. Just stay humble and say IMHO. Are you new on RF?

Your line: Of course it is my opinion. Everything we say is our opinion.
Okay that line of yours makes it all clear. You did not read or misunderstood RF rule 8

Don't twist that I don't say IMHO. I do say it plenty. Did you missed my green IMHO under all my mails?

And the quote I shared, I even added 1 extra IMHO. You want me to make it "triple IMHO"

I only tell you to use it once. Not double or triple. Once will be fine. I use double/triple/quadruple, just because I like it.

First of all, this is not a spiritual matter. It is a philosophical matter.
Second, it is impossible to prove that something, anything, is a fact considering that skepticism will always be a thing.
Third, the thing below your message is your signature and not part of your message in itself. Therefore, it is not quoted when using the quote function.
Fourth, checking back you did say IMO in your spoiler tag, but I had to look it up in the computer since the full sentence was chopped off in the cellphone.
Fifth, if you are going to criticize me for not using 'IMHO', then you should also be criticizing your not so wise author for the same reason.
Sixth, I won't say 'IMHO' when I have confidence in what I am saying. Otherwise, this would entail that I would need to start every sentence with 'IMHO'. Not gonna happen.

 

[stvdv]

First of all, this is not a spiritual matter. It is a philosophical matter.
Second, it is impossible to prove that something, anything, is a fact considering that skepticism will always be a thing.
Third, the thing below your message is your signature and not part of your message in itself. Therefore, it is not quoted when using the quote function.
Fourth, checking back you did say IMO in your spoiler tag, but I had to look it up in the computer since the full sentence was chopped off in the cellphone.
Fifth, if you are going to criticize me for not using 'IMHO', then you should also be criticizing your not so wise author for the same reason.
Sixth, I won't say 'IMHO' when I have confidence in what I am saying. Otherwise, this would entail that I would need to start every sentence with 'IMHO'. Not gonna happen.

First of all
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
Sixth

 

[Curious George]

Not at all. It just requires you to want to think for yourself.

Lol, which requires freewill. This seems like an infinite regression.

 

[Koldo]

Lol, which requires freewill. This seems like an infinite regression.

How does wanting to think for yourself require free will ?
State your premises and explain to me how you have reached this conclusion.

 

[Curious George]

How does wanting to think for yourself require free will ?
State your premises and explain to me how you have reached this conclusion.

It implies control. Control of any degree requires freewill. You are using the act of wanting as a proximate cause. If freewill does not exist, no level of control can exist. Thus, your assertion that one should do anything is meaningless.

 

[Koldo]

It implies control. Control of any degree requires freewill. You are using the act of wanting as a proximate cause. If freewill does not exist, no level of control can exist. Thus, your assertion that one should do anything is meaningless.

But control isn't required for someone to want to think for themselves.
What are you talking about ?

 

[Curious George]

But control isn't required for someone to want to think for themselves.
What are you talking about ?

Control is assumed with the notion of should. You say, "You should do this." You then say, "no, free will isnt required, you just need to want to do this." Now your statement reads, "you should want to do this." You are adding in terms unnecessarily. You can do so ad infinitum. However, should will still remain and will still imply control.

 

[Koldo]

Control is assumed with the notion of should. You say, "You should do this." You then say, "no, free will isnt required, you just need to want to do this." Now your statement reads, "you should want to do this." You are adding in terms unnecessarily. You can do so ad infinitum. However, should will still remain and will still imply control.

Hold on.
When I say you should do something, I mean that I want you to want to do that thing, but if you can't, well... you can't.
I don't presume that everyone will want to do it.

 

[Curious George]

Hold on.
When I say you should do something, I mean that I want you to want to do that thing, but if you can't, well... you can't.
I don't presume that everyone will want to do it.

Saying you should do something assumes one could do something. I don't think your wordplay is playing here. Moreover, I think you are quite clear on this.

 

[Koldo]

Saying you should do something assumes one could do something. I don't think your wordplay is playing here. Moreover, I think you are quite clear on this.

Your nature is unknown to me. I don't know if your 'will' can, de facto, possibly change to the way I would like it to.
But, depending on what I am talking about, isn't it fair to assume it can ?
By saying you should do something, I am, in one hand, trying to influence your 'will' so that this change happens while in other hand expressing my hope, expressing my will.
What I am not doing is expecting you to go against your will or even ignore it.

 

[Curious George]

Your nature is unknown to me. I don't know if your 'will' can, de facto, possibly change to the way I would like it to.
But, depending on what I am talking about, isn't it fair to assume it can ?
By saying you should do something, I am, in one hand, trying to influence your 'will' so that this change happens while in other hand expressing my hope, expressing my will.
What I am not doing is expecting you to go against your will or even ignore it.

You seem to be peddling hard here. I have heard this philosophy before this. Usually it proclaims that whatever some god wills is. You have just taken fod out of the same unverifiable philosophy: whatever is was meant to be.

I suppose that is a nice sentiment to some.

 

[Koldo]

You seem to be peddling hard here. I have heard this philosophy before this. Usually it proclaims that whatever some god wills is. You have just taken fod out of the same unverifiable philosophy: whatever is was meant to be.

I suppose that is a nice sentiment to some.

It is verifiable by assessing how we make choices.
If the way we make choices relies on what we want to do, then there is no way around since it is impossible to ultimaltely choose what you want because it would lead into an infinite regress. Suppose I told you to choose to hire a minion, you would need to want to do it in the first place. Assuming that is not really what you want to do, you would need to choose to want to hire a minion before choosing to hire a minion. Putting aside what reason there would be for doing so, you would still need to want to want to hire a minion now. And there goes the infinite regress.