Proof of nonexistence of free will

Don't you agree that "cold" relates to "hot" as a less energetic state?

Listen guigus--get in an ice-bath and then get in one adjusted by the science of your serving wench's elbow. Have a good long soak in both, preferably in the order I have placed them, and then explain which one represents nothingness.

Quote:

Don't you agree that "cold" relates to "hot" as a less energetic state?

Yes- the molecules in the former are in slower motion but looked at in that way the words "cold" and "hot" are meaningless. They only have meaning in terms of sensual experience in organisms which have language.

You are quite the man...out of an Hitchcock production or a Franz Kafka book...(Die Verwandlung)

I did the reading on that book when I was 17...and I am guessing that almost two decades after maybe I have to go trough it a second time just to shred some light upon your ubiquitous reasoning...

stagnation

ironic really

Assuming of course you consider Sartre an author of acceptable quality.

Quote:

Assuming of course you consider Sartre an author of acceptable quality.

I can't say I do guigus. Imagine the human brain as a vessel in which something is being cooked. The fundamentals are given. Protein, fat &Co but with a pinch of this and a pinch of that. My taste buds find the Sartre spice vaguely unpleasant. But that's just me. My flavourings have more--I almost said "gaiety" but I remembered that homosexuals have ruined that word--more fun shall I say. Which gaiety once was but now seems its opposite.

There seems to me that there are some authors who one ought to have read to be thought intelligent. Sartre is one of them. One has lost all acceptable quality when one succumbs to temptations of that nature. Especially considering that the great books are being ignored during the reading of those sorts of authors. And goodness knows there are enough great books to last anyone ten lifetimes. Such is the eagerness to embrace books which one ought to have read in order to be thought intelligent, if only to be an acceptable member of social circles in which books are read for the same reason, that even the titles of many great books are unknown.

Take Tristram Shandy for example. I consider that anyone who has not discovered that book by the time they are 40 must not have an authentic sense of humour. A sense of humour in the literary world would lead directly to it. There is a sort of trail through the maze. Stages drop away like they do on a space mission launch. Only the books that are famous over time matter.

I had Proust sitting on my shelves for 10 years waiting for the right opportunity to read it.

I would say Sartre is not acceptable quality because a familiarity with it speaks of an attraction to cleverness rather than to the absurdity of the condition of the pointedly intelligent person. The absurdity being a fact.

There seems to me that there are some authors who one ought to have read to be thought intelligent. Sartre is one of them.

My flavourings have more--I almost said "gaiety" but I remembered that homosexuals have ruined that word--more fun shall I say. Which gaiety once was but now seems its opposite.

So that's the reason why you didn't read him? To rebel against that bias? How old are you?

Quote:

So that's the reason why you didn't read him? To rebel against that bias? How old are you?

It's impolite to ask a person's age.

No. That's not the reason. I have read some of his stuff. I thought Roads to Freedom pretty good but his style is not to my taste. Maybe it's the translation. Jokes don't translate too well.

And there's so many writers who have the style I like. I read to be entertained. Style is the first thing. Everytime.

> There are only 3 possible ways your action can originate:

False.

> 1) When you have reasons for your action - then the action is the result of those reasons.

Sometimes, but not necessarily.

> None of those possibilities allow for free will because you are always compelled to your action

False.

> and never in control of your action.

Also false.

Wow. What a particularly bad proof!

"In the area of oral and written communication such as conversation, dialog, rhetoric, etc., a proof is a persuasive perlocutionary speech act, which demonstrates the truth of a proposition." Wikipedia on "proof".

This kind of proof is the best you can hope for when it comes to the concept of free will.
It is meaningless to argue the existence or non-existence of free will, since it is merely an idea. The question should be wether or not the concept of free will gives any meaning in the context you wish to use it, and if there are other ways to account for these things that are perhaps more practical and meaningful.

Isn't the whole concept of free will a remnant of religious thinking? I mean, isn't the concept originally a religious concept?

No, gigus, my point does not vanish. You can argue the existence or non-existence of entities, you cannot argue the existence of non-existence of a way of thinking.

The best you can do is say that the idea does not sufficiently describe the phenomenon of choice as it presents itself to us. I would agree with that statement.

But arguing the existence of free will is to argue wether or not it has being, when it was never suggested that the concept has being.