Did that reply make any sense to you?
This entire thread made little sense to me; I had no idea exactly how far over my head it was possible for a discussion to go! I came in here to try to understand exactly what is meant by free will, since in my ignorance I had thought that it was difficult to deny its existence, though I realise that many people do deny it. I still have no idea what it must mean either to have free will; or not to have it; and as an added bonus, I now feel stupider than ever. I liked the quote from Goethe though, it was one of the few complete sentences I felt I fully comprehended!
Hello to all of you, anyway, I think I'll hang around and try to extend the scope of my ignorance even further, in the hope of one day finally being able to understand what you're all talking about, or at least being able to follow it... :-)
Spinoza says there is no free will.Schopenhuaer implies the same with his "will"
@KnowNothingBozo,
You already understand it all, it's the convolution you're having a problem with. Philosophy on this forum is kinda like dealing with the IRS and clarity is the enemy of the IRS. ~ LOL
@Dasein,
Thanks for the vote of confidence Dasein but I'm not at all sure that I do. I just read a book by Sam Harris (who I have never heard of before; and who is not referred to in any of the admittedly limited reading I have done; nor does he refer much to the literature I have come across, so I don't know how much weight I should give his arguments) calling for a scientific approach to moral realism. I enjoyed the book and thought a lot of what he said has merit, but when he claimed to have proof from neurology that free will doesn't exist, I got a bit confused. I'm not sure how someone can say on the one hand that we have moral responsibilities; while on the other hand denying that our conciousness influences our thoughts and behaviour. Either I totally missed his point, or he was being self-contradictory.
@KnowNothingBozo,
Quote:Thanks for the vote of confidence Dasein but I'm not at all sure that I do.
What I said has nothing to do with confidence. You are in the process of uncovering what you know. Confusion can only happen when what you 'assume to know' (believe) gets questioned to the point that you re-investigate what you assume and uncover what you know. Confusion is your way of letting you know that you don't 'know' what the hell you are talking about. Confusion is to be embraced and not avoided or ignored. Once you get past confusion and doubt, 'knowing' shows up. When I said “you already understand” I meant you already know. You just don't know that you already know, which is why you have to uncover what you know.
@KnowNothingBozo,
KnowNothingBozo wrote:
Thanks for the vote of confidence Dasein but I'm not at all sure that I do. I just read a book by Sam Harris (who I have never heard of before; and who is not referred to in any of the admittedly limited reading I have done; nor does he refer much to the literature I have come across, so I don't know how much weight I should give his arguments) calling for a scientific approach to moral realism. I enjoyed the book and thought a lot of what he said has merit, but when he claimed to have proof from neurology that free will doesn't exist, I got a bit confused. I'm not sure how someone can say on the one hand that we have moral responsibilities; while on the other hand denying that our conciousness influences our thoughts and behaviour. Either I totally missed his point, or he was being self-contradictory.
He was being self-contradictory.
@guigus,
guigus wrote:
Dasein wrote:
Quote:Thanks for the vote of confidence Dasein but I'm not at all sure that I do.
What I said has nothing to do with confidence. You are in the process of uncovering what you know. Confusion can only happen when what you 'assume to know' (believe) gets questioned to the point that you re-investigate what you assume and uncover what you know. Confusion is your way of letting you know that you don't 'know' what the hell you are talking about. Confusion is to be embraced and not avoided or ignored. Once you get past confusion and doubt, 'knowing' shows up. When I said “you already understand” I meant you already know. You just don't know that you already know, which is why you have to uncover what you know.
That's confusion!
inotherwords be more aware of what your thinking
thats my take
@north,
north wrote:
guigus wrote:
Dasein wrote:
Quote:Thanks for the vote of confidence Dasein but I'm not at all sure that I do.
What I said has nothing to do with confidence. You are in the process of uncovering what you know. Confusion can only happen when what you 'assume to know' (believe) gets questioned to the point that you re-investigate what you assume and uncover what you know. Confusion is your way of letting you know that you don't 'know' what the hell you are talking about. Confusion is to be embraced and not avoided or ignored. Once you get past confusion and doubt, 'knowing' shows up. When I said “you already understand” I meant you already know. You just don't know that you already know, which is why you have to uncover what you know.
That's confusion!
inotherwords be more aware of what your thinking
thats my take
A priest doesn't want to make you think -- let alone make you aware of what you think -- he wants to convert you.
@north,
north wrote:
guigus wrote:
north wrote:
guigus wrote:
Dasein wrote:
Quote:Thanks for the vote of confidence Dasein but I'm not at all sure that I do.
What I said has nothing to do with confidence. You are in the process of uncovering what you know. Confusion can only happen when what you 'assume to know' (believe) gets questioned to the point that you re-investigate what you assume and uncover what you know. Confusion is your way of letting you know that you don't 'know' what the hell you are talking about. Confusion is to be embraced and not avoided or ignored. Once you get past confusion and doubt, 'knowing' shows up. When I said “you already understand” I meant you already know. You just don't know that you already know, which is why you have to uncover what you know.
That's confusion!
inotherwords be more aware of what your thinking
thats my take
A priest doesn't want to make you think -- let alone make you aware of what you think -- he wants to convert you.
true
And some philosophers (a sad majority of them) are disguised priests, despite struggling -- sometimes desperately -- to be not (and Heidegger is one that does not struggle that hard).
Got brainz? This blond sure does and she speaks about free will as well!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVcj3BAes04&feature=related
@Dasein,
Dasein wrote:
Quote:inotherwords be more aware of what your thinking
"inotherwords" you
are your thinking!!!!
You are confusing Heidegger with Descartes.
@litewave,
Predetermination is the norm interrupted by free will decision/actions.
@Dasein,
Yes, you are the CONSTANT conversation being had with your 'self'. It is just unfortunate that most 'think' that their 'thinking' has to 'fit in'....
@reasoning logic,
She is a bit amateur and informal on oversimplifying some stuff but she more or less gets it...
