Take that hill, real. Yes sir!
real life wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:real wrote: Words don't 'cause' anything. People choose their own actions and reactions.
Seems real was never in the military service.
Weak point, CI.
Did anyone in the military ever disobey an order?
Words don't 'cause' anything.
Weaker punt.
Did any ever follow an order? Yes.
did anyone ever disobey the church? Yes. Sometimes we called them heretics, and they got burnt, not as a metaphore.
Stop trying to rewrite history.
If words don't cause anything, then words don't mean anything. So nobody would mind if we just burned all bibles? I think not.
Words cause a great deal.
Cyracuz wrote:If words don't cause anything, then words don't mean anything. So nobody would mind if we just burned all bibles? I think not.
Words cause a great deal.
Do you not make your own choices, Cyracuz?
If someone told you to jump off a cliff, would it 'cause' you to do so?
real life wrote:Cyracuz wrote:If words don't cause anything, then words don't mean anything. So nobody would mind if we just burned all bibles? I think not.
Words cause a great deal.
Do you not make your own choices, Cyracuz?
If someone told you to jump off a cliff, would it 'cause' you to do so?
He might jump if your words convinced him the the alternative was worse.
"Jump and die now, be saved for enternity. Choose not to and die a later day and burn in hell for enternity."
You're right, he has a choice.
real has never followed the instruction given by his boss, because he chooses his own "actions."
real life wrote:Do you not make your own choices, Cyracuz?
If someone told you to jump off a cliff, would it 'cause' you to do so?
Diest answered this one for me. Thank ya. :wink:
But all that is beside the point. How we relate to any given issue is very relevant in which direction we will take it. Things are, but when we give them names we determine their relations and thus we create these things in the realm of our cognition, which is the only realm we can ever percieve. Naming is creating.
It has been said that we do not live in situations; we live in our definition of the situation. We see this most clearly in politics where the struggle is mainly about who gets to define the situation. Yes, naming is creating.
Quote:It has been said that we do not live in situations; we live in our definition of the situation.
Your focus determines your reality.
Just for morbid fun, if we suggest naming is creating, (or your focus determines your reality) and we have a terminally ill, unconscious cancer patient, with one hour left to live, with their one and only loved one at their side.
In what way will the loved one's experience be created or not created by the doctor informing said loved one the disease is cancer as opposed to simply saying the patient will die in an hour of a generic terminal disease?
Let's further assume this loved one has zero medical knowledge and would not know cancer from the common cold (which could kill the aged and infirm as well FWIW).
Well, the principle does not apply 100%. If something heavy falls on my head without my knowledge, I maay die regardless of my definition of the situation. But the circumstances of my death are subject to police determilnation, and those definitions decide many things...like culpability.
And the principle applies generally with regard to our understanding of and attitude toward virtually all the events, circumstances, and other properties of our life experience.
I guess we should acknowledge, Cyracuz and I, that naming or defining does not generate the physical universe (that would be absolute idealism), but it does determine how we behave within it because it reflects what we think we are dealing with.
Couldn't you extend the inevitability argument to not only preclude free will in its entirety, but to fully counter the suggestion that naming is creating?
Well, for one, the person wouldn't need to worry about the illness being catching. So the naming created a clean environment.
edited
Not so because "Let's further assume this loved one has zero medical knowledge and would not know cancer from the common cold (which could kill the aged and infirm as well FWIW)."
JLNobody wrote:Well, the principle does not apply 100%. If something heavy falls on my head without my knowledge, I maay die regardless of my definition of the situation. But the circumstances of my death are subject to police determilnation, and those definitions decide many things...like culpability.
And the principle applies generally with regard to our understanding of and attitude toward virtually all the events, circumstances, and other properties of our life experience.
I guess we should acknowledge, Cyracuz and I, that naming or defining does not generate the physical universe (that would be absolute idealism), but it does determine how we behave within it because it reflects what we think we are dealing with.
Since you obviously have a choice how you respond, not only to the words of others, but also to your own words (i.e. how you have defined your situation up til this point), it should be clear that any statement such as 'words cause.......' is nonsense.
Ok. But still, the doctor naming the patient as dying, with one hour left to live, would surely create a mindset of a certain urgency in the bystander.
But it is as JL says. The physical world is, regardless of our naming. But our naming has an impact on how we relate to that world, and thus the naming creates the relationships that make up our perception.
Prove to me JLNobody "obviously have a choice how you respond, not only to the words of others, but also to your own words"
Not just "words cause." Ideas, understandings, conceptions, values, etc. help determine our course of action.
Chumly, your line of thought leaves me a bit confused. I'm not talking just about the effect of knowledge on behavior but the broader set of understandings (right or wrong), etc.
