This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Questions for a Catholic
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Is that really freedom? Consider the case of a computer program that has the ability to act in accord with its nature. Is it free?
Yes it is. Because for it to do something beyond the nature of a computer program is for it to cease being a computer program.
Thus
qua
computer program, it is free.
In the same way that a person is free when their leg is intact, is a tree 'free' when its branches are intact and capable of acting in accord with its nature?
Yes it is. Notice I haven't brought will into the discussion yet, so I'm not saying the tree has free
will
.
Of course, perhaps it's because I see 'freedom' as autonomy. Did you address free will in the context of 'freedom = autonomy', as opposed to acting in accord with its nature? I'm not sure if that's one of the things you chopped out, or whether it was a gap in your paper.
Well, the point of most of the examples was to show that really autonomy makes no sense even when people try to use freedom that way. Take the leg again...who would you say is free the guy with a fixed leg (a leg ordered in a specific way according to some principle) or the guy with a broken leg (a leg which has an infinite number of modes of being broken and is thus autonomous to any principle of order).
The fact that we move by virtue of our will can be considered voluntary. But I believe that that's because you've defined voluntary in reference to one's will. If you define voluntary as 'having the ability to make a different choice', then you can suggest that nothing we do is voluntary, as our 'will' is programmed in a deterministic way - that is, our 'will' is merely a consequent event of a series of precedent events.
In reference to above, it's not that I don't like definitions, it's that I see them as something very different than you do. There are three things in a definition of a word: the word itself, the definition of the word, and the actual concept or thing that the definition describes. The act of define is a manipulation of the first two, but the third persists through any verbal manipulation I do. So that I defined voluntary one way for my purposes, and you define it differently
has no bearing on the actual concept I was describing.
If I define voluntary as x (and I gave an etymological reason for doing so) then I can say a, b and c about voluntary. Now I don't care that you think voluntary can mean something else, the concept I was describing with the word is still intact, call it what you will.
Can we think any differently to the way we do? No. Can you change your mind? Yes, but you would only ever do so as a result of changing stimuli. Can you change your mind just to spite me? Absolutely, but again, you'd be doing so because of billions of precedent events that caused you to be the way that you are, not because you somehow have a 'choice' to be what you are. You can argue that a conscious choice can influence future events, but that conscious choice is predetermined, and unchangeable.
You're painting a picture of what might be the case, but this is no proof that human will is deterministic in nature.
a) 'freedom' can be represented as 'perfection of nature', on the grounds that a man would not call a tree 'free' (in the same style of argument as you make);
Why isn't a tree free? It's achieving it's end and it's not being forced to. Now take a tree that I stick under a box and isn't given any water. The tree is not free, because it is impeded from achieving its nature.
b) 'perfection of nature' is a suitable measure of freedom anyway, on the grounds that it is a subjective measurement that differs from person to person;
Humans have the same nature (or else we wouldn't all be humans) and thus the perfection of said nature is something objectively universal.
c) 'voluntary' can be defined as being 'of the will', on the grounds that all conscious 'wills' are, in essence, 'involuntary' (from a colloquial definition - out of our control).
You cannot deny an assumption with an assumption. If you can provide an argument that the universe is in fact deterministic, then fine. But as it stands, my assumption/definition is valid.
Is a computer or a tree 'free' by your definition?
Yes.
Does a computer have a will?
No. Neither does a tree.
If it doesn't have a will, then can we say any moreso that humans have a will, if we are simply a complex program of our past experiences?
We are self-movers. Therefore there must be something in us that does the moving. We call that will.
And if a computer has a will insofar as it can take action towards its perfection of nature, and it can make voluntary choices as to what actions it takes (in line with its programming and past experiences/data), much the same as humans, does it therefore have free will, by your definition?
However none of the computer's actions are contingent, they are all necessary. Thus it is not self-moving.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The argument that there is a Divine Being is just as valid as saying that aliens created the universe and blew themselves up when they created it.
No, because there is no valid philosophical proof for the latter.
Flying Spaghetti Monster has just as much philosophical proof as Christianity does. Note:
Now again, your confusing Philosophy and Theology. I have maintained and I still do, that the existence of God can be demonstrated philosophically, yet you continue to dismiss that claim based on it being 'faith' without a single philosophical argument to the contrary.
Any such demonstration (which I still disagree with, but anyway) can only demonstrate that athiesm is incorrect, not that Christianity is correct. So if anything, it supports agnosticism. That the agnostic god is the Christian God is beyond your philosophical argument.
I never denied that. So why even bring that up? I never said I could prove Catholicism. I said quite clearly over and over that I can prove God exists as I have defined him in said arguments.
Have you even looked at the proofs for God that I have provided over and over?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The entire Catholic faith has had 2,000 years creating an argument that is so deeply circular and is so imbedded into culture, that I cannot debunk it and even if I did
Unfortunately you fail at history. Aristotle beat the Catholic Church by several hundred years.
Post by
Skyfire
The entire Catholic faith has had 2,000 years creating an argument that is so deeply circular and is so imbedded into culture, that I cannot debunk it and even if I did
Unfortunately you fail at history. Aristotle beat the Catholic Church by several hundred years.
Well, Aristotle takes the axiom that an infinite regress is impossible to be true... which it's not, upon which his argument fails.
But other than that, that proof would only prove that there was something to begin everything else, which must be at least one god. The proof does not disprove the notion that multiple gods can exist, and in fact most philosophical proofs do not disprove the notion that multiple gods can exist.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Well, Aristotle takes the axiom that an infinite regress is impossible to be true... which it's not, upon which his argument fails.
I love how everyone denies my arguments but refuses to actually provide their own.
Honestly I don't care that you
think
it's impossible.
Post by
Skyfire
Well, Aristotle takes the axiom that an infinite regress is impossible to be true... which it's not, upon which his argument fails.
I love how everyone denies my arguments but refuses to actually provide their own.
Honestly I don't care that you
think
it's impossible.
Huh? Aristotle believes that the axiom "infinite regress is impossible" is a true axiom, from which I can as simply state "er, no, I can surely infinite regress in my arguments, because you can't disprove it as a case". There's no way to prove that infinite regress is impossible.
Post by
TheMediator
Well, Aristotle takes the axiom that an infinite regress is impossible to be true... which it's not, upon which his argument fails.
But other than that, that proof would only prove that there was something to begin everything else, which must be at least one god. The proof does not disprove the notion that multiple gods can exist, and in fact most philosophical proofs do not disprove the notion that multiple gods can exist.
Good post. Whenever I see posts where someone posts an ancient proof, that may or may not be disproved, and then follow it with "God exists"... I have to shake my head and say "Yes, there may be some entity that created the universe, but where does that imply that anything in the Bible/Koran/Whatever is true?
Post by
Squishalot
Why isn't a tree free? It's achieving it's end and it's not being forced to. Now take a tree that I stick under a box and isn't given any water. The tree is not free, because it is impeded from achieving its nature.
For the same reason that a person's leg isn't free, but a person *is* free. The actual colloquial belief that a person is free isn't related to the state of the leg being free and able to achieve perfection of nature, but that the person is autonomous and has 'freedom of movement' (in inverted commas because I'm using it in a colloquial context, as opposed to the context of 'freedom' that we're discussing).
We are self-movers. Therefore there must be something in us that does the moving. We call that will.
However none of the computer's actions are contingent, they are all necessary. Thus it is not self-moving.
Firstly, I believe that all of a human's actions are necessary (and not necessarily from a deterministic argument). There is plenty of neuro-psych evidence to suggest that emotions, at least, are the byproduct of stimuli inputs. Emotions influence (in some cases, totally) actions. Therefore, we can suggest that stimuli inputs can result in actions that are entirely voluntary (from a conscious perspective), but that you have no control over.
Likewise, a computer can know that it is doing things (i.e. consciousness - imagine the CPU as the brain of the thing), but it has no control over what it's doing.
When I say 'a computer', I'm referring to a program running on a computer. There is nothing that a computer cannot be programmed to do (provided sufficient processing power, time and data) that a human can do.
What is it that we call will? You're saying it's the ability to self-move?
We can process a series of input stimuli. So can a computer.
We can take action in response to inputs. So can a computer.
We can make a choice of what action to take in response to inputs. So can a computer.
We call the thought process of deciding what action to take 'will' - that which does the moving. A computer's thought process of deciding what action to take is a part of its program or operating system - that which does the moving.
I've had this debate with a few psychologist friends of mine, in the context of data-mining information being processed by the brain in real-time. Aside from the sheer difficulty of capturing every single neuro-impulse that would be necessary to have a complete picture of a person's being, we determined that it would be possible to do in practice (though not with our current level of technology), and subsequently, it would be possible to replicate that data in an artificial body/brain (again, if we could replicate the mechanical functions of the human body perfectly). This artificial body would then perceive, think and feel exactly what the original one would. (The whole concept of mind transferring is so sci-fi, but it's actually a fairly simple concept when you put your head to it. The practicality is mind-boggling though, literally.)
Anyway, I digress. My point is, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that human will is simply a series of neural impulses in response to stimuli. This can be replicated in a computer. Therefore, if human will can be replicated in a computer, the computer must be defined as having will, or we have a false definition of what 'will' is.
I never denied that. So why even bring that up? I never said I could prove Catholicism. I said quite clearly over and over that I can prove God exists as I have defined him in said arguments.
Just clarifying in the context of your discussion with lostguide. Capitalising God has connotations of the Christian God, as opposed to 'a god' generally. I do think that lostguide has interpreted your thoughts as referring to being able to prove philosophically that 'there is God', as opposed to 'there is a god'.
Post by
Squishalot
Well, Aristotle takes the axiom that an infinite regress is impossible to be true... which it's not, upon which his argument fails.
I love how everyone denies my arguments but refuses to actually provide their own.
Honestly I don't care that you
think
it's impossible.
Because you're using an argument to authority. If the authority didn't clearly demonstrate why they must be correct, then the argument is still at debate. See Skyfire's clarification.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
@ Squish's whole point.
You're a biological reductionist. It all makes sense now. I knew the reason you disagreed with nearly everything I say had something to do with your principles, I just wasn't sure where you were deriving them.
At which point, you can't even posit that we can know universal truth. So really any discussion is meaningless.
I don't want to be rude, but I can't argue with you. That we have more than just a physical being is necessary first principle for any discussion to hold any meaning (for me, maybe not for you).
Because you're using an argument to authority
It's actually not an argument from authority. Argument from authority is 'he said it, therefore it's true.' The arguments I've provided have no bearing on someone else saying them.
Yes, there may be some entity that created the universe, but where does that imply that anything in the Bible/Koran/Whatever is true?
I never said it does.
I'll say it again. I can proof God exists as defined in my previous arguments.
Don't set up strawmen, it accomplishes nothing.
Post by
Squishalot
You're a biological reductionist. It all makes sense now. I knew the reason you disagreed with nearly everything I say had something to do with your principles, I just wasn't sure where you were deriving them.
At which point, you can't even posit that we can know universal truth. So really any discussion is meaningless.
I don't want to be rude, but I can't argue with you. That we have more than just a physical being is necessary first principle for any discussion to hold any meaning (for me, maybe not for you).
Why is it? To be honest, I had to go off and look up what you meant by 'biological reductionist' to make sure I knew what you were on about.
Ok, so the definition I have to work off is this:
A theoretical approach which explains social or cultural phenomena in biological terms. Twentieth-century incarnations of biological reductionism have relied to varying degrees on Darwin's theory of evolution and principles of natural selection. Within the human sciences, there have been attempts to
explain observed differences in group behaviour
—such as performance on intelligence tests, rates of mental illness, intergenerational poverty, male dominance or patriarchy, and propensity for crime—
as being biologically determined, by claiming that groups have different biological capacities or evolutionary trajectories
. The theories of Social Darwinism, eugenics, and sociobiology incorporate biological reductionism.
Interesting concept, and one that makes sense from a research perspective, even if it's nothing to do with what I was saying. Much the same way that one might dig down into how objects work as clusters of atoms, which themselves are electrons and neutrons etc, I don't see how it's unreasonable to dig down into biological roots to explain social issues. I mean, at the end of the day, why does a person commit crime? To argue against biological reductionism (which may suggest that it has to do with the environment he was brought up in and the fact his mother didn't love him - cue Freud), you would have to instead argue that his soul, or non-physical being, was innately drawn to crime. No?
Anyway, I've bolded the key points. Biological reductionists attempt to explain social phenomenon by identifying biological factors that are highly correlated with social differences. It's a correlational argument suggesting that 'people of this are more likely to do that'. This isn't science in the sense of true analysis, it's hand-wavy analysis in attempting to demonstrate that correlation = causation. That's not what I'm saying. (And I definitely haven't said anything about universal truths.)
In the same terms, I would be saying that 'people of this
do
that'. None of this correlation = causation stuff. I'm saying that you can identify a causal effect between stimuli and reaction, not a statistically significant correlational effect. Having said that, I do agree in principle with biological reductionism, so you're not wrong there, but qualified with the understanding that any such theories are underpinned through the use of a potentially flawed correlational analysis.
Anyway, back to the key point you're unhappy with. Let's go back to it.
That we have more than just a physical being is necessary first principle for any discussion to hold any meaning (for me, maybe not for you).
Where have I said that we only have a physical being? I haven't convinced myself one way or the other, in all honesty. But I don't see the concept of a soul being capable of contravening physics, much the same way that you probably don't imagine that computers have souls. As such, I think the question of whether we have a soul is irrelevant in a discussion about the cause-and-effect nature of the human body and the human mind.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, we did have a non-physical being. Why would its influence be any more than an extra unmeasurable variable in the program of our physical limitations? How can it influence us? What additional element would it add to the input/reaction process?
I don't think the concept of a non-physical being associated with a person is incompatible with the concept of human reactions to human perceptions. By the same reasoning that God can exist outside our universe without directly influencing events, there's no reason a soul can exist outside our human body, powerless to change things as they occur.
But back to the first question. Why is it so important to you? It'd be like saying that there's no meaning to discussing religion without first assuming that God exists.
It's actually not an argument from authority. Argument from authority is 'he said it, therefore it's true.' The arguments I've provided have no bearing on someone else saying them.
It is from the context of lostguide and Skyfire (as far as I can gather) - you haven't demonstrated to them why Aristotle's argument is valid.
I'll say it again. I can proof God exists as defined in my previous arguments.
Don't set up strawmen, it accomplishes nothing.
Remove the capital G to avoid confusion, otherwise, you are implicitly stating that you can prove Christianity exists. It's not a strawman in the context of what you're
presenting
, however much you think it is in the context of
what you actually want to say
.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
To be honest, I had to go off and look up what you meant by 'biological reductionist' to make sure I knew what you were on about.
I use biological/physical reductionism more in
this
sense.
Which matches your argument above to a 't' if I understand both correctly.
Where have I said that we only have a physical being? I haven't convinced myself one way or the other, in all honesty. But I don't see the concept of a soul being capable of contravening physics, much the same way that you probably don't imagine that computers have souls. As such, I think the question of whether we have a soul is irrelevant in a discussion about the cause-and-effect nature of the human body and the human mind.
Because I'm not talking about the mind. You talk about emotion and neuro-impulses which are biological functions. Will, as I'm speaking of it as ordered to a universal, cannot be physical. The finite cannot have the infinite in its nature.
So again, if you base the whole of your argument/belief on physical/biological causality, then it makes no sense for us to debating will, because will as I define it can't exist in your system, nor could intellect.
Why would its influence be any more than an extra unmeasurable variable in the program of our physical limitations?
Because the end of the will is the infinite good. Thus, as I stated originally, no finite good can compel it. They can influence it, yes; but only the infinite good can compel us.
How can it influence us?
It
is
us. It's things outside of us that do the influencing.
Why is it so important to you? It'd be like saying that there's no meaning to discussing religion without first assuming that God exists.
It's different. It's more like saying there is no meaning to discussing God if you assume he doesn't exist. It's like arguing about unicorns.
It is from the context of lostguide and Skyfire (as far as I can gather) - you haven't demonstrated to them why Aristotle's argument is valid.
That's silly. If I laid out the proof for the Pythagorean Theorem right now, would I then have to further demonstrate that it's valid? No, the proof is a proof. If it's valid in itself, it's valid.
Remove the capital G to avoid confusion, otherwise, you are implicitly stating that you can prove Christianity exists. It's not a strawman in the context of what you're
presenting
, however much you think it is in the context of
what you actually want to say
.
Actually capital G itself is avoiding confusion. "God is a deity in theistic and deistic religions and other belief systems, representing either the sole deity in monotheism, or a principal deity in polytheism" - OCP. If you're a monotheist, it doesn't matter; but if you're a polytheist, it's clarifying that I'm referring to the principle deity.
In addition I defined my terms within the argument (By God we mean first mover, by God we mean first agent cause, etc.).
Arguing semantics won't do much.
Post by
Skyfire
That's silly. If I laid out the proof for the Pythagorean Theorem right now, would I then have to further demonstrate that it's valid? No, the proof is a proof. If it's valid in itself, it's valid.
Um, first cause proof isn't a proof at all? I laid out my reason why.
Post by
Squishalot
I use biological/physical reductionism more in this sense.
Which matches your argument above to a 't' if I understand both correctly.
Reductionism does, yes.
So again, if you base the whole of your argument/belief on physical/biological causality, then it makes no sense for us to debating will, because will as I define it can't exist in your system, nor could intellect.
I'm not, that's the thing. I'm saying what I believe, in contrast to what you believe. If you what you believe is true, then it will have 'X' result, which doesn't make sense, but which can be explained through reductionism.
Again - if someone commits a crime, do you believe it's because they willed it to be so, and it has nothing to do with any environmental factors?
Will, as I'm speaking of it as ordered to a universal, cannot be physical. The finite cannot have the infinite in its nature.
...
Why would its influence be any more than an extra unmeasurable variable in the program of our physical limitations?Because the end of the will is the infinite good. Thus, as I stated originally, no finite good can compel it. They can influence it, yes; but only the infinite good can compel us.
Put it in plain language. No offense, but I'm getting tired of trying to interpret what you're saying from a philosophical perspective each time. If you can't explain the fundamentals of a concept in simple terms, it's either not worth explaining, or you don't understand it well enough to provide an overview to someone who hasn't explored the topic in as much depth as you have. Define 'will' and what it is. So far, you've said the following:
We are self-movers. Therefore there must be something in us that does the moving. We call that will.
Our end can be no finite good, because any finite good can be seen a lack of good (insofar as it is finite); more good can always be added to a finite good. Thus, if our end is infinite good, no finite good can compel our will.
One talks about what 'will' is. One talks about what motivates our 'will' (as far as I can tell). You haven't explained the relationship between the 'end' of infinite good and 'will'. Hell, you haven't even explained/defined what 'infinite good' is in the first place. I'll give you the credit and assume that it's because you chopped it out of your paper before pasting it here, but you still need to explain it now that it's here.
"Because the end of the will is the infinite good" is not an acceptable response to a question if the person you're talking to doesn't have a clue what you're talking about. Since you've been on a journey investigating these things, take us on that journey and explain what you mean. Telling someone that their table is made of electrons isn't going to help their understanding of what materials are used in their table.
It is us. It's things outside of us that do the influencing.
Now who's straw-manning. How does it influence your physical actions?
Why is it so important to you? It'd be like saying that there's no meaning to discussing religion without first assuming that God exists.
It's different. It's more like saying there is no meaning to discussing God if you assume he doesn't exist. It's like arguing about unicorns.
It's two sides of the same coin - you're not even arguing on semantics here, you're arguing for the sake of arguing. If Christians truly believed that there was no meaning to discussing God if you assumed he didn't exist, then evangelism wouldn't exist, since most athiests probably would draw links between God and unicorns. This thread wouldn't even exist, since there'd be no meaning to discussing Catholicism with people who believe it's wrong.
Let me paraphrase your comment:
That
we have more than just a physical being
is necessary first principle for any discussion to hold any meaning (for me, maybe not for you).
That
there is a God
is necessary first principle for any discussion to hold any meaning (for me, maybe not for you).
That
there is no God
is necessary first principle for any discussion to hold any meaning (for me, maybe not for you).
I suggest that you revise your statement.
--------------------------------------------------
The problem with many of the great philosophers is that their direct teachings are inaccessible to the masses, because they were so wrapped up in their metaphysical world that they were unable to bring themselves back down to the level of thought of the people they were teaching. The greatest teachers, lecturers, scientists, business people even, they're the ones who can explain concepts to people who don't have the background knowledge. If you notice, whenever I introduce a concept, I won't package it up in some fancy terminology, nor will I explain it as if everyone knows what I'm on about.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Again - if someone commits a crime, do you believe it's because they willed it to be so, and it has nothing to do with any environmental factors?
You wouldn't have to ask this if you understood what I've been saying. No finite good can compel the will. So in other words your 'environmental factors' are a force pushing in a certain direction, but are not the cause of the act--that is solely the will.
Put it in plain language. No offense, but I'm getting tired of trying to interpret what you're saying from a philosophical perspective each time.
No offense, but how am I supposed to know what terms you know and what terms you don't know? If you don't understand how I'm using a term, all you need to do is ask.
You haven't explained the relationship between the 'end' of infinite good and 'will'.
There are 4 causes of anything: formal, material, agent, final (end). The end of the will is good, that is an empirical fact that is taken for granted, no one acts for a perceived evil. However, every finite good can be seen as a lack of good insofar as there could still be some good added. So the ultimate end must be the infinite, unqualified good.
Hell, you haven't even explained/defined what 'infinite good' is in the first place.That seems pretty obvious. What part don't you get, the good or the infinite part?
I'll give you the credit and assume that it's because you chopped it out of your paper before pasting it here, but you still need to explain it now that it's here.
Also, this was not a philosophical paper. I wrote it based on Catholic Theological principles.
"Because the end of the will is the infinite good" is not an acceptable response to a question if the person you're talking to doesn't have a clue what you're talking about.
Don't get anal about it. I can't read your mind. I don't know you. Just ask what I mean.
How does it influence your physical actions?
It
as in the will? It causes them.
It's two sides of the same coin - you're not even arguing on semantics here, you're arguing for the sake of arguing. If Christians truly believed that there was no meaning to discussing God if you assumed he didn't exist, then evangelism wouldn't exist, since most athiests probably would draw links between God and unicorns. This thread wouldn't even exist, since there'd be no meaning to discussing Catholicism with people who believe it's wrong.
You misunderstand me. If you assume there is no God, it's silly for us to be arguing whether God is good--that statement makes no sense without God actually existing.
I suggest that you revise your statement.
I stand by my statement. Not the other two--I'm not sure where those come from. If we are comprised of nothing beyond the physical then we can't know absolute truths (finite cannot hold the infinite), thus any conversation involving universals and or absolutes (like this one) is meaningless.
The problem with many of the great philosophers is that their direct teachings are inaccessible to the masses, because they were so wrapped up in their metaphysical world that they were unable to bring themselves back down to the level of thought of the people they were teaching. The greatest teachers, lecturers, scientists, business people even, they're the ones who can explain concepts to people who don't have the background knowledge. If you notice, whenever I introduce a concept, I won't package it up in some fancy terminology, nor will I explain it as if everyone knows what I'm on about.
I'm not teaching a class, I'm debating with a peer. I'm not going to water down the truth I'm trying to convey, unless you specifically ask me to. You're acting like I'm trying to use terms above you purposely. No, I'm trying to use the most precise terms I can.
Post by
Squishalot
I suggest that you revise your statement.
I meant the following statement:
It's more like saying there is no meaning to discussing God if you assume he doesn't exist. It's like arguing about unicorns.
No offense, but how am I supposed to know what terms you know and what terms you don't know? If you don't understand how I'm using a term, all you need to do is ask.
When I'm obviously not interpreting your statements the way that you are. For whatever reason, a lot of the time, I feel that you're simply ignoring/belittling a lot of the things that I've said, on the grounds that they don't make sense to you and you assume that I've said something inane, when in reality, I have a very different interpretation of what you're saying, and I'm responding to the different interpretation.
I'm a very simple person. I won't assume that you mean anything other than the common usage of a term unless you define it as such. Let me give you an example.
There are 4 causes of anything: formal, material, agent, final (end). The end of the will is good, that is an empirical fact that is taken for granted, no one acts for a perceived evil. However, every finite good can be seen as a lack of good insofar as there could still be some good added. So the ultimate end must be the infinite, unqualified good.
...
What part don't you get, the good or the infinite part?
In Aristotle's own words, according to Wikipedia:
"Cause" means: ... (d) The same as "end"; i.e. the final cause; e.g., as the "end" of walking is health. For why does a man walk? "To be healthy," we say, and by saying this we consider that we have supplied the cause.
Now, consider what you said:
So the ultimate end
(of will)
must be the infinite, unqualified good.
Without an understanding of the context for the word 'end', I can only assume that you refer to 'end' in the common usage sense, as in, it is the final resting position/state. Which is why I failed to see the sense in your statement - how can 'will' have a state? How can 'will' be good, or bad? How can 'will' be infinitely good? 'Will' just is, it exists, it in itself can't be good or bad unless you add a moral framework!
However, now that you've clarified that by 'end', you mean 'the goal/cause of', it makes more sense. So what you're saying is:
So the ultimate goal (of will) must be (to achieve) the infinite, unqualified good.
Ok, so now we're on the same page. You're saying that our will is guiding us to want as much 'good' as it can get ('good' used in a
utility
perspective, as opposed to a
moral
perspective, right? Another potential conflict of understanding). Correct me if I'm wrong? I won't continue until I'm sure I understand you correctly.
I'm not teaching a class, I'm debating with a peer. I'm not going to water down the truth I'm trying to convey, unless you specifically ask me to. You're acting like I'm trying to use terms above you purposely. No, I'm trying to use the most precise terms I can.
No, I'm not accusing you of trying to be above me on purpose. I'm just saying that you have a tendency to wrap your arguments up in a whole bunch of philosophical mumbo jumbo, and I intensely dislike people who do that, because it comes across as extremely elitist. It's like the people who name-drop about their esteemed colleagues that they work with or have met once or twice. Those sorts of people come across as nothing more than a bunch of wanking tossers.
I feel the same way about people who use philosophical jargon, because there are better ways to explain things. I don't think it's necessary most of the time, because the regular person, even an intelligent one, doesn't go around thinking in terms of jargon, they think in terms of plain language. I'm a regular person who's done a unit of philosophy a long time ago, not a philosopher who lives like a regular person, so likewise, I think by default in terms of plain language, and it takes effort to have to interpret things otherwise.
Once upon a time ago, I used to think it was impossible to explain things without being technical. Then, I'd get intensely frustrated at the blank looks and glazed eyes whenever I got into a presentation because people just didn't get it. After that, I learned not to make the same sorts of mistakes. I don't think that explaining something on plain language has to water anything down. Instead of saying that I'm going to interpolate to get a result, I can say that I'll take the average to get a result. It takes me a couple more words to say, but I get a lot more understanding, especially from people who haven't had the same training as I have. Likewise, I don't have a background philosophy the way you do (if I haven't mentioned that before, then apologies, and now you know) - so I think it's a bit much to jump to the assumption that I'll interpret everything the way that you do.
Post by
147929
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Suggest one and start a new thread.
Post by
147929
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Suggest one and start a new thread.
Yea I have done a few times.
this
this
and all joking aside
THIS
Then it's done. What more can you ask for?
Even if heading to space ended up in a debate on the morality of dead babies. It didn't result in religious debate!
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.