It's improper to suggest that my posts addressing the issue of free will in this thread are instances of hijacking. Indeed, Phil hasn't suggested as much.At the moment it becomes a discussion between only between others than Philosofer123, it becomes just another free will thread. I recognise why Philosofer123 does not like it, and I would suggest to use his other thread to continue the discussion. The word 'hijacking' was used by Philosofer123 in his OP of this thread. Of course you are free not to respect his wish. Edit: So you can find a small reaction here].
It's improper to suggest that my posts addressing the issue of free will in this thread are instances of hijacking. Indeed, Phil hasn't suggested as much.At the moment it becomes a discussion between only between others than Philosofer123, it becomes just another free will thread. That doesn't follow. As I've already pointed out (a futile gesture, in your case), my arguments here about free will touch directly on the foundation for Phil's treatment of negative emotions. All this means is that Phil has bowed out of the discussion he invited.
I recognise why Philosofer123 does not like it, and I would suggest to use his other thread to continue the discussion.I've replied to you in that other thread. At the same time, I'll continue to gently press my critique of Phil's paper here. Phil not liking it doesn't mean it's off-topic.
The word 'hijacking' was used by Philosofer123 in his OP of this thread. Of course you are free not to respect his wish.There you go again. It's almost as though you formed your opinion without reading the thread. So tell me the truth, did you read this thread before deciding you had moral high ground sufficient to criticize me? And if you did, do you have better evidence than Phil doesn't like it to suggest that I'm derailing the thread? I'm concentrating my words on Phil's statement when not responding to asides such as yours, GdB. The evidence will bear me out. Have a look if you get the chance.
Or if it doesn't it doesn't overcome the problem of luck which was the motivation for it in the first place.Not necessarily so. From http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwVariousKane.html
You may find all this interesting and yet still find it hard to shake the intuition that if choices are undetermined, they must happen merely by chance--and so must be "random," "capricious," "uncontrolled," "irrational," and all the other things usually charged. Such intuitions are deeply ingrained. But if we are ever going to understand free will, I think will have to break old habits of thought that support such intuitions and learn to think in new ways. The first step in doing this is to question the intuitive connection in most people's minds between "indeterminism's being involved in something" and "its happening merely as a matter of chance or luck." "Chance" and "luck" are terms of ordinary language that carry the connotation of "its being out of my control." So using them already begs certain questions, whereas "indeterminism" is a technical term that merely precludes deterministic causation, though not causation altogether. Indeterminism is consistent with nondeterministic or probabilistic causation, where the outcome is not inevitable. It is therefore a mistake (alas, one of the most common in debates about free will) to assume that "undetermined" means "uncaused."Bold added by me. So, the problem of luck is a pseudo problem due to begging the question.
I’ve replied on a free will thread Kkwan
(oops, put this in the wrong thread. this being the “right” one)
I see no “joy" in reaching for goals, but there can be joy in achieving them.Not sure what I can do explain that one. I’ve had some tremendous failures in my life, but I’ve been honest about what I was doing, fair in how I dealt with others and celebrated along the way. The joy came from that, not the final result.
Where do I mention “balance" in a way that would be inconsistent with living in the present?You don’t specifically. I would have to tally up how much you focus on “living in the present" vs making trade-offs and working toward long term goals. I could be misreading your overal intentions. You make general statements about “the trade-off between present and future" p. 12, but I think you make more specific statements when considering avoiding a long term goal, like politics or children.
Lausten - 17 January 2014 10:38 AMI’m not sure that I do disagree. You say natural selection partially explains moral variability. Natural selection would promote a clean environment because a non-clean one would select out its inhabitants. Even attempts to send your non-cleanness downstream are likely to come back and bite you. I can feel this at a morally intutitive level and provide a reasoned explanation for it. I guess it’s how you look at where reasoning arises. I see motivation as coming from somewhere less defined, from thoughts that I have little control over, then my so-called higher functioning brain kicks in and chooses what to empower and what to discard.The overemphasis can be seen in how you apply that. You handled grief and being offended, but I can be insulted by something that is an affront to my sense of what is right. I am offended by a degradation of the environment that will affect life.Then you clearly disagree with moral skepticism (see page 3 of the document). So, where do my arguments for moral skepticism go wrong?
The link in the OP is now inactive. My philosophy is now available at:
I found this to be a very interesting document. My take is even though many people may disagree with your philosophical positions, I suspect most everyone would agree with your suggestions at the end of your document for how to live life (cultivating friendships, living a simple life, focusing on the positive, etc…). That’s not to say that people actually live this way, but if you asked them if they should, they probably would say yes.
You said you posted your document to receive feedback for improvements, so in that spirit I’ll offer a few thoughts:
- On page 10 you talk about the dichotomy of control. There you say that some things are partially under one’s control. I am a little confused as to how that relates to your view on free will. What can one truly control without free will? I know you don’t believe in free will so what did you mean by control in that section?
- You mentioned you follow the view of existential skepticism but also acknowledge it is possible that one’s life may have subjective meaning/purpose. Where I am not clear is whether you think having subjective meaning is desirable or not. On one hand, perhaps one will have greater peace of mind as a result of not attaching a meaning or purpose to his life. On the other hand, raising a child, for example, can bring meaning to someone’s life that is very beneficial. Not sure where you stand here.
- While I don’t completely disagree with your view on loneliness, I was surprised you didn’t reference the idea of cultivating relationships in that section. Maybe you were referring to a situation where it’s not possible to make new friends or rebuild old relationships. I suppose using mental techniques to suppress your loneliness might be your only choice in that case. But it would seem the first thing to try would be improving your interpersonal relationships.
- I think your view on political hedonism is fine for you, but I believe other people might weigh the potential benefits and possible costs differently and come to a different conclusion about the level of political involvement that is worthwhile. If you intend this document for the general public, I would either take that section out or make a much stronger case for why the vast majority of people shouldn’t go into politics. However, if these are just guidelines for yourself, then it’s not a big deal.
Overall, a very well thought out piece. Good luck to you in your search for answers to life’s questions!
Layman, thank you for reading and providing thoughtful suggestions. Let me provide my take on your points:
1) On page 10 you talk about the dichotomy of control. There you say that some things are partially under one's control. I am a little confused as to how that relates to your view on free will. What can one truly control without free will? I know you don't believe in free will so what did you mean by control in that section?Recall that I define free will in terms of ultimate responsibility. The impossibility of ultimate responsibility is compatible with the ability to control, by which I mean to act or think in a certain way intentionally and with a reason.
2) You mentioned you follow the view of existential skepticism but also acknowledge it is possible that one's life may have subjective meaning/purpose. Where I am not clear is whether you think having subjective meaning is desirable or not. On one hand, perhaps one will have greater peace of mind as a result of not attaching a meaning or purpose to his life. On the other hand, raising a child, for example, can bring meaning to someone's life that is very beneficial. Not sure where you stand here.In fact, I have no opinion on whether subjective meaning is desirable, as in different contexts it may or may not help to optimize one's state of mind over one's lifetime.
3) While I don't completely disagree with your view on loneliness, I was surprised you didn't reference the idea of cultivating relationships in that section. Maybe you were referring to a situation where it's not possible to make new friends or rebuild old relationships. I suppose using mental techniques to suppress your loneliness might be your only choice in that case. But it would seem the first thing to try would be improving your interpersonal relationships.The section on loneliness is provided in a larger section on psychological methods to achieve and maintain peace of mind. In this section, I avoid recommendations that have to do with changing one's environment (such as making friends). That said, I do talk about how good friends can reduce loneliness on page 7.
4) I think your view on political hedonism is fine for you, but I believe other people might weigh the potential benefits and possible costs differently and come to a different conclusion about the level of political involvement that is worthwhile. If you intend this document for the general public, I would either take that section out or make a much stronger case for why the vast majority of people shouldn't go into politics. However, if these are just guidelines for yourself, then it's not a big deal.The primary purpose of the document is to advise myself, as stated on the top of page 1. However, at the same time, I would like to think that my recommendations apply to most of the general public. And in the case of political hedonism, I believe that they do. In my view, most people would not be able to make enough of a difference through political activity that it would be worth the effort involved.
Overall, a very well thought out piece. Good luck to you in your search for answers to life's questions!Thanks again.