Thanks for reading the document and commenting, Lausten.
Sorry this took a while. I get caught in arguments when maybe I should be focusing more on good ideas.
On free will, the only thing I don't like is the word "impossible". You're saying this is a philosophy, but some people will take that as a stance. I would change the wording to say something like we can't know everything that affected us, in the womb, some virus, a smell that triggered a memory, so we should act as if we don't have complete free will.
In fact, if the regress argument presented in the document is sound, then free will (in the way in which I define it) is indeed impossible. Therefore, if you believe that free will (in the way in which I define it) is not impossible, then the onus is on you to show that the regress argument is unsound.
After about half way through, you start talking about simpler lifestyle. This gets a bit ascetic for me.
Could you please provide a quote from the document that backs up your claim that my philosophy is "ascetic"?
I've never quite worked out living in the present and your statement, “of course while living in the present one may still learn from the past and prepare for the future" indicates you haven't either.
Actually, I'm pretty good at staying focused on the present. My point is that one may learn from the past and prepare for the future, as I do, without letting the past and the future disturb one's mind.
I've concluded that working too much on living in the present, can take you out of just plain living.
Why? I would argue that living in the present is "just plain living".
There is joy in reaching for goals and in remembering good times.
I see no "joy" in reaching for goals, but there can be joy in achieving them. That said, one can try one's hardest while still remaining focused on the present. In fact, it could be argued that focusing on the present is most conducive to trying one's hardest.
I have nothing against remembering good times. In fact, I counsel doing exactly that when one is in physical pain (see page 10 of the document).
You mention balance, but your focus is on living in the present.
Where do I mention "balance" in a way that would be inconsistent with living in the present?
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?
This is a motivation, not something that I would want to meditate about until I was at peace with it. I would want my actions to be in line with what others want and not retaliatory, but at some point they may be actions that others resist due to their short term desires. There are limits to how much I can work with that resistance.
There is nothing in my document against taking action for
pragmatic reasons. But according to free will impossibilism, retaliating for
retributive purposes is irrational, as no one can be ultimately responsible for their actions.