If anyone has a legitimate question based on Chapter One, I would be more than happy to answer you.Yes. What I've asked before and you have refused to answer. What is the revolutionary idea that will change society?
Just because we don't know how an event is going to manifest itself does not mean there is not a reason behind the outcome. We just don't know it. Regardless of the quantum physics theory, this author is discussing human nature at a macro level and it is absolutely spot on.Events can happen without "a reason behind the outcome". Can you explain the author's "revolution in thought" concisely and explicitly? That is not proven. Anyway, quantum physics does not negate this discovery.
That is not proven. Anyway, quantum physics does not negate this discovery.What is this discovery?
Just because we don't know how an event is going to manifest itself does not mean there is not a reason behind the outcome. We just don't know it. Regardless of the quantum physics theory, this author is discussing human nature at a macro level and it is absolutely spot on.Events can happen without "a reason behind the outcome". Can you explain the author's "revolution in thought" concisely and explicitly? I can, and I've done it but I know that reading the text gives you a more clear picture. If it's too concise it won't do this knowledge justice, as I've already said. Why is it so difficult for you to go to the website and listen for a half hour. Then come back and we can talk more. http://www.declineandfallofallevil.org
If anyone has a legitimate question based on Chapter One, I would be more than happy to answer you.Yes. What I've asked before and you have refused to answer. What is the revolutionary idea that will change society? I answered this already. He shows why man's will is not free. Then he goes on to extend the corollary to this in order to show that the advance knowledge that we will no longer be blamed no matter what we do, actually prevents the justification to hurt others. It must be said that in order for this principle to work all forms of hurt to us must be removed so that any hurt done to others becomes a first blow, not a retaliatory blow, which is justified.
If anyone has a legitimate question based on Chapter One, I would be more than happy to answer you.Yes. What I've asked before and you have refused to answer. What is the revolutionary idea that will change society? I answered this already. He shows why man's will is not free. Then he goes on to extend the corollary to this in order to show that the advance knowledge that we will no longer be blamed no matter what we do, actually prevents the justification to hurt others. It must be said that in order for this principle to work all forms of hurt to us must be removed so that any hurt done to others becomes a first blow, not a retaliatory blow, which is justified. What is so revolutionary about that? Philosophers have been discussing this for decades, if not centuries. We have several long threads on this very topic without reaching a unanimous consensus. Where we differ, however, is the degree of choice we have. This has, as I said, been discussed to the point of beating a dead horse. I am not going there again. See the archives.
If anyone has a legitimate question based on Chapter One, I would be more than happy to answer you.Yes. What I've asked before and you have refused to answer. What is the revolutionary idea that will change society? I answered this already. He shows why man's will is not free. Then he goes on to extend the corollary to this in order to show that the advance knowledge that we will no longer be blamed no matter what we do, actually prevents the justification to hurt others. It must be said that in order for this principle to work all forms of hurt to us must be removed so that any hurt done to others becomes a first blow, not a retaliatory blow, which is justified. What is so revolutionary about that? Philosophers have been discussing this for decades, if not centuries. We have several long threads on this very topic without reaching a unanimous consensus. Where we differ, however, is the degree of choice we have. This has, as I said, been discussed to the point of beating a dead horse. I am not going there again. See the archives. I don't have to see the archives. I know this has been a longstanding debate but Lessans has a different perspective on it, which should allow you to pause for just a second before you throw these claims out. That's all I'm asking. You may still say this is all bullshit and I will be okay with that, but my golly can't you give this man a chance before you decide to do that? :-S
Well, by golly, explain his different take.
It’s a beautiful idea, that there is no beauty, no ugly, just who we are. The trouble is in convincing others. There are still a lot of people around who believe they are part of the chosen ones. Some of them live right down the street from me. Some others are cutting of the heads of those who disagree. How do you get their attention? This book has been around since 1976, seems like the ideas would have filtered in to the cultural imagination by now. Not that I’m dismissing it, but I’m wondering if you are willing to consider a critique of this work.
https://twitter.com/safeworld20
400 tweets that say “buy my book”
I’m no marketing expert, but if you want someone to be interested in your product, you have to give them a little teaser
I also made it into an ebook so people wouldn't have to pay much to read it. Is $4.99 for a 600 page book a rip off?No, but taking the time to read 600 pages is. I've scanned through the first pages, and even that it is written in a calm tone, the first half is just the same rant we know of all kind of crackpots: established science does not want to hear what my ingenious theory is. "And the same happened with (fill in a list of geniuses that originally were not recognised by the science of their time)". Most of the times however, when scientists do not want to listen, is because they recognise very quickly that the ideas are rubbish, or at least not new. Calling the ideas a 'Revolution In Thought' that will save humanity, increases the chance that the ideas are rubbish. You say that Lessans offers a different perspective on a longstanding debate: I assume the free will debate and its collaterals psychology and ethics. This supposes that you know the debate, and in what your father's ideas differ: please mention these differences. Compare e.g. with Daniel Dennett ('Freedom evolves','Elbow room'), or e.g. this online article]. You know all the ideas of compatibilist and incompatibilist theories of free will, of those incompatibilists that argue we have free will, and those who argued we have not? If you don't know all these ideas, how do you know your father's ideas differ from them? And then: a rational idea does not necessary abolishes all evil. Of course, if all people share the same universal ethics, there will be peace. But that will be true for any universal ethics. Just to say that 'if all people would recognise the idea, then we will get rid of all evil' is pretty empty, because many ideas will do. We will have peace when I can convince all people that they should stop hurting each other. That is quite obvious, isn't it? Given this way I see things, I won't spend much more time on this, except you can convince me of the idea beforehand.
I also made it into an ebook so people wouldn't have to pay much to read it. Is $4.99 for a 600 page book is too much money?
No, but taking the time to read 600 pages is. You say that Lessans offers a different perspective on a longstanding debate: I assume the free will debate and its collaterals psychology and ethics. This supposes that you know the debate, and in what your father's ideas differ: please mention these differences.That's the excuse everyone gives. I can't do more than I've done. It took me over ten years to compile this work and if your skepticism is such that it is too difficult to read because it takes up too much of your precious time, then so be it.
I've scanned through the first pages, and even that it is written in a calm tone, the first half is just the same rant we know of all kind of crackpots: established science does not want to hear what my ingenious theory is. "And the same happened with (fill in a list of geniuses that originally were not recognised by the science of their time)". Most of the times however, when scientists do not want to listen, is because they recognise very quickly that the ideas are rubbish, or at least not new. Calling the ideas a 'Revolution In Thought' that will save humanity, increases the chance that the ideas are rubbish.These ideas ARE new, and for you to depend on other people's opinions of what constitutes rubbish is not independent thinking. It's just copying what everyone else has said. Lessans knew the debate backward and forwards, so you cannot use this as a means of argument.
There is a huge difference in the definition of determinism itself. This is the crux of the problem. The conventional definition is not completely accurate.
Compare e.g. with Daniel Dennett ('Freedom evolves','Elbow room'), or e.g. this online article]. You know all the ideas of compatibilist and incompatibilist theories of free will, of those incompatibilists that argue we have free will, and those who argued we have not? If you don't know all these ideas, how do you know your father's ideas differ from them?I can do that because I know the arguments. Compatibilism is just a way for philosophers to reconcile determinism with moral responsibility. The problem is we cannot have free will and determinism in the same sentence. They are mutually exclusive ideologies.
And then: a rational idea does not necessary abolishes all evil. Of course, if all people share the same universal ethics, there will be peace. But that will be true for any universal ethics. Just to say that 'if all people would recognise the idea, then we will get rid of all evil' is pretty empty, because many ideas will do. We will have peace when I can convince all people that they should stop hurting each other. That is quite obvious, isn't it?That is ridiculous GdB. That's not his proof. OMG, how can you assume that this is what he's saying? This IS the stumbling block that he was up against in the 20th century and again in the 21st century. When are people going to really listen? I don't mind questions but when you tell me right off the bat that he didn't know the argument, you have crossed the line.
Given this way I see things, I won't spend much more time on this, except you can convince me of the idea beforehand.Sorry that I can't convince you of giving him the benefit of the doubt before you start denouncing his reasoning. Without studying his work, how in the world can you determine whether to give this discovery more time? That was a rhetorical question; no need to answer. Sorry that I'm having problems with the quote button. Every forum is different and this one does not even show that I ended a quote. I can't even take the time to figure it out. People will just have to bear with the fact that the post doesn't follow the rules.
Well said, GdB.
Peacegirl, you are still avoiding posting anything of substance. I am not going to waste any more of my “precious time” on you.
Well said, GdB. Peacegirl, you are still avoiding posting anything of substance. I am not going to waste any more of my "precious time" on you.Then don't DarronS. We have no obligation to each other.
I looked at the amazon reviews for the book. There’s one that says it is incoherent, then another, looks like the creator of the web linked here, who says that’s wrong, and you have to read the book. Apparently this book can’t be explained.
I can, and I've done it but I know that reading the text gives you a more clear picture. If it's too concise it won't do this knowledge justice, as I've already said. Why is it so difficult for you to go to the website and listen for a half hour. Then come back and we can talk more. http://www.declineandfallofallevil.orgI went to the website and read the first chapter. There was nothing to listen. As I understand it, what is proposed is the Golden Rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a maxim, ethical code or morality that essentially states either of the following: * One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself (directive form). * One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (cautionary form, also known as the Silver Rule).Unfortunately, the real world is not utopia.
I looked at the amazon reviews for the book. There's one that says it is incoherent, then another, looks like the creator of the web linked here, who says that's wrong, and you have to read the book. Apparently this book can't be explained.Are you kidding me? This book can be understood. How quick you are to come to a premature conclusion. This is a center for inquiry, is it not? So why aren't you inquiring? :-S
I can, and I've done it but I know that reading the text gives you a more clear picture. If it's too concise it won't do this knowledge justice, as I've already said. Why is it so difficult for you to go to the website and listen for a half hour. Then come back and we can talk more. http://www.declineandfallofallevil.orgI went to the website and read the first chapter. There was nothing to listen. As I understand it, what is proposed is the Golden Rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a maxim, ethical code or morality that essentially states either of the following: * One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself (directive form). * One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (cautionary form, also known as the Silver Rule).Unfortunately, the real world is not utopia. Why are you defending what you can't defend because you have no idea what you're talking about in reference to this knowledge? I feel like I'm in a twilight zone. How can I even begin to discuss this knowledge with you when you have already concluded that this is nothing more than the Golden Rule?
How can I even begin to discuss this knowledge with you when you have already concluded that this is nothing more than the Golden Rule?Most people offer some sort of outline of their idea. Also some poignant quotes from the author. Something less than a demand that we read 600 pages of a book that has never garnered any attention in the past. If I see something brown and smelly on the sidewalk, I don't pick it up.
That's the excuse everyone gives. I can't do more than I've done. It took me over ten years to compile this work and if your skepticism is such that it is too difficult to read because it takes up too much of your precious time, then so be it.It is not an excuse. As you said yourself, I am in no obligation to read your father's book, so I don't need an excuse. I am just wondering why you don't just tell us what the differences with the philosophical debate about free will and responsibility are.
These ideas ARE new, and for you to depend on other people's opinions of what constitutes rubbish is not independent thinking.So an independent thinker should read every book that contains 'revolutionary new thought' and that needs a foreword that complains about not being heard by the scientific community? Why not just go ahead with the essential idea, so the reader really gets interested?
I can do that because I know the arguments. Compatibilism is just a way for philosophers to reconcile determinism with moral responsibility.No, no. Not 'reconcile'. Without determinism, our actions would reduce to random events, instead of expressions of what we really are, as products of our biology and biography. Determinism is a necessary condition for free will. If you don't think so (but first read further), then tell me why. Or what your father would have answered.
The problem is we cannot have free will and determinism in the same sentence.Well you just did! :roll:
They are mutually exclusive ideologies.So if your actions arise from your wishes, feelings and beliefs, then you are not free? And if what you wish, feel and believe is separate from your biology and biography, then that is being free? What remains is that what I am is randomness, or what I do is randomness, or even both. What is your father's (or your) reaction on this?
I didn't say it is his proof. I said that every idea of a universal ethics, when accepted by everybody, would bring peace. Which means that whatever your father's idea is, it cannot be that special as you think it is.And then: a rational idea does not necessary abolishes all evil. Of course, if all people share the same universal ethics, there will be peace. But that will be true for any universal ethics. Just to say that 'if all people would recognise the idea, then we will get rid of all evil' is pretty empty, because many ideas will do. We will have peace when I can convince all people that they should stop hurting each other. That is quite obvious, isn't it?That is ridiculous GdB. That's not his proof. OMG, how can you assume that this is what he's saying?
I don't mind questions but when you tell me right off the bat that he didn't know the argument, you have crossed the line.I hope you see that I did not cross the line. I ask questions. But you do not give real answers.
ISorry that I'm having problems with the quote button. Every forum is different and this one does not even show that I ended a quote. I can't even take the time to figure it out. People will just have to bear with the fact that the post doesn't follow the rules.It was clear what paragraph was of whom.