Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

What Is Man?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    Your link was but one of many definitions and by no means the most common one. But in either scenario, LFW remains logically impossible…and this is your problem.
    But my definitions are legitimate, and accepted. Whether you like it or not.

    The onus is on you to show how events can occur without antecedent causes.
    Joel is doing yeoman's work on the subject. Better than I can do. Never mind the fact that you fall into an infinite regression of antecedent causes.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      But my definitions are legitimate, and accepted. Whether you like it or not.
      Your definitions omit the main difference between fatalism and determinism, namely the fact of causation.

      Joel is doing yeoman's work on the subject.
      I disagree.

      Never mind the fact that you fall into an infinite regression of antecedent causes.
      As opposed to your regression of antecedent causes ending with a 'first cause', namely God you mean? What caused God?
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        The difference is that by actively participating in the decision-making process we actually experience things and this provides purpose and meaning in our lives. It’s how we've evolved to be.
        I think that I agree with this, but I'm not sure that the purpose and meaning we experience in our lives can not still be defined as fatalism. If it can not be any other way, if what we experience, whether for better or worse, is inevitable, then it is fatalistic. No?


        It renders the determined universe more satisfactory for us in that we’re actively participating in it rather than passively accepting it as per fatalism.
        Satisfaction if our lives are determined for the better, not so much if they are determined for the worse. Fatalistic in either case, I think.


        The most fundamental aspect of science is that the universe is governed by the laws and constants of nature. So, for you to posit “freely chosen options” is to suggest that the universe is capricious, rather governed by the consistent physical laws. And there’s no indication this is the case.
        Exactly. From the deterministic perspective, there are no real options, the future, whether it exists in its own "now" as in B-Theory, or is fated to be in that same state, as in A-Theory, it is closed. If it is fated to be, then it is fatalistic. No?


        In a non-capricious universe governed by physical laws LFW cannot, under any circumstances, logically function in that the agent himself is subject to the determined, antecedent causality of physical law?
        Agreed. But, in so far as I can see, that is a fatalistic definition of existence whether our experience is one of meaning and purpose or not.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
          I think that I agree with this, but I'm not sure that the purpose and meaning we experience in our lives can not still be defined as fatalism. If it can not be any other way, if what we experience, whether for better or worse, is inevitable, then it is fatalistic. No?
          The main difference between ‘fatalism’ and ‘determinism’ is the fact of causation and we are participants in the latter…we can’t help ourselves, it’s instinctive. E.g. if you’re attacked by a lion do you take evasive action or do nothing whilst humming "Que Sera, Sera"? I suggest the former will be the case.

          Satisfaction if our lives are determined for the better, not so much if they are determined for the worse. Fatalistic in either case, I think.
          The satisfaction derives from our active participation, it’s how we've evolved to be.

          Exactly. From the deterministic perspective, there are no real options, the future, whether it exists in its own "now" as in B-Theory, or is fated to be in that same state, as in A-Theory, it is closed. If it is fated to be, then it is fatalistic. No?
          We are causal participants in the determined process hence the outcome may be different than if we did nothing and merely waited for destiny to overtake us. It may not be but we have no way of knowing…so we act.

          Agreed. But, in so far as I can see, that is a fatalistic definition of existence whether our experience is one of meaning and purpose or not.
          Well no, for the above reasons. We may just be passive pawns in the system but we don’t feel that we are and so we act as though we're capable of making free-will choices. As a consequence our choices play a part in the causal stream that is ‘determinism’.
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            The main difference between ‘fatalism’ and ‘determinism’ is the fact of causation and we are participants in the latter…we can’t help ourselves, it’s instinctive. E.g. if you’re attacked by a lion do you take evasive action or do nothing whilst humming "Que Sera, Sera"? I suggest the former will be the case.



            The satisfaction derives from our active participation, it’s how we've evolved to be.



            We are causal participants in the determined process hence the outcome may be different than if we did nothing and merely waited for destiny to overtake us. It may not be but we have no way of knowing…so we act.



            Well no, for the above reasons. We may just be passive pawns in the system but we don’t feel that we are and so we act as though we're capable of making free-will choices. As a consequence our choices play a part in the causal stream that is ‘determinism’.
            We "may be" passive pawns, or "we are" passive pawns? If "we are" passive pawns, then the fact that we feel as though our actions are freely chosen along with the fact that those choices play a part in the causal stream, doesn't change the fact that they are not freely chosen. If as the physics suggest, that the past and the future are just as real as the present, i.e. B-Theory, then even the idea that there are such things as choices being made is an illusion. Under that system I don't see how it could be defined as anything other than fatalistic. But even under A-Theory the future, though it doesn't exist in its own now, would end up in the same configuration as if it did, due to the causal stream. I don't think that feelings, or the fact that we play a passively active part in the causal stream, alters the fact that deteminism is fatalistic.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
              We "may be" passive pawns, or "we are" passive pawns? If "we are" passive pawns, then the fact that we feel as though our actions are freely chosen along with the fact that those choices play a part in the causal stream, doesn't change the fact that they are not freely chosen. If as the physics suggest, that the past and the future are just as real as the present, i.e. B-Theory, then even the idea that there are such things as choices being made is an illusion. Under that system I don't see how it could be defined as anything other than fatalistic. But even under A-Theory the future, though it doesn't exist in its own now, would end up in the same configuration as if it did, due to the causal stream. I don't think that feelings, or the fact that we play a passively active part in the causal stream, alters the fact that deteminism is fatalistic.
              The fact that our ‘free-will’ is illusory is really beside the point. The fact is we make these decisions and as a consequence our choices play a part in the causal stream that is ‘determinism’. The alternative is 'fatalism' whereby we do nothing and wait for events to overtake us, but evolution hasn't made us that way…or any other sentient creature if it comes to that.
              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                The fact that our ‘free-will’ is illusory is really beside the point.
                Yes, one more lie that the evolutionary process instilled in us.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Yes, one more lie that the evolutionary process instilled in us.
                  What an ignorant statement. “Evolution” is not in the business of instilling lies or anything else. It is merely the process by which different kinds of living organisms develop from earlier life forms during the history of the earth. It is verified fact beyond reasonable doubt.
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    What an ignorant statement. “Evolution” is not in the business of instilling lies or anything else. It is merely the process by which different kinds of living organisms develop from earlier life forms during the history of the earth. It is verified fact beyond reasonable doubt.
                    Tass, according to your view, is it the ax murderer's fault that he is an ax murderer, or is it the inevitable result of cause and effect?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      Tass, according to your view, is it the ax murderer's fault that he is an ax murderer, or is it the inevitable result of cause and effect?
                      Cause and effect includes our evolution as a social species with instinctive codes of behaviour including the proscription of destructive, anti-social acts such as murdering people with axes.
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        Cause and effect includes our evolution as a social species with instinctive codes of behaviour including the proscription of destructive, anti-social acts such as murdering people with axes.
                        That sounds a bit like word salad Tass and I'm not sure what you mean by it. Could you be a bit more clear. A yes or no would probably suffice. So yes or no, would you say that it is the ax murderers fault that he is an ax murderer, or for him is the fact that he is an ax murderer just the inevitable effect of the causal stream?
                        Last edited by JimL; 02-10-2016, 01:30 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          That sounds a bit like word salad Tass and I'm not sure what you mean by it. Could you be a bit more clear. A yes or no would probably suffice. So yes or no, would you say that it is the ax murderers fault that he is an ax murderer, or for him is the fact that he is an ax murderer just the inevitable effect of the causal stream?
                          Yes the individual axe murderer is “causally determined” to slaughter others, but the community at large is causally determined to prevent him, because our codes of behaviour (i.e. morality) have developed via natural selection in order to restrain individual antisocial behaviour (such as axe-attacks) in order to build more cooperative groups…the benefits of being part of an altruistic group outweigh the benefits of individualism.

                          This is how we've evolved to be so it's irrelevant to ask if it's the "axe-murderer's fault". He must be removed from the community for the community's protection.
                          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            Yes the individual axe murderer is “causally determined” to slaughter others, but the community at large is causally determined to prevent him, because our codes of behaviour (i.e. morality) have developed via natural selection in order to restrain individual antisocial behaviour (such as axe-attacks) in order to build more cooperative groups…the benefits of being part of an altruistic group outweigh the benefits of individualism.

                            This is how we've evolved to be so it's irrelevant to ask if it's the "axe-murderer's fault". He must be removed from the community for the community's protection.
                            But the community is made up of individuals, all of whom, like the ax murderer, are causally determined. That seems to me to be defining of destiny, or fate; aka fatalism. I'm not seeing how you get around that. If our actions are determined by the physics which are pre-existent even to human existence, if for better or worse, it can not be any other way, then how can it be said to be anything other than fatalism

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              But the community is made up of individuals, all of whom, like the ax murderer, are causally determined.
                              But individuals within a community are predisposed by ‘natural selection’ to function as a social unit and can override antisocial individuals such as your axe-murderer via a whole structure of law enforcement mechanisms. The maintenance of a cohesive social structure is an evolved survival mechanism and common to ‘social species’ such as us.

                              That seems to me to be defining of destiny, or fate; aka fatalism.
                              No, it's the defining of 'causal determinism'. They're similar but not the same.

                              I'm not seeing how you get around that. If our actions are determined by the physics which are pre-existent even to human existence, if for better or worse, it can not be any other way, then how can it be said to be anything other than fatalism?
                              Living things are not merely acted upon (as per 'fatalism') but can act. It may well be that such actions are predetermined but the “acts” must be performed nevertheless. And we do so, on the basis that we feel that our decisions matter, even though they're based upon an illusion of free-will. It’s how we've evolved to be.

                              Hence ‘determinism’ has a causal component that does not exist with ‘fatalism’.
                              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                              161 responses
                              514 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                              88 responses
                              354 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                              21 responses
                              133 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X