Philosophers? Here for debate or discussion

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Any scholars on here that read philosophy?

Or write their own?

I personally do a little of both, and though the pursuit seems futile, I still keep on the grind. My favorite stances to take against people is to argue for Destiny instead of Free Will and that the mind is not in the body. Taking challengers or co-signers.

My favorite works are the Tao Te Ching and Baruch Spinoza's theories..but I love tearing apart Descartes as well.

For those who are unfamiliar with Spinoza:

Spinoza believed God exists and is abstract and impersonal.[1] Spinoza's system imparted order and unity to the tradition of radical thought, offering powerful weapons for prevailing against "received authority." As a youth he first subscribed to Descartes's dualistic belief that body and mind are two separate substances, but later changed his view and asserted that they were not separate, being a single identity. He contended that everything that exists in Nature (i.e., everything in the Universe) is one Reality (substance) and there is only one set of rules governing the whole of the reality which surrounds us and of which we are part. Spinoza viewed God and Nature as two names for the same reality,[71] namely the single substance (meaning "that which stands beneath" rather than "matter") that is the basis of the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are actually modes or modifications, that all things are determined by Nature to exist and cause effects, and that the complex chain of cause and effect is understood only in part.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

No takers on free will vs no free will?

 

[Type Username Here]

No takers on free will vs no free will?

Which side are you taking?

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Which side are you taking?

id take either if you chose first but ill take no free will...

not only is there a minimization of "perceived free will" due to social constraints (are you really doing what you freely choose to do?), but even the ability to make decisions for yourself is an illusion.

not only are there patterns and systems in the universe that reach far beyond the scope of human agency (showing how insignificant our individual "decisions" really are in the grand scheme of things), but the laws of physics seems to indicate that most, if not all, of our lives is just a product of causality rather than individual volition

 

[Type Username Here]

id take either if you chose first but ill take no free will...

not only is there a minimization of "perceived free will" due to social constraints (are you really doing what you freely choose to do?), but even the ability to make decisions for yourself is an illusion.

not only are there patterns and systems in the universe that reach far beyond the scope of human agency (showing how insignificant our individual "decisions" really are in the grand scheme of things), but the laws of physics seems to indicate that most, if not all, of our lives is just a product of causality rather than individual volition

Then someone who rapes a child or kills an innocent person in cold blood should never be punished?

If no free will exists, and those people are committing acts that are beyond their control, then how does society have the authority to punish them?

 

[ReggieFlare]

No genius, but I personally think the concept of free will is ridiculous.

I think we can all agree that there are some things which people should just not be permitted to do. This is what separates us from all other life on earth; We have the ability to reason, and some actions just aren't reasonable. So while certain personal freedoms should not be denied, there still has to be limits on what people are allowed to do lest we want a chaotic society.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Then someone who rapes a child or kills an innocent person in cold blood should never be punished?

If no free will exists, and those people are committing acts that are beyond their control, then how does society have the authority to punish them?

They should still be punished because they were destined to be flawed and punished for their pattern of behavior. Someone has to take the blame at some point, and if that offender hasn't plead innocent due to mental defect or insanity, then they are to be punished based on the crime, not the substantiating circumstances of the proceedings prior to the crime, unless pre-meditation being involved in the crime would make the crime different or sentencing worse.

Society has the authority to punish them because they are entrusted with the safety of the public, and by punishing a guilty party they are in fact protecting the public. It may not be "fair" to the guilty party, since they may truly have no control over their own actions, but that is up to the defense attorney to prove...and otherwise, many crimes would go unpunished or our mental institutes would be overflowing.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

No genius, but I personally think the concept of free will is ridiculous.

I think we can all agree that there are some things which people should just not be permitted to do. This is what separates us from all other life on earth; We have the ability to reason, and some actions just aren't reasonable. So while certain personal freedoms should not be denied, there still has to be limits on what people are allowed to do lest we want a chaotic society.

This is true.

What I was hinting at with my initial post however was that there is NO free will at all..what I am saying is that there still wouldn't be free will even if there were no social restrictions on personal freedoms at all.

 

[ReggieFlare]

what I am saying is that there still wouldn't be free will even if there were no social restrictions on personal freedoms at all.

Oh most definitely. Free will is really not practical in the real world.

 

[Vagina Thief]

I believe free will is an illusion. It is my belief that we do not posses the mental capacity to truly understand the relation between Cause and Effect down to the smallest unit of measurement. Everything we perceive and every action we take is merely the effect of a previous action so complex that we determine it it simply free will. This being said I do believe in an impersonal god.... *lights up another bowl*

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

I believe free will is an illusion. It is my belief that we do not posses the mental capacity to truly understand the relation between Cause and Effect down to the smallest unit of measurement. Everything we perceive and every action we take is merely the effect of a previous action so complex that we determine it it simply free will. This being said I do believe in an impersonal god.... *lights up another bowl*

well said sir...id pos rep but i gave out too much already today...instead i will e-cheers you on the bowl and spark up my gravity

 

[Type Username Here]

They should still be punished because they were destined to be flawed and punished for their pattern of behavior. Someone has to take the blame at some point, and if that offender hasn't plead innocent due to mental defect or insanity, then they are to be punished based on the crime, not the substantiating circumstances of the proceedings prior to the crime, unless pre-meditation being involved in the crime would make the crime different or sentencing worse.

Society has the authority to punish them because they are entrusted with the safety of the public, and by punishing a guilty party they are in fact protecting the public. It may not be "fair" to the guilty party, since they may truly have no control over their own actions, but that is up to the defense attorney to prove...and otherwise, many crimes would go unpunished or our mental institutes would be overflowing.

How can someone be "flawed" and be punished for being "flawed" (subjective qualities) if, according to you, they have no choice in the matter? The universe compelled them to do those acts.

This is a large inherent flaw in the philosophical school of thought known as Determinism (what you are advocating -no free will). There have been many counterarguments to what I have presented, but I still believe they ultimately fail and contradict the position.

I believe free will is an illusion. It is my belief that we do not posses the mental capacity to truly understand the relation between Cause and Effect down to the smallest unit of measurement. Everything we perceive and every action we take is merely the effect of a previous action so complex that we determine it it simply free will. This being said I do believe in an impersonal god.... *lights up another bowl*

Humans have been debating Determinism in some form since the INdus Valley 7,000+ years ago. We have the capacity to understand, but we only hit the scientific enlightenment 150-250 years ago. Neuroscience in itself if ~50 years old.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

How can someone be "flawed" and be punished for being "flawed" (subjective qualities) if, according to you, they have no choice in the matter? The universe compelled them to do those acts.

Well we cant imprison the universe can we?

When I said "flawed", I was referring to the person who had committed the crime after the fact. The crime committed makes them flawed, and as a society, we must serve some sort of justice in order for their to be a civil nature to the way we live.

Like I said, it may not be fair, and ideally, there would be rehabilitation programs for "flawed" individuals other than jail, as I do not think jail helps anything, but it is hard for these individuals to be pinpointed as troublesome until a crime is committed, and it is up to the legal system to determine the appropriate punishment for the crime.

 

[Type Username Here]

Well we cant imprison the universe can we?

When I said "flawed", I was referring to the person who had committed the crime after the fact. The crime committed makes them flawed, and as a society, we must serve some sort of justice in order for their to be a civil nature to the way we live.

Like I said, it may not be fair, and ideally, there would be rehabilitation programs for "flawed" individuals other than jail, as I do not think jail helps anything, but it is hard for these individuals to be pinpointed as troublesome until a crime is committed, and it is up to the legal system to determine the appropriate punishment for the crime.

Friend, what you are advocating, determinism, has been debated and counterargued for hundreds of years. How can you believe someone truly has no free will, i.e., lacks the ability to choose his own actions, and then advocate punishing them?

It's a contradiction.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Friend, what you are advocating, determinism, has been debated and counterargued for hundreds of years. How can you believe someone truly has no free will, i.e., lacks the ability to choose his own actions, and then advocate punishing them?

It's a contradiction.

I dont have a choice in advocating their punishment, this path was chosen for me.

In all seriousness though, I don't see the contradiction really, though I concede that it is not an ideal situation. A punishment is the equal and opposite reaction towards the crime committed. Vigilante justice is fine with me. Rehabilitation programs are fine. There are many different and creative options for dealing with this dilemma...the main problem is that our society isn't currently suited to implement them effectively.

The contradiction arises in the way our society is built and in applying determinism practically, to explain every day occurrences and in doing so without the use of causality. Everything else equal, there is no contradiction in determinism.

Thank you for the back and forth btw