Good News: And No Religion, Too
- This topic has 252 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Knowing that choice is motivated, not free, is what has us doing political work to influence minds: trying our best to nudge the chain of causation, of which we are all part, in the direction of socialism.
Fortunately, our work is not alone. Many strands unconsciously support our efforts, as does capitalism’s inability to solve the problems it creates.
Interesting point again!
The chain of causation has its ripples.
And those ripples expand ‘yond so many imagined corners.
Capital control will never solve its impacts on society, and it knows that.
Dialogue. Communication and a change in the base can come and alter our direction.
Choice, causality and effect.
I am signing off for the night.
Be safeNecessarians have even been more stringent in backing deterrent, preventative, measures against malefactors than free willies have been, which would horrify Godwin.
Whilst being a Necessarian, and knowing that guilt and punishment are unphilosophical, Hobbes supported the ultimate punishment – the death penalty – not as punishment, but as deterrence. If a deterrence, as he believed, it fitted in with his necessarian outlook.
Today, of course, we know it is not a deterrence; that in fact more murders result following executions. So the necessarian argument cannot be used to justify the death penalty.TM:
members there are who believe choices are not bound by cause and effect, but are free; that therefore they are made by an independent “self” not subject to cause and effect.
For the record, I know of no member who holds such an absurd view. In fact I have never met anyone who does.
It doesn’t matter one way or the other, but I’ve certainly met plenty of people, including members, who believe choices are not bound by cause and effect. They are probably in a majority, but as I say, it doesn’t matter. Socialism isn’t invalidated either way: this is the socialist equivalent of how many angels you can get on the point of a pin.
It flies in the face of all scientific evidence of how the brain works.
I would like to see this scientific evidence.
It would invalidate the materialist conception of history, if the mind were independent of motive.
“Free will is a flat denial of social science.”
(Western Socialist).You would need to demonstrate that you are a socialist for no reason. That you did not become one, but just are one.
You would need to demonstrate that you only have feelings and thoughts you want to have. That you will to will.
Funny that you’d be a socialist then!
” is the socialist equivalent of how many angels you can get on the point of a pin.”
Only because you lot won’t drop the adjective “free.”
If one doesn’t believe in free will, why go along with the popular but meaningless use of the term? Used thus, what does it mean? It means nothing. It’s loose language, and that leads to loose thinking.
Funny why we all
insist on the correct interpretation of the word socialism then! Since loose terminology is fine.It would invalidate the materialist conception of history, if the mind were independent of motive.
This is a different argument and one I wouldn’t dispute. Yesterday I did ask you: How would it adversely affect the case for socialism if everybody believed they had free will? (#238578) and you replied: “It wouldn’t” (#238587).
I meant a religious person*, an idealist, or anyone not interested in history might be sick of wage-labour, wars, famine, global devastation, and like the sound of our message. If they agree with our object, why can’t they join us?
My gripe is with the inconsistency of those talking about the materialist conception of history, and then affirming free will, which makes nonsense of their “materialism.”
If you believe in free will, don’t pretend to materialism and insult the great materialist thinkers thereby.*Of course, not a religious fanatic, because those have no love, care or interest in the Earth or of life upon it. But most people who believe in a god and in free will are not fanatics. They are, in fact, just most people.
Lew, yes, I have met people who consider they have a choice to decide what to do.
But I have not met anyone who thinks that this is because they are “an independent ‘self’ not subject to cause and effect.” That would imply that you could think anything you wanted, irrespective of your past and present experiences as recorded (or whatever) in your brain.
That’s the view I meant was absurd and contrary to the scientific evidence (of neurology). This has established that thinking and deciding is linked to movements within the brain. Even the concept of “self” is, as this is based on memory and memory is also linked to movements in the brain.
I agree that the neither the neurology, nor even less the metaphysics, of thinking and deciding affect the case for socialism (or everyday life).
Then admit that using the adjective “free” is meaningless and undisciplined in a materialist thinker. That’s all.
Otherwise you are countenancing laziness in terminology and hence laziness of thought in those one hopes to educate in materialism.
Failing which, allow membership to idealists, which absolves you of inconsistency.
How hard is it to say:
He did it of his own accord.
Or, he did it of his own volition.
Or, he did it wilfully.
Or, he willed it so.But, he did it of his own FREE will is meaningless.
I didn’t actually use the F word.
As it now seems to be just a question of semantics and finding a way of describing what people are doing when they make a choice without using the word “free”, I vote in order of preference:
2, 1. 4.
“Of own volition” seems to capture best what is meant. To tell the truth, I can’t really see all that much difference between the first two and “did it freely”. The last one is rather archaic while “wilfully” is positively misleading. So I’m not voting for that even as a 4th preference. I wouldn’t vote for “of free will” either, as it too is misleading and some people kick up such a fuss about it.
But I have not met anyone who thinks that this is because they are “an independent ‘self’ not subject to cause and effect.” That would imply that you could think anything you wanted, irrespective of your past and present experiences as recorded (or whatever) in your brain.
It’s not surprising you haven’t met anyone who thinks that, because it would be rather an odd conversation: Hello, do you think you are an independent self, not subject to cause and effect. Most people, including most party members, wouldn’t have a clue what you were on about.
The second half of your comment is philosophical speculation.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.