ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
separating the term from its modern use
What is its modern use? People who have read a bit about philosophy will know what its historical use was and why it was controversial (and even progressive as a weapon in the rising bourgeoisie’s ideological battle against mediaeval obscurantism).
But I doubt many others will see much difference between your “did it of own volition” and “did it voluntarily” or “did it of own free will”. Maybe they should but they don’t. And it’s unfair to those who don’t to then attribute to them the idea of a supernatural “self” which won’t be what they believe.
Not that someone would normally say “I did it of my own free will”. That sounds rather pompous and the sort of thing you would only say on some formal occasion as in a court of law. I suspect some are defending it because they as interpreting you as saying that they didn’t do something “of their own volition”. Which, ironically, you wouldn’t object to them saying. Some may do this vociferously, dismissing you as a crackpot for saying that they were forced to do something “of their own volition”.
It’s you who are being vociferous here by pedantically insisting that the word should only be used in its 18th century sense. Actually I agree with you that it can be confusing to use it other than in that sense but I don’t see the need to make a big song and dance about it. It doesn’t make the user a philosophical idealist.
So your anathema for using the mere words “free” and “will” in conjunction only applies to members of the Socialist Party. Members of the Roman Catholic Church, the church that banned Voltaire’s works and excommunicated anyone of their flock that read them, is exempt. Not only can its priests continue to propagate the doctrine if Free Will but its followers should also be allowed to join the revolutionary socialist party. Are you having us on or being wilfully provocative? Voltaire must be turning in his grave.
I agree but I was answering — refuting— comrade TM who claimed that other Party members did hold that view.
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.
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).
I won’t waste any more time or go off-topic again answering your ignorant ideas.
That new year resolution didn’t last very long !
Meanwhile, informative article here about the situation in Ukraine. Apparently it’s the same as in Russia and Belorussia:
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 flies in the face of all scientific evidence of how the brain works.
It was demolished philosophically by the 18th century materialists, and again decades ago even in academic philosophy as the myth of “the ghost in the machine” by Gilbert Ryle (rather boringly if I remember from my student days).
I imagine it is only taught today in seminaries and theology departments along with other obscurantisms and then only in regard to the relationship between humans and “god”. Even there they accept the findings of neurology in respect of everyday material living.
Of course Socialists don’t believe in “prisons, punishments, abuse, incarceration”.It is not as if this has been discussed before in the Party. Here’s a couple of Conference resolutions on the subject.
“That this Conference recognises that rules and regulations, and democratic procedures for making and changing them and for deciding if they have been infringed, will exist in socialist society. Whereas a ruling class depends on the maintenance of laws to ensure control of class society, a classless society obtains social cohesion through its socialisation process without resorting to a coercive machinery. However, in view of the fact that in socialist theory the word “law” means a social rule made and enforced by the state, and in view of the fact that the coercive machinery that is the state will be abolished in socialist society, this Conference decides that it is inappropriate to talk about laws, law courts, a police force and prisons existing in a socialist society.” (1991)”
“This Conference affirms that any law concerned with the enforcement of class relations or property interests could have no place in socialist society, but that any regulation which may serve the needs of the community could become part of democratic organisation in socialism.” (1998)
What would be the point of having rules and regulations if they could be infringed with impunity by invoking some clever dick argument like “I was only a link in a chain of causation”?
The issue of so-called “Free Will” is a red herring anyway. Even the Christian and Islamic theologians who preach it only see it as applying to the choice or whether or not to follow their god’s commandments. Only a minority of them think their god had written a Grand Scroll on which the whole future was prescribed. Just as only a few materialists do.
No but I think there will be rules and regulations in socialist society and tribunals, juries or whatever for deciding whether or not someone has infringed them. Even in the case of rare violent behaviour I would think the perpetrator would have a chance to argue that they shouldn’t be “restrained”. We are realists, not airy-fairy anarchist philosophers.
But I wasn’t thinking of violent behaviour but rather of the ordinary everyday (mis)behaviour of ordinary people. What the Americans call misdemeanours.
Are you saying that people will be so angelic in socialism as to never deliberately break some of the lesser rules and regulations of socialist society? I myself occasionally drive what would be considered as carelessly, for example not respecting a speed limit. Tens of thousands of others do every day. I imagine you yourself have occasionally jaywalked. Others may have left their dog in a car on a hot day. I am sure people will continue to do such things in socialism.
If I was caught doing this in socialism I would say “fair cop” rather than “I couldn’t help it. I was just a link in a chain of causation”. I doubt if a jury or tribunal would accept that. I must confess, too, that having 6 penalty points on my licence (never had more than that) is an incentive to respect the motorway speed limit.
Not only read him but written about him.
As a matter of fact I was just typing a reply in which I was going to suggest that you had read too much of him and so think that humans are born good and, if freed from authority, would behave just like angels.
Yes, you could be right to some extent. There will still be rules and regulations in socialism and I can’t see “I couldn’t help it, I was just a link in a chain of causation” being accepted as an excuse for careless or dangerous driving, can you?
Which is the episode of Colombo where the murderer says : “You can’t blame me. I was just a link in a chain of causation. I couldn’t help doing what I did”.
Interesting question, but why could not more digital money be made available by the central bank than needed by the economy?
A few years ago Sky News’s economics editor Ed Conway did advocate a cashless society as a way of trying to control consumer spending.
