Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Jan 15th, 2004, 05:53 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by theapportioner
You wanted capitalism to -solve- the problem of desire, to reduce it in an efficient manner. You wanted people to be -happier-. Now you have 180'ed on your original points.
I did not want capitalism to solve the "problem" of desire. I wanted it to make people happier. The two are not the same.

Quote:
Hunting for food and picking berries started before capitalism did. It is "rediculous" to say that we innately desire reality TV, or mobile phones with cameras, or Prada shoes, or titanium golf clubs, or 100 foot yachts. You pick the least relevant examples in your defense of capitalism's relation to 'innate desire'. There is no gene in my DNA that corresponds to "Prada shoe desire".
Capitalism is one of the oldest systems on earth. It just wasn't called capitalism.

The form is irrelevant, it is what the object does. You aren't listening to me.

Quote:
Yes, we have reached a summit with "Joe Millionaire". Thank you, Adam Smith.
You speak of that as if it were inherently bad.

Quote:
You can stick your pleasure unit in your inherent crap. OF COURSE the form is relevant; reality TV is a new "form", as is the automobile. These have only been recently desired (and sometimes, fetishized). Capitalism exploits and manipulates psychological drives by creating new objects and "forms" that are to be desired. But humans create objects of desire independently of capitalism or any other economic system. I'm arguing here not to totally dump capitalism, but to challenge your original point. Capitalism will only make people desire more and more. The agents of capitalism don't want you to desire less. Can desiring more be bad? Of course. Look at cigarette addiction. Or worse, heroin addiction. Can it be good? of course. Can it be ambiguous? Of course. Capitalism isn't interested in creating "good" desire over "bad" desire - capitalism is only interested in creating desire, period. And bad desire does not lead to happiness. *stomps foot down*
All you are doing is spouting crap about capitalism and ignoring how the system works.

Cigarette and heroin addiction are not inherently bad.

Desire for certain ends are inherent because of the instinctual drive. The mind works on the axiom that in order for these ends to be met, something must fulfill them, and that those things are axioms. The form of the object is not desired, but the object is.

Quote:
And to avoid confusion, good and bad here are in the moral or value sense of the terms. I am not talking about human mental health - as for that, one example that's close to home is the college admissions process. My brother just sent in his applications. My parents, in their desire for him to get into a good school, had went through a lot emotionally, let's just leave it at that. So, on instance where excessive desire does not lead to good mental health. Capitalism doesn't care either way.
There is no morality, and pain and suffering are integral, necessary parts of life. Without pain, there can be no pleasure. But this is aside from the point. Did you not forget that *SHOCK* capitalism modifies pleasure ratios in inegalitarian manners?

The point of this thread was to show that capitalism is more egalitarian in pleasure distribution than economic equality, not to say that it is absolutely perfect.

Quote:
And as an aside, 'looking cool' can't possibly be innate because the meaning of the term depends on the social context of its use. One desires to 'look cool' depending on one's social circumstance. I don't think a nun goes out of her way to 'look cool'. Or is 'looking cool' innate for some people and not for others? Or take heroin. I don't desire it. If I never did it, I won't desire it for the rest of my life. But if I shot up every day you bet I'd desire it. It may be said that we have a propensity for heroin addiction. But is that the same as saying my desire for heroin was innate? Absolutely not. Do you even know what you are talking about??? You are soooo far out of your league here.
Innate desires differ because of genetical variance.

Quote:
Face it, your concept of human nature is trash.
Your concept is even worse.

Quote:
OF COURSE desire CAN'T be quantified!! It has no absolute values! It only makes sense to talk about it in relative terms (more than, less than). It only makes sense to talk about 'amount of desire' in a relation of comparison for a single person. You can't even generalize it to the population because the flows of desire are so subjective, complex, and dynamic. Even the assigning of say, degrees of depression from 1-10 is quite methodologically flawed, and there are a number of articles out there that show how so. And depression is a far simpler problem as there are a number of effects of depression that are conserved in depressed people. And if you tried to quantify desire, how would you know you had desire quantified? An all-too common error of social scientists and economists is the synecdochic fallacy. And finally, would this quantification be in any way useful in determining the amount of desire of a single person?

I only brought up 'pleasure units' to parodize your idea.
Desire, pleasure - these are nothing more than chemical reactions within the brain. I am a materialist. EVERYTHING can be quantified, it is just that some things are too complex and have too many variables to accurately do so.

Hence, I believe that the future is already written out for us and cannot be changed, because I am a determinist (although I believe in free will too).

Quote:
The focus group was an invention of Robert Merton's, maybe 30 or so years ago. Are we to believe that ONLY NOW is capitalism working the way it should be??
The price system is a method of trial-and-error that serves the same function as quantitative analysis in determining what to produce, although the latter certainly helps.

Quote:
Wrong. I think you are just afraid to think about it.
Yeah, right. I don't have an open mind.

Quote:
I'll get to this more later. But reasoning entails understanding, and understanding entails assigning meaning. This isn't possible without language. And even a parrot that imitates its owners speech patterns cannot be said to 'understand'. As for spatial 'reasoning' (confused use of the word in this context), well, fish seem to know where to swim. Nothing special or uniquely human about it. Higher forms of spatial intelligence also depend on language.
Understanding does not require a linguistic classification. I can logically determine that if I don't want a book to wet in the rain, I put it in my backpack without having to talk to myself.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Brandon Brandon is offline
The Center Square
Brandon's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Migrant worker
Brandon is probably a spambot
Old Jan 15th, 2004, 06:07 PM       
You're a real piece of work, aren't you?

You claim to be a materialist, yet you also claim to be a radically doubting rationalist.

"EMPIRICISM IS MORONIC BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT REALITY IS...
...BUT I HAVE PEDANTIC OPINIONS ABOUT THE MATERIAL WORLD ANYWAY."

Quote:
Desire, pleasure - these are nothing more than chemical reactions within the brain. I am a materialist. EVERYTHING can be quantified, it is just that some things are too complex and have too many variables to accurately do so.
All of a sudden you're on the side of science, are you? Well now, your challenge is to prove what causes what: does consciousness cause the chemical reactions, or do the chemical reactions cause states of consciousness?

Quote:
Hence, I believe that the future is already written out for us and cannot be changed, because I am a determinist (although I believe in free will too).
If the future is written out for us, we have no free will, Mr. Logic. Compatabalism doesn't mean accepting the extreme, contradictory stances of determinist and free will camps--it means synthesizing them.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
theapportioner theapportioner is offline
Mocker
theapportioner's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
theapportioner is probably a spambot
Old Jan 15th, 2004, 06:21 PM       
Ok. You are sounding weaker and weaker with every post - on the verge of nonsense. I'm going to move on to other things.

Two comments though:

Quote:
Innate desires differ because of genetical variance.
If this were true, you would find inheritance patterns in families. Now, does this make any sense whatsoever in the context of the nun who does not desire to look cool??? Or the child of an irresponsible alcoholic father, who takes on a fatherlike role in the household, and becomes 'good person' whose desires are not the same as the fathers? Or a firstborn son who desires to be a president, and a 2nd son who would rather rebel?? Your idea of genetic determinism is hopelessly out of date.

Quote:
I can logically determine that if I don't want a book to wet in the rain, I put it in my backpack without having to talk to myself.
A bird gets out of the way of torrential rain, too. Just as a bird isn't 'logically determining' anything, you too are 'logically determining' nothing. Learned experience, habit, desire, instinct etc. do not equal reason. That you put your book in your backpack is an arational action, almost a reflex like scratching an itch or biting ones' nails when nervous. Sure you can 'rationalize' these too but only by thinking about it, using language to understand why. Unless again, you want to subsume all of this into reason - but then it becomes a semantic issue and the word 'reason' has many relevant meanings that would be rendered diluted by this act.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Jan 15th, 2004, 06:42 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon
You're a real piece of work, aren't you?
Yes.

Quote:
You claim to be a materialist, yet you also claim to be a radically doubting rationalist.
Just because reality is material does not mean that we know what those material things are.

Also remember that I am arguing on the point of PRACTICALITY here, accepting several of the established "axioms".

Quote:
"EMPIRICISM IS MORONIC BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT REALITY IS...
...BUT I HAVE PEDANTIC OPINIONS ABOUT THE MATERIAL WORLD ANYWAY."
In pure theory, I deny that there must be a reality to begin with. But for the purposes of this argument, I have to assume certain things.

Quote:
All of a sudden you're on the side of science, are you? Well now, your challenge is to prove what causes what: does consciousness cause the chemical reactions, or do the chemical reactions cause states of consciousness?
Chemical reactions cause consciousness. To think otherwise would invoke the problems of mind-matter dualism.

Remember, I am operating on pseudo-practical terms now.

Quote:
If the future is written out for us, we have no free will, Mr. Logic. Compatabalism doesn't mean accepting the extreme, contradictory stances of determinist and free will camps--it means synthesizing them.
You have a narrow view of compatabalism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theapportioner
If this were true, you would find inheritance patterns in families. Now, does this make any sense whatsoever in the context of the nun who does not desire to look cool??? Or the child of an irresponsible alcoholic father, who takes on a fatherlike role in the household, and becomes 'good person' whose desires are not the same as the fathers? Or a firstborn son who desires to be a president, and a 2nd son who would rather rebel?? Your idea of genetic determinism is hopelessly out of date.
Sure it does. The science of genetics has not been perfectly figured out yet, and there are always the factors of mutation. Not every gene can be written in a four-box Punnett square.

Futhermore, you forget that the desires themselves are not so important here; rather, what fulfills them is.

Quote:
A bird gets out of the way of torrential rain, too. Just as a bird isn't 'logically determining' anything, you too are 'logically determining' nothing. Learned experience, habit, desire, instinct etc. do not equal reason. That you put your book in your backpack is an arational action, almost a reflex like scratching an itch or biting ones' nails when nervous. Sure you can 'rationalize' these too but only by thinking about it, using language to understand why. Unless again, you want to subsume all of this into reason - but then it becomes a semantic issue and the word 'reason' has many relevant meanings that would be rendered diluted by this act.
But reason is defined as thought, and I did, in fact, have to think about putting my book into my backpack. So my point remains.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
theapportioner theapportioner is offline
Mocker
theapportioner's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
theapportioner is probably a spambot
Old Jan 15th, 2004, 06:53 PM       
Quote:
The science of genetics has not been perfectly figured out yet
Nice try. It's been figured out enough for me to know you are wrong. Read up on the contemporary literature. People are abandoning radical genetic determinism.

Quote:
But reason is defined as thought,
Reason is a process, a thought is an event. I can think of a cow - how can you call that reason?? You are committing an awful awful awful philosophical abuse of language.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Jan 15th, 2004, 07:05 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by theapportioner
Nice try. It's been figured out enough for me to know you are wrong. Read up on the contemporary literature. People are abandoning radical genetic determinism.
Not true. The Identity Thesis has only been established in recent years.

Quote:
Reason is a process, a thought is an event. I can think of a cow - how can you call that reason?? You are committing an awful awful awful philosophical abuse of language.
Reason is defined as "the process through which human beings perform thought." You had to employ reason in order to think of a cow.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Brandon Brandon is offline
The Center Square
Brandon's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Migrant worker
Brandon is probably a spambot
Old Jan 15th, 2004, 07:27 PM       
Quote:
Chemical reactions cause consciousness. To think otherwise would invoke the problems of mind-matter dualism.
Quote:
You have a narrow view of compatabalism.
Alrighty, Mr. Logic, here's the problem.

If chemical reactions cause states of consciousness, then they're nothing more than hollow, useless projections, and you've completely destroyed any possibility of choice or free will. You also contradict yourself in saying:

Quote:
But reason is defined as thought, and I did, in fact, have to think about putting my book into my backpack. So my point remains.
According to your view of chemical/genetic determinism, the idea that you arrived at the conclusion to put your books away was nothing more than an illusion.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Jan 15th, 2004, 07:43 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon
Alrighty, Mr. Logic, here's the problem.

If chemical reactions cause states of consciousness, then they're nothing more than hollow, useless projections, and you've completely destroyed any possibility of choice or free will.
That is only because of the way in which you define free will.

Quote:
According to your view of chemical/genetic determinism, the idea that you arrived at the conclusion to put your books away was nothing more than an illusion.
How so? Those reactions are still occuring within my brain, are they not? Therefore, I am reasoning, and I did arrive to those conclusions, regardless of what triggered them.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
sspadowsky sspadowsky is offline
Will chop you good.
sspadowsky's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Thrill World
sspadowsky is probably a spambot
Old Jan 15th, 2004, 07:57 PM       
I think what we need to do here is take a serious look at the egalitarian ruminations that evade our collective gestalt. Think about it: As Munchausen once said, "Wherever there be platitudes, fatalistic entropy is sure to follow." While my college-level philosophy book embraces such atavistic haberdashery, I am not certain I am inclined to proselytize. What are your thoughts?
__________________
"If honesty is the best policy, then, by elimination, dishonesty is the second-best policy. Second is not all that bad."
-George Carlin
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Brandon Brandon is offline
The Center Square
Brandon's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Migrant worker
Brandon is probably a spambot
Old Jan 15th, 2004, 08:07 PM       
Quote:
That is only because of the way in which you define free will.
The definition of "free will" is pretty cut-and-dry. Decision-making that isn't "caused" by anything.

Quote:
How so? Those reactions are still occuring within my brain, are they not? Therefore, I am reasoning, and I did arrive to those conclusions, regardless of what triggered them.
"Reasoning" implies a direction by consciousness. In the hard determinist view (of which chemical and genetic varities are a part), the conscious deliberation is merely an illusion. You didn't "reason," your brain went through chemical reactions.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
theapportioner theapportioner is offline
Mocker
theapportioner's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
theapportioner is probably a spambot
Old Jan 15th, 2004, 09:29 PM       
Brandon, doesn't it strike you that he is embracing a kind of Cartesianism with that conception of reason? No self respecting philosopher these days would take the 'ghost in the machine' idea seriously.

Quote:
Not true. The Identity Thesis has only been established in recent years.
What the fuck does identity theory have to do with this?? Listen to the scientists - the philosophers in this area are mostly blowing hot air.

Quote:
Reason is defined as "the process through which human beings perform thought." You had to employ reason in order to think of a cow.
So all thought emanates from reason. Even creative expression, word play. Whatever. You are just making up definitions, definitions that go against many of the ordinary uses of the word. But then you take your unconventional definitions and apply them in the same way as the conventional definitions. You want us to think you are talking about reason, when you aren't talking about it AT ALL. A philosophical abuse of language, language going on holiday.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Brandon Brandon is offline
The Center Square
Brandon's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Migrant worker
Brandon is probably a spambot
Old Jan 15th, 2004, 10:07 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by theapportioner
Brandon, doesn't it strike you that he is embracing a kind of Cartesianism with that conception of reason? No self respecting philosopher these days would take the 'ghost in the machine' idea seriously.
I don't even think OAO knows what the hell ideas he's embracing anymore. He seems to just adopt whatever views are contradictory to the majority of the thread for the sheer pleasure of being a little prick.

I'm actually nostalgic for Vinth as our designated troll.

Anyway, since you brought up Cartesian duality, what's your take on Sartre's conception of consciousness (being-for-itself)? I'm not quite sold either way. I mean, it seems like he's moved away from Descartes' "ghost in the machine," since his idea of consciousness is more similar to Hume's (a mere transitory filter), but some critics still accuse it of being mysticism.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
theapportioner theapportioner is offline
Mocker
theapportioner's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
theapportioner is probably a spambot
Old Jan 15th, 2004, 10:46 PM       
Hmm, good question. I don't know it -that- well so I could be wrong about a thing or two, but... Sartre, and many other Existentialists, do maintain a pretty unambiguous subjective-objective split. Descartes really helped to get this tradition going. Though I agree with Sartre that we are not merely beings-in-themselves (though for different reasons), I do feel that there is something partially ontological about the idea 'being-for-itself', or transcendence. And I've never been able to make sense of this 'nothingness' in its relation to consciousness. I tend to see Existentialism as a type of 'way of life' philosophy, an attitude towards seeing things. In this view then, I don't have a problem with transcendence. But I think Sartre -is- saying more than that, and if he is, I have a hard time swallowing it.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Brandon Brandon is offline
The Center Square
Brandon's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Migrant worker
Brandon is probably a spambot
Old Jan 15th, 2004, 11:08 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by theapportioner
Hmm, good question. I don't know it -that- well so I could be wrong about a thing or two, but... Sartre, and many other Existentialists, do maintain a pretty unambiguous subjective-objective split. Descartes really helped to get this tradition going. Though I agree with Sartre that we are not merely beings-in-themselves (though for different reasons), I do feel that there is something partially ontological about the idea 'being-for-itself', or transcendence. And I've never been able to make sense of this 'nothingness' in its relation to consciousness. I tend to see Existentialism as a type of 'way of life' philosophy, an attitude towards seeing things. In this view then, I don't have a problem with transcendence. But I think Sartre -is- saying more than that, and if he is, I have a hard time swallowing it.
According to Sartre, "nothingness" is consciousness (the being-for-itself). It exists only as a negation of being, contingent on yet able to control being-in-itself, which is a pretty unusual theory. It is what creates "free will" and is the director of all emotions. What sets him apart from Descartes is his rejection of the idea that this consciousness is the "self" or has an essence of its own. The self exists to Sartre, but outside of us, as the synthesis of all our previous actions and psychic states. A good description might be that one's "self" and "reputation" are the same in Sartre's world. Obviously there's no real way to "prove" this is the case--it just seems to have been the result of reflection.

What keeps me unwilling to totally reject Sartre's ideas is the fact that, while science seems to have run counter to his theories, recent developments in cognitive psychology have shed tremendous light on how our thoughts can impact our emotional states.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
theapportioner theapportioner is offline
Mocker
theapportioner's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
theapportioner is probably a spambot
Old Jan 15th, 2004, 11:23 PM       
Ahhh, thanks. That clarified a lot of things for me. It is strange that he uses the term 'being-for-itself' when it is meant to be a negation of being, tho'.

Another thing that's sort of unclear to me is how we should take Sartre's notion of free will. Is it to be understood only in the context of not being dragged down by being-in-itself? In other words, free from representation? I have heard he rejects determinism, but in a subjective sense only or also in an objective sense?
Reply With Quote
  #66  
theapportioner theapportioner is offline
Mocker
theapportioner's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
theapportioner is probably a spambot
Old Jan 15th, 2004, 11:25 PM       
"while science seems to have run counter to his theories, recent developments in cognitive psychology have shed tremendous light on how our thoughts can impact our emotional states."

Yeah, but our emotional states influence our thoughts, too.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Brandon Brandon is offline
The Center Square
Brandon's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Migrant worker
Brandon is probably a spambot
Old Jan 15th, 2004, 11:43 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by theapportioner
Another thing that's sort of unclear to me is how we should take Sartre's notion of free will. Is it to be understood only in the context of not being dragged down by being-in-itself? In other words, free from representation? I have heard he rejects determinism, but in a subjective sense only or also in an objective sense?
It seems to be a very radical sort of free will. I know that he rejects any sort of "human nature," believes that our choices shape what we are, and seems to think that our biological wants and needs are, for the most part, under the control of consciousness. I know Nietzsche accepted a more compatibilist view of determinism and free will, thinking that while we can make choices, the idea that there aren't subtle internal or external forces influencing us is absurd. Sartre, on the other hand, doesn't seem to make any concessions to determinism, but it's been awhile since I've read Being and Nothingness, so I'd have to double-check.

The basic drive of being-for-itself, he says, is to become "God"--a complete entity lacking nothing yet possessing cognition and subjectivity at the same time. Since consciousness itself is a lack, says Sartre, such a quest is futile. Attitudes towards others mirror this desire for "completeness." His concept of sexual desire, for example, places less emphasis on biology than it does on his belief that being-for-itself attempts to "possess" and merge with another subjective lifeform.

Quote:
Yeah, but our emotional states influence our thoughts, too.
True.

EDIT: Well, the Nietzsche position on the free will debate seems pretty clear on second thought:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nietzsche
The error of free will. Today we no longer have any pity for the concept of "free will": we know only too well what it really is--the foulest of all theologians' artifices aimed at making mankind "responsible" in their sense, that is, dependent upon them. Here I simply supply the psychology of all "making responsible."
Reply With Quote
  #68  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Jan 16th, 2004, 10:22 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon
The definition of "free will" is pretty cut-and-dry. Decision-making that isn't "caused" by anything.
That is not the only definition.

Quote:
"Reasoning" implies a direction by consciousness. In the hard determinist view (of which chemical and genetic varities are a part), the conscious deliberation is merely an illusion. You didn't "reason," your brain went through chemical reactions.
Consciousness is merely awareness. I can still be consciously reasoning, even though that is only occuring because of my brain.

Quote:
What the fuck does identity theory have to do with this?? Listen to the scientists - the philosophers in this area are mostly blowing hot air.
I have been listening to the scientists. Recent studies have shown that two identical twins - even when having very different backgrounds - are overwhelmingly similar in their tastes. Advantage nature.

Quote:
So all thought emanates from reason. Even creative expression, word play. Whatever. You are just making up definitions, definitions that go against many of the ordinary uses of the word. But then you take your unconventional definitions and apply them in the same way as the conventional definitions. You want us to think you are talking about reason, when you aren't talking about it AT ALL. A philosophical abuse of language, language going on holiday
I'm not making up definitions. Rationalists have used that one for quite some time. Why do you think I quoted it?
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
theapportioner theapportioner is offline
Mocker
theapportioner's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
theapportioner is probably a spambot
Old Jan 16th, 2004, 11:31 AM       
Quote:
I have been listening to the scientists. Recent studies have shown that two identical twins - even when having very different backgrounds - are overwhelmingly similar in their tastes. Advantage nature.
If you look more closely at the twin studies, you'll see that some traits are more heritable than other traits and tastes. For instance there is quite a range for various properties of intelligence. Or humor. Plus, keep in mind that many of these separated twins are raised in quite similar environments - most likely middle class, English speaking, etc. Take a newborn orphan twin from war-torn Congo and raise him in the US, leaving his brother behind - then come talk to me. Or take a twin and give him NO FAMILY WHATSOEVER and see if his personality develops in the same way. Nor are teratogenic effects ruled out - the twins shared the same womb. Maybe one would call this 'nature' but it is not genetic.

All it proves is that genes have some hand in shaping the totality of human personality. This is obvious, come on. It does NOT prove genetic determinism - otherwise you'd have no variances across all particular characteristics of personality. You say human nature does not change - you would HAVE to hold this radical genetic deterministic position.

Genes and environment operate in a complex dynamic - there is more evidence now that a large combination of genes operate to produce even one aspect of personality. Also, thresholds are important - a certain threshold of environmental stimuli is necessary to cause the over- or underexpression of certain genes, such as perhaps in the case of schizophrenia. Or are we to say that in recent years Americans are getting fatter, and their IQs on the whole are increasing, solely because of genetic drift or selection??? Others are getting with the program; you should too.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Jan 16th, 2004, 11:38 AM       
Perhaps I should clarify. Human desires do not change, because desire is a evolutionary tool that makes us fulfill instinctual goals. Human nature, on the other hand, can be changed in so far that different people in different situations can draw different conclusions.

I presume that I am using your definition of human nature here. In actuality, I would say that human nature stays the same: the conclusions drawn are merely different because of adaptive reasoning.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Brandon Brandon is offline
The Center Square
Brandon's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Migrant worker
Brandon is probably a spambot
Old Jan 16th, 2004, 12:46 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompous Fuckhead
That is not the only definition [of free will].
YES, YES IT IS! If your choice is caused it is, by definition not free! If you add deterministic elements to the concept of free will, it isn't "free will" anymore, it's compatibilism. Oh, and did I mention that I consider compatibilism garbage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia.com
According to Hume, free will should not be understood as an absolute ability to have chosen differently under exactly the same inner and outer circumstances. Rather, it is a hypothetical ability to have chosen differently if one had been differently psychologically disposed by some different beliefs or desires.
This is nothing more than a desperate rationalization on the part of Hume. That hypothetical "could have" is nothing more than a phantom, a non-issue. The decision was caused. End of story. This psuedo-doctrine of compatibilism probably arose out of the terrifying realization among thinkers like Hobbes and Hume that determinism would completely undermine the traditional conception of justice and ethics. They made a last-ditch attempt to salvage man's responsibility for his actions.

But I can see why you're unwilling to dispose of free will, Mr. Laissez-Faire. If man isn't totally free, the primary justification for libertarianism is destroyed. Wouldn't that be the most beautiful irony? Your pompous alleigance to chemical and genetic determinism backfiring in your fat, middle-aged face.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Ant10708 Ant10708 is offline
Mocker
Ant10708's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York
Ant10708 is probably a spambot
Old Jan 16th, 2004, 01:30 PM       
I don't think he is even 20.
__________________
I'm all for the idea of stoning the rapists, but to death...? That's a bit of a stretch, but I think the system will work. - Geggy
Reply With Quote
  #73  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Jan 16th, 2004, 03:18 PM        The One and Only...
That's probably because I'm not.

You are confusing two principles. Most free willists have admited that decisions are caused. They just have not admited that they are determined.

Principle of Universal Causation - All things are caused.

Principle of Universal Determinism - All things are caused in such a manner that they could not have been any other way.

I have a different base for libertarianism.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Brandon Brandon is offline
The Center Square
Brandon's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Migrant worker
Brandon is probably a spambot
Old Jan 16th, 2004, 03:36 PM        Re: The One and Only...
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Omniscient One
You are confusing two principles. Most free willists have admited that decisions are caused. They just have not admited that they are determined.

Principle of Universal Causation - All things are caused.

Principle of Universal Determinism - All things are caused in such a manner that they could not have been any other way.
I realize that causal chains could have gone differently, you smug prig, but that's strictly hypothetical--still not a proof that free will can be reconciled with determinism. The choice was still caused by something prior and, as such, was not free.

Quote:
I have a different base for libertarianism.
Oh really? Well aren't you just a fountain of philosophical originality? Let's hear it then.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Jan 16th, 2004, 03:47 PM        Re: The One and Only...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon
I realize that causal chains could have gone differently, you smug prig, but that's strictly hypothetical--still not a proof that free will can be reconciled with determinism. The choice was still caused by something prior and, as such, was not free.
You have a different view of freedom. I view freedom as the liberty to, not the liberty from.

For example, I can be free to see a doctor, but I cannot be free from having to worry about healthcare expenses.

Sometimes they overlap, but this is an irrelevant point.

Quote:
Oh really? Well aren't you just a fountain of philosophical originality? Let's hear it then.
Libertarianism is simply the most practical of political theories.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:56 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.