EPTCollectivism v. Individualism - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
fellcrow
United States288 Posts
| ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On April 28 2010 06:18 fellcrow wrote: Yurebis so you believe in determinism, so basically everything is predetermined, but you also believe in free will, as long as others don't interfere with a gun to your head, in a nut shell right. Is that right? yes and I also have no problem using free will concepts as seen in the OP even if I find their more classical definitions illusory | ||
|
fellcrow
United States288 Posts
EDIT: well i guess your logic is just confusing me. You think everything is predetermined but you have free will at the same time. What do you mean by free will? That is self contradictory. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On April 28 2010 06:28 fellcrow wrote: Do you believe that what you do after he puts a gun to your head is predetermined? EDIT: well i guess your logic is just confusing me. You think everything is predetermined but you have free will at the same time. What do you mean by free will? That is self contradictory. hehe free will does not exist objectively, yes? it's just a living organism deciding whats best for him in a certain situation a plant will grow towards the sun. did that plant have the choice to grow towards a shadow? the plant, if it had a consciousness, would think so yes likewise, I also think I have a choice, why not, I do have a choice, even though objectively, the choice is made by a chain of chemical events. but it is real inside my head yo subjectively if you may | ||
|
BruceLee6783
United States196 Posts
Not good nor evil...just 2 different perspectives...all choices seem good and bad at the same time...which one do I choose... Guess what? Everything's not black and white. People's minds have a tendency towards seeing everything as either black or white... THE WORLD IS GREY GREY GREY GREY GREY CHOOSING ONE THING MEANS NOT CHOOSING SOMETHING ELSE. 2 Hostages to save...only 1 can be saved or the other one dies...omfg what to do what to do what to do?!!?!!! | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On April 28 2010 06:35 BruceLee6783 wrote: This is what I'm thinking... Not good nor evil...just 2 different perspectives...all choices seem good and bad at the same time...which one do I choose... Guess what? Everything's not black and white. People's minds have a tendency towards seeing everything as either black or white... THE WORLD IS GREY GREY GREY GREY GREY CHOOSING ONE THING MEANS NOT CHOOSING SOMETHING ELSE. 2 Hostages to save...only 1 can be saved or the other one dies...omfg what to do what to do what to do?!!?!!! u choose the richest one obv. | ||
|
ErOs_HalO
United States167 Posts
| ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On April 28 2010 06:39 ErOs_HalO wrote: Hey Yurebis, I really didn't feel like posting here.. but if you can catch my drift. Here you go! hi2u ofc u felt like it liar | ||
|
ErOs_HalO
United States167 Posts
which ever one is closer, and if they are equidistant then whichever is on your right side! (if you're right handed..) editd because yurebis's answer is better LOL | ||
|
ErOs_HalO
United States167 Posts
I really like to think but... not on this subject..  | ||
|
BruceLee6783
United States196 Posts
On April 28 2010 06:39 Yurebis wrote: u choose the richest one obv. Damn right, lol | ||
|
fellcrow
United States288 Posts
| ||
|
fellcrow
United States288 Posts
On April 28 2010 06:35 BruceLee6783 wrote: This is what I'm thinking... Not good nor evil...just 2 different perspectives...all choices seem good and bad at the same time...which one do I choose... Guess what? Everything's not black and white. People's minds have a tendency towards seeing everything as either black or white... THE WORLD IS GREY GREY GREY GREY GREY CHOOSING ONE THING MEANS NOT CHOOSING SOMETHING ELSE. 2 Hostages to save...only 1 can be saved or the other one dies...omfg what to do what to do what to do?!!?!!! Not everyone always chooses the richest person. Or the person who can help them "survive" the best with money, food, weapons, shelter, etc. Some people will choose a woman over a man JUST because they are a woman and it is the "moral" thing to do. EDIT: Grr sorry for double post. Debates are so much better when people are able to talk and interact. Forums and text is such an inadaquate way to convey a message or have a discussion. Any phylisophical debate should be done on ventrilo because this is just getting me frustrated that there is no real way to argue and this is just ridiculous! lol | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On April 28 2010 06:56 fellcrow wrote: Well choosing the best thing for you is still a choice. As a organism lets say I am in a situation where I can either jump in front of a bullet to save my child or I can let my child die and i stay alive...which is obviously better for me. So why do so many people die for a child when it is better for that organism to stay alive. because its not better for that organism what is better depends on your goal (end) and it needs not be life nor reproduction each one "choses" their goal, perhaps even changing slightly all the time, as they learn and observe things. many core and commonly observed goals may be indeed hardwires into the human psyche however it says nothing that this is the way it should be, and "defective" individuals who are not bound to those goals aren't necessarily being irrational in your example I find it both rational and common to defend ones offspring, just cuz it's so genetically hardwired to like (love) and protect your descendants even more than yourself. but what is to say to those that want to kill and suicide? are they irrational? I find not, they just have unconventional ends. I'd hold no regrets in stopping them from harming me however, or anyone close to me for that matter, as best as I'm able to. Not on natural grounds but because I want to, and I also know that long term, it's generally more rewarding to be a "nice" guy. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On April 28 2010 07:06 fellcrow wrote: Not everyone always chooses the richest person. Or the person who can help them "survive" the best with money, food, weapons, shelter, etc. Some people will choose a woman over a man JUST because they are a woman and it is the "moral" thing to do. ur dumb lol jk On April 28 2010 07:06 fellcrow wrote: EDIT: Grr sorry for double post. Debates are so much better when people are able to talk and interact. Forums and text is such an inadaquate way to convey a message or have a discussion. Any phylisophical debate should be done on ventrilo because this is just getting me frustrated that there is no real way to argue and this is just ridiculous! lol I prefer text, I have more control over what I 'say' and dont stutter every word. also its easier to break down premises in text form and I can ninja edit | ||
|
chessmaster
United States268 Posts
First I want to establish the obvious and say that the collective is nothing but a collection of individuals, much like a forest is nothing but a collection of trees (not my analogy by far). Many talk of the "greater good", or the "will" of a nation, but those terms are completely empty. There is no greater good, there may be a net good of every individual, but without the individuals, the greater good simply does not exist anywhere in reality. Without its citizens, the nation's will does not exist. i think you are missing the obvious point , we are all part of the same species .. i.e collective .. whether we like it or not ... this is the greater good ( survival of our species ) .. There is increasing evidence genes both hold and pass down some form of encoded memory becoming one such catalyst for instinct .. I bring up instinct because this is the greater good you deny to exist anywhere in reality ( the survival of the human species ) ... However human instinct has been evolving further and further away from its origins and becoming muddled ,, this is due to individualism IMO .. Also you say without individuals the collective doesn't exist .. i beg to differ without our SPECIES individuals would not exist ... example : as far as i know humans are not asexual ( not counting one of my favorite pastimes  .. meaning one human being ( a single individual cannot perpetuate the human race ) it would take at least a small collective , one male one female to insure the survival of our species , and thus creating more individuals.. thus the individual is dependent on at least one other individual of the opposite sex to procreate . and thus insure human survival : thus making more individuals... id like to see you impregnate yourself ( being a male ) thus having a baby ... even though you individualistically want one . My point being certain individual wants are not even possible without even a small collective (2) not to mention instinctive wants ( survival of species) Whether you like it or not you are a human and part of a collective that governments and countries are mere subsets .. .. I will reiterate one more time .. without our species you an individual would not exist ... It seems to me you you are talking more about synergy i.e the sum of the parts being greater than the whole | ||
|
hefty
Denmark555 Posts
On April 28 2010 06:28 fellcrow wrote: Do you believe that what you do after he puts a gun to your head is predetermined? EDIT: well i guess your logic is just confusing me. You think everything is predetermined but you have free will at the same time. What do you mean by free will? That is self contradictory. Perhabs my take on determinism/free will can be of some help. I also regularly use the terms free will and choices, because they make intuitive sense. If a talk of my choice the other day, or my belief that the government must seek to preserve the free will of the individual, I have given you meaningful information that would be more difficult to communicate without these terms. Still, I have some issues regarding the idea of free will - let me explain. I believe that whenever we make a choice we are influenced by a huge range of factors contributing to our dicision in the very moment. The list includes current state of mind, the recent chain of events leading to this moment, the sum of past experiences, current physical level of arousal, overall physical condition, exterior conditions such as weather, and inputs from the immediate surroundings including interactions with other human beings. In other words, my choice will be based on who I am (as a result of everything I went through that shaped me to this day) in this very moment. That's a lot of things, most of them very hard to account for I agree, but nonetheless they are likewise results of a prelude of similar instances. I believe that my choice will be a direct result of the past that shaped me and the present in which is it made - and since it is a direct result of this, it is in the moment i chose, actually determined. Of course I have the notion of free will, as the process of chosing makes me go thourgh all sorts of considerations, but since the outcome is based on these (already induced) considerations/notions the result of my decision making is already given. I may have repeated myself unnecessarily in that paragraph, forgive me. Now, if there is anything that influences my choice, which is not accounted for in the whole string of experiences leading to this moment, what could it be? If I am to maintain an idea of free will I will need some other factor apart from these. What could it be? Would would make it so that my choice in this very instance could have been different from the one I'm making? A random variable? If the outcome of my decision process is influenced by a truly random factor, it just makes exhibition of free will a die roll. I don't like to entertain that idea - and luckily it seems improbable to me. I would much rather my choices are made by me (that is: determined by who I am). So you see following this (possibly flawed, but please tell me how) logic, even though we are autonome agents, our actions are still determined. At least in a sense. It doesn't change a thing however, because as all these actions are a consequence of the world they are working upon, and that world's responses as much a result of these, it gives no reason to do anything differently than we already does. If I chose to kill a man, the world should still react and lock me up, because such is the rules/conditions that our many choices have created (even when choices can't be said to be free in the normal sense). This also takes care of the "problem" presented in this post: On April 28 2010 01:35 LaughingTulkas wrote: I guess if you're a determinist, I don't see the point of making a thread to talk to other people about it. But I guess you don't have any choice in the matter just as others don't have any choice in whether or not they believe you. + Show Spoiler + The way you talk sounds mighty inconsistent with your belief in determinism though, it's almost like you are trying to persuade people of something. But since they can't choose to agree with you are not, I don't see the point. I know most of the philosophical arguments, and I agree that it's really hard to make the case for anything other than a deterministic worldview, but it's pretty dang inconsistent with common sense and trying to live an everyday life where for all intents and purposes you feel like you have choices. I just can't help feel this whole thread is an argument against itself, not about collectivism, but about determinism. It seems impossible for any determinist to live a life consistent with their beliefs, which in my view is a pretty damning arguments against its truth, even if that's not really a philosophical or scientific argument. edit: oh, and I totally agree about psychology, it's very overrated. Statistical psychology has some limited utility, but until we get our own Hari Seldon, that field is going nowhere fast. At least in my understanding of determinism, the OP should still create this post and LaughingTulkas should still reply to it, because the circumstances leading to all this prescribed it. We shall still have this discussion, and if I chose not to take anymore part of it, it is again a result of the circumstances leading to that particular choice. In this notion of determinism, it doesn't quite make sense to say that "it doesn't matter what I do, because it's all just predetermined", because you always do what you do for a reason - as a result. Likewise, it has no moral implications, you are still responsible for your actions as much as with your free will. Disclaimer: Not writing this to win anyone over to my point of view. What I presented is easily stated, and parts come close to being tautologies. I don't really believe in a concept like truth, I believe in perspectives. So I will welcome other perspectives on the matter - this doesn't mean I refrain from argueing of course. I'm especially interested if anyone can point out something that could preserve a notion of free will within the understanding of choice presented above. How can there be room for anything not accounted for by who we are, when making a choice? EDIT: Shit, I need to add: I don't think of myself as a true determinist, because I don't really believe in determinism broadly. Not even in the world of physics. This also introduce some randomisation into the choice situation, I am aware, but it still doesn't take anything away from the awkward relationship between the concept of free will and the idea of chosing based on your personality, experiences and current influences. | ||
|
ShaperofDreams
Canada2492 Posts
If you want to fly you can't just fly, you have to compromise with gravity. Individual means alone, without an environment. You can't take everything so out of context. You can act alone but even then all of your decisions are created/decided by your environment. You simply cannot live without compromise. This also works with collectivism. There is no "one thing" "I can be conservative about crime, but liberal about prostitution" Chris Rock What I'm saying that it is impossible to be one thing or another, you can be nothing you can point to/say. No matter your philosophy or lifestyle you are both a collective as well as an individual. You are everything and therefore nothing specific. Your body is not individual, you are composed of many different things. You have a history, you have experiences, you have genetics. These things compromise your decisions. To be individual you must be completely alone, which is impossible. It implies a completely unaffected consciousness that has no entity or history and resides in no environment, that exists only for a split second. edit: a thought made by the above consciousness would be almost an individual thought. | ||
|
ShaperofDreams
Canada2492 Posts
edit: therefore we can really only talk about how "individual" and how "collective" we should be, but the thing is that the degree of collectivity/individuality always is as it should be because the entire universe created that circumstance. you cannot "decide" to have a different society or live a different way, the proper situation/universal happening has to exist prior to that. Everything is a cause of everything else. One cannot be the cause for an effect, the entire universe has to cause an effect, and when it does the effect will be, with or without our consent because we have no real control of how our own decisions will be made. | ||
|
Madkipz
Norway1643 Posts
thats alot of posts just to be sherlock holmes and state the obvious. | ||
| ||
