karma, reincarnation and Buddhism

wittgenstein · Jan 13, 2010

"Free will is another empirical fact that we face on a daily basis."
sylla1
Free will is not an empirical fact. The "free will" behavior that we encounter on a daily basis under further analysis is almost always the result of a cause.
However, lets say that there is free will. Even then one does not say that free will is an empirical fact. One says that " free will" is a theory based on empirical observation.

wittgenstein · Jan 13, 2010

To say that things can happen without being caused goes against the empirical data.

wittgenstein · Jan 13, 2010

"No. Slapping a label on a tree and asserting it is a rock does not mean that "trees are rocks" becomes a physical law."
Rasta
I do not understand how that metaphor applies to my argument.
Or was that in response to another poster?

corrocamino · Jan 13, 2010

wittgenstein said:
To say that things can happen without being caused goes against the empirical data.

God called. He says you're right.

Rasta · Jan 13, 2010

corrocamino said:
Somewhere I said that the notion of "free will" is embedded in the ego!

Could be.

corrocamino · Jan 13, 2010

I'm willing myself to stop posting now. That is caused by fatigue.

Rasta · Jan 13, 2010

wittgenstein said:
"No. Slapping a label on a tree and asserting it is a rock does not mean that "trees are rocks" becomes a physical law."
Rasta
I do not understand how that metaphor applies to my argument.
Or was that in response to another poster?

I thought you were saying that causality inferred an inherent contradiction with my point of view. Sorry if I misunderstood.

Rasta · Jan 13, 2010

wittgenstein said:
To say that things can happen without being caused goes against the empirical data.

Yes. Who says that any event is uncaused?

sylla1 · Jan 13, 2010

No; I was talking on the thread as a whole.

IMHO, absolutely denying the existence of free will is in practice getting determinism a bit too far.
Should we let say condone Uncle Joe Stalin just because he had no free will and his actions were predetermined?

BTW we can also try to excuse him with the opposite extreme.
As randomness would then be absolute, the Gulag can arguably be considered just as bad karma, a long chain of random unlucky events.

All these philosophical principles should be used to help in the analysis of the facts of the physical world, not to try to displace them, as if such facts were just mere illusions.

Rasta · Jan 13, 2010

sylla1 said:
No; I was talking on the thread as a whole.

IMHO, absolutely denying the existence of free will is in practice getting determinism a bit too far.
Should we let say condone Uncle Joe Stalin just because he had no free will and his actions were predetermined?

BTW we can also try to excuse him with the opposite extreme.
As randomness would then be absolute, the Gulag can arguably be considered just as bad karma, a long chain of random unlucky events.

All these philosophical principles should be used to help in the analysis of the facts of the physical world, not to try to displace them, as if such facts were just mere illusions.

How is the randomness of causes incompatible with our concept of responsibility?

wittgenstein · Jan 13, 2010

"IMHO, absolutely denying the existence of free will is in practice getting determinism a bit too far.
Should we let say condone Uncle Joe Stalin just because he had no free will and his actions were predetermined?"
sylla1
I believe that one cannot believe in free will and still believe in justice. Like the lion example, I gave. The fact that the lion had no choice in being a lion and acting like a lion does not mean that one should not isolate the lion and prevent it from eating hominids.

Rasta · Jan 13, 2010

wittgenstein said:
"IMHO, absolutely denying the existence of free will is in practice getting determinism a bit too far.
Should we let say condone Uncle Joe Stalin just because he had no free will and his actions were predetermined?"
sylla1
I believe that one cannot believe in free will and still believe in justice.

Can you explain how this follows? I don't see the connection.

wittgenstein · Jan 13, 2010

The lion is caged, not because of some laws of justice that come down to earth from some divine platonic realm , but instead because justice is a human invention.
Justice is part of our evolutionary biology. A mother sacrifices her life so that her child may live because that is her biological nature. Perhaps, Dawkins selfish gene, but that's pure speculation. The fact remains that altruism and justice confer an evolutionary advantage.
Ethics in my humble opinion is a branch of sociobiology, not philosophy. However, that does not make it any less real.

sylla1 · Jan 13, 2010

wittgenstein said:
"IMHO, absolutely denying the existence of free will is in practice getting determinism a bit too far.
Should we let say condone Uncle Joe Stalin just because he had no free will and his actions were predetermined?"
sylla1
I believe that one cannot believe in free will and still believe in justice. Like the lion example, I gave. The fact that the lion had no choice in being a lion and acting like a lion does not mean that one should not isolate the lion and prevent it from eating hominids.

Therefore, Uncle Joe would not be considered punishable; after all, he was only a predator. It was yhen actually the negligence of the carers which let the predator kill his victims...

Sorry; that is not Justice.
Uncle Joe was not just a force of nature or an act of God; his free will was perfectly operative; period.

As you can check in any source, Ethics is one of the main branches of Philosophy; I simply can't imagine which source would classify it as "sociobiology".

And of course, the issue here is not the origin of Justice; the issue is definitively the existence of Free Will.

wittgenstein · Jan 13, 2010

One can still eat ( and think that eating is important and that starvation is bad) even if one does not believe that eating is a command from God.

wittgenstein · Jan 13, 2010

So, you would believe that a punishment that is not beneficial to anyone , society the victim etc ( like the Christian Hell) is needed for there to be justice?

sylla1 · Jan 13, 2010

Sorry, but the last two posts are just red herrings for our issue (Free Will).

wittgenstein · Jan 13, 2010

"Therefore, Uncle Joe would not be considered punishable"
sylla1
When did I say that? I think that putting Stalin in a cage like a lion would be considered punishment by some. But if there was some uninhabited island somewhere I would consider putting him there.

wittgenstein · Jan 13, 2010

"Sorry, but the last two posts are just red herrings for our issue (Free Will)."
sylla1
How so? You asked me how a person that does not believe in free will would react to a person like Stalin. You implied that a person that did not believe in free will would have to never "punish" Stalin.
If you define punish as an act that creates pain to a perpetrator without any practical reason, but only to make that person suffer, that is revenge not justice.

merged · Jan 13, 2010

sylla1 said:
As you can check in any source, Ethics is one of the main branches of Philosophy; I simply can't imagine which source would classify it as "sociobiology".

It's a branch of philosophy but also...

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_ethics"]Evolutionary ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Search

Search

karma, reincarnation and Buddhism

wittgenstein

wittgenstein

wittgenstein

corrocamino

Rasta

corrocamino

Rasta

Rasta

sylla1

Rasta

wittgenstein

Rasta

wittgenstein

sylla1

wittgenstein

wittgenstein

sylla1

wittgenstein

wittgenstein

merged

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions