Atheistforums.com

Over the past few years, I have formulated my philosophy of life, a 13-page Google Doc that may be found at the following link:

//https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Byh6JnTg3RMecHhxV0pYeklqV0U/edit?usp=sharing

In the first half of the document, I present and defend the following positions: atheism, afterlife skepticism, free will impossibilism, moral skepticism, existential skepticism and negative hedonism. The second half of the document is devoted to ways to achieve and maintain peace of mind.

I have found the entire exercise to be very beneficial personally, and I hope that you will benefit from reading the document.

I am posting my philosophy to solicit feedback so that it may be improved. I welcome any constructive criticism that you may have.

EDIT:  Following this edit, I will respond only to those posts that contain constructive criticism.  Also, I will not respond to any post that contains an ad hominem argument or personal attack.

Enjoy!

Executive, eh? Sounds cool. What were you an executive of?

Quote from: "PickelledEggs"Executive, eh? Sounds cool. What were you an executive of?

To protect my anonymity, I am not providing any additional personal information at this time.

Thank you for your understanding.

Quote from: "Philosofer123"

Quote from: "PickelledEggs"Executive, eh? Sounds cool. What were you an executive of?

To protect my anonymity, I am not providing any additional personal information at this time.

Thank you for your understanding.

damn, okay everybody take off your ninja outfits.....rats.

Dang executive X.. THIRTEEN PAGES? HOLY CRAP! That's like an 85 minute viagra commercial during the two minute warning of a tie game at the superbowl! ..or at least on my crappy phone it is.
Are you at liberty to give us the readers digest version at this time? :)

Okkkkkkkkkaaaayyyy. :-s

Well, you're an odd one. I like the odd ones. Welcome.

Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Dang executive X.. THIRTEEN PAGES? HOLY CRAP! That's like an 85 minute viagra commercial during the two minute warning of a tie game at the superbowl! ..or at least on my crappy phone it is.
Are you at liberty to give us the readers digest version at this time? :)

Given the amount of ground that I cover in my philosophy, 13 pages is actually quite short.  

I'm afraid the best I can do for a summary is the OP, in which I list my philosophical positions, culminating in negative hedonism and methods to achieve and maintain peace of mind.  That said, here is one of my favorite techniques for promoting peace of mind, because it is both quite versatile and highly effective if truly internalized.  I call it "Elimination of Judgments":

"One should always keep in mind that events are interconnected through the operation of physical cause and effect. Thus, apparently negative events can precipitate positive events, and apparently positive events can precipitate negative events. Moreover, the connections between events can be very indirect and impossible to predict. Consequently, if one were able to go back in time and modify or eliminate a particular event, one's entire life might change as a result, and whether it would change for the better or the worse would not be knowable. Therefore, one will generally never know whether an apparently negative event is truly negative in the overall context of one's life, or whether an apparently positive event is truly positive in the overall context of one's life. As a result, one should eliminate judgments with respect to whether any event is truly positive or negative. Such elimination of judgments strongly promotes equanimity and peace of mind—before, during and after one's experiences."

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Well, you're an odd one. I like the odd ones. Welcome.

Yes, I suppose that I am odd.  I can find no other attempt to articulate a practical and comprehensive philosophy of life on the entire Internet.  And I have searched extensively.  If any of you are aware of one, please do share the link.

Quote from: "Philosofer123"Greetings, fellow atheists!

I am a retired executive residing in California with a keen interest in philosophy.

Over the past few years, I have formulated my philosophy of life, a 13-page Google Doc that may be found by Googling "Philo Sofer" and following the first link ("My Philosophy by Philo Sofer").  I would like to post the link here, but as a new member, I am not allowed to do so.

In the first half of the document, I present and defend the following positions: atheism, afterlife skepticism, free will impossibilism, moral skepticism, existential skepticism and negative hedonism. The second half of the document is devoted to ways to achieve and maintain peace of mind.

I have found the entire exercise to be very beneficial personally, and I hope that you will benefit from reading the document.

I am posting my philosophy to solicit feedback so that it may be improved. I welcome any constructive criticism that you may have.

Enjoy!

Sorry pal, don't think I'll do that. You see I have read a great deal of philosophy and pretty much all of it is simular and just rehashed bits of history. I rule my life by logic and need. Pretty simple but it works for me. I am not a high power corporate executive like you, but I have lived a great deal, been many places, met many different kinds of people (killed some of them), seen a lot of things. Now I have my own company to worry about, and I wear most of the hats. I'll never be rich, Connie Selica is married, don't have or want kids, and I have a great dog.
NEXT!

Well, you can try here. We're not the easiest bunch to get along with, but usually receptive to ideas unless they're pious in nature. Most of us, but not all are fairly liberal and typically vote for Democrats, but some are fence sitters and a few right leaners.
I'd like to read more, but on this old wireless tin can & string devise I'll be slow keeping up and likely drift off, but yeah, it sort of seems like you have an underlying fear of messing up the space time continuem.. Damned..can't spell continueum.

Quote from: "Philosofer123"To protect my anonymity, I am not providing any additional personal information at this time.

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!
Just kidding. I don't blame you.
A friend of mine got doxed (//http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/doxing) just a couple weeks ago by a batshit crazy Christian fundie.

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Well, you're an odd one. I like the odd ones. Welcome.

"Well, I suppose you think your pretty odd. But I'm pretty odd myself, and I intend to get to the bottom of this," threatens Wilford Brimley.

To which Paul Newman responds, "Hell, all of us in this room are odd."

(Absence of Malice.  I think that was the movie.)  OK, I took some liberties with the script.  Don't ask me why that popped into my head.  Nor do I have any idea why I posted it.  Except, we're all odd.

Read 13 pages of philosophy? I'd rather eat quick setting concrete with a stick.

:-D Welcome aboard Philosofer123! If you can find the original teachings of Buddha and not the various schools that have been corrupted by other religions I think you will agree it is a good way to live your life and find peace of mind. I personally don't believe we have free will, and that what we call justice is really retribution, and that there is no such thing as justice only injustice. I think the idea of justice comes from black and white thinking, and that everything has an opposite. It's like the argument for evolution or Creationism, or acquired attributes or born with, instead of the merging of both. The problem with philosophy is the meaning of words, especially those that have different meanings. Example: If I build a wooded ark and after I finish building it and replace ever single piece of wood is it the same boat?  :shock:  #-o  :lol:  Solitary

"o Free will impossibilism renders irrational a whole range of negative emotions, including

guilt, regret, shame, remorse, indignation, anger, disgust, outrage, resentment, contempt

and hatred

? When one realizes that no one can be ultimately responsible for their actions, all of

these emotions are rendered irrational

? However, with respect to one's own past actions that may have hurt others, one

may still apologize, attempt to rectify the situation, and vow to act differently in the

future. And with respect to others' hurtful actions, one may still respond for the

sake of deterrence.

o Existential skepticism eliminates anxiety caused by a disconnect between events and what

one would otherwise judge to be the meaning or purpose of life"

 So being disgusted, angered, outraged, full of hatred toward the russian guy who fed a little girl to his dogs is irrational?
 How come he is not to be hold responsible for his horrible crime?
 J.P.Sartre was also an existenstialist, yet, he never stopped asking himself the most honest, natural, logical and human question that one may ask himself: who am I? why am I here? why was I born? what is death? The fact that no one can answer these questions does not mean that you must stop asking them.
 Man, your philosophy lacks honesty. Put honesty in your work and rather than provide answers and draw lazy conclusions I suggest you should raise questions (this is what philosophers actually do!).

Also, there is no such thing as negative emotions. Emotions are emotions.

 Anger can be very fertile if it´s not pointed toward the others but toward ourselves. There are a lot of people who manage to change their lives and to achieve something good by actually getting angry on themselves.

QuoteSo being disgusted, angered, outraged, full of hatred toward the russian guy who fed a little girl to his dogs is irrational?
How come he is not to be hold responsible for his horrible crime?

If you assume free will doesn't exist, then yes they are irrational. Of course, if free will doesn't exist you can't exactly stop yourself from feeling them anyway, so that's kinda moot. And holding people responsible is pointless, because they didn't have any way to stop themselves from doing what they did, as they have no free will. It's like holding a computer responsible for following its programming.

Of course that's if you believe that free will doesn't exist. I'm not convinced either way on the topic.

Also it's funny to see religious people complain about others giving lazy answers and telling them not to stop asking important existensial questions.

Quote from: "SimonaM""o Free will impossibilism renders irrational a whole range of negative emotions, including

guilt, regret, shame, remorse, indignation, anger, disgust, outrage, resentment, contempt

and hatred

? When one realizes that no one can be ultimately responsible for their actions, all of

these emotions are rendered irrational

? However, with respect to one's own past actions that may have hurt others, one

may still apologize, attempt to rectify the situation, and vow to act differently in the

future. And with respect to others' hurtful actions, one may still respond for the

sake of deterrence.

o Existential skepticism eliminates anxiety caused by a disconnect between events and what

one would otherwise judge to be the meaning or purpose of life"

 So being disgusted, angered, outraged, full of hatred toward the russian guy who fed a little girl to his dogs is irrational?
 How come he is not to be hold responsible for his horrible crime?
 J.P.Sartre was also an existenstialist, yet, he never stopped asking himself the most honest, natural, logical and human question that one may ask himself: who am I? why am I here? why was I born? what is death? The fact that no one can answer these questions does not mean that you must stop asking them.
 Man, your philosophy lacks honesty. Put honesty in your work and rather than provide answers and draw lazy conclusions I suggest you should raise questions (this is what philosophers actually do!).

Thank you for at least taking a look at the document.

Yes, disgust, anger, outrage and hatred are irrational, once one realizes that no one can be ultimately responsible for their actions.  This is a highly therapeutically beneficial realization.  Punishment may still make sense, but for pragmatic reasons (such as deterrence, quarantine, and/or rehabilitation), not for retribution.

I have asked myself a number of questions, and after considerable research and thought, I have reached some conclusions.  There is nothing lazy or dishonest about my philosophy.

Quote from: "SimonaM"Also, there is no such thing as negative emotions. Emotions are emotions.

 Anger can be very fertile if it´s not pointed toward the others but toward ourselves. There are a lot of people who manage to change their lives and to achieve something good by actually getting angry on themselves.

Please read the document more carefully.  In the document, I define "negative emotion" as any emotion that feels uncomfortable.  And it is undeniable that some emotions feel uncomfortable.  Therefore, negative emotions exist.

Anger is not required to "change one's life" or to "achieve something good".

Quote from: "Plu"

QuoteSo being disgusted, angered, outraged, full of hatred toward the russian guy who fed a little girl to his dogs is irrational?
How come he is not to be hold responsible for his horrible crime?

If you assume free will doesn't exist, then yes they are irrational. Of course, if free will doesn't exist you can't exactly stop yourself from feeling them anyway, so that's kinda moot.

Please note that I define "free will" in terms of ultimate responsibility.  In other words, I believe that we do have so-called "compatibilist free will," so I believe that with enough effort, we can reduce or eliminate negative emotions.

Hm, having read through your document I feel that while you are right that one cannot be ultimately held responsible for their actions, by the way you define free will people can still be held somewhat responsible for their actions, which means reactions aren't entirely irrational.

It brings to mind the saying "he should've known better". If you can change your path in life, you can avoid bad doing things as well. And that means you might be responsible for the things you do under some circumstances.

I also disagree that you cannot feel significant negative emotions and happiness at the same time. It is quite possible to be happy with some things that are happening and angry/sad/distressed/regretful at others.

Quote from: "Philosofer123"

Quote from: "PickelledEggs"Executive, eh? Sounds cool. What were you an executive of?

To protect my anonymity, I am not providing any additional personal information at this time.

Thank you for your understanding.

...and you lost me. Good luck getting other saps to find and read your manifesto for you.

Quote from: "SimonaM""o Free will impossibilism renders irrational a whole range of negative emotions, including

guilt, regret, shame, remorse, indignation, anger, disgust, outrage, resentment, contempt

and hatred

? When one realizes that no one can be ultimately responsible for their actions, all of

these emotions are rendered irrational

? However, with respect to one's own past actions that may have hurt others, one

may still apologize, attempt to rectify the situation, and vow to act differently in the

future. And with respect to others' hurtful actions, one may still respond for the

sake of deterrence.

o Existential skepticism eliminates anxiety caused by a disconnect between events and what

one would otherwise judge to be the meaning or purpose of life"

 So being disgusted, angered, outraged, full of hatred toward the russian guy who fed a little girl to his dogs is irrational?
 How come he is not to be hold responsible for his horrible crime?
 J.P.Sartre was also an existenstialist, yet, he never stopped asking himself the most honest, natural, logical and human question that one may ask himself: who am I? why am I here? why was I born? what is death? The fact that no one can answer these questions does not mean that you must stop asking them.
 Man, your philosophy lacks honesty. Put honesty in your work and rather than provide answers and draw lazy conclusions I suggest you should raise questions (this is what philosophers actually do!).

If a tree falls in a woods and lands on a human and no one hears it, is it responsible for doing it?  :lol:   Solitary

Quote from: "Philosofer123"

Quote from: "Plu"

QuoteSo being disgusted, angered, outraged, full of hatred toward the russian guy who fed a little girl to his dogs is irrational?
How come he is not to be hold responsible for his horrible crime?

If you assume free will doesn't exist, then yes they are irrational. Of course, if free will doesn't exist you can't exactly stop yourself from feeling them anyway, so that's kinda moot.

Please note that I define "free will" in terms of ultimate responsibility.  In other words, I believe that we do have so-called "compatibilist free will," so I believe that with enough effort, we can reduce or eliminate negative emotions.

I'd like to see how that works by dropping you out of an airplane at 30,000 feet without a parachute. :shock:  :roll:  Solitary

Quote from: "Solitary"

Quote from: "SimonaM""o Free will impossibilism renders irrational a whole range of negative emotions, including

guilt, regret, shame, remorse, indignation, anger, disgust, outrage, resentment, contempt

and hatred

? When one realizes that no one can be ultimately responsible for their actions, all of

these emotions are rendered irrational

? However, with respect to one's own past actions that may have hurt others, one

may still apologize, attempt to rectify the situation, and vow to act differently in the

future. And with respect to others' hurtful actions, one may still respond for the

sake of deterrence.

o Existential skepticism eliminates anxiety caused by a disconnect between events and what

one would otherwise judge to be the meaning or purpose of life"

 So being disgusted, angered, outraged, full of hatred toward the russian guy who fed a little girl to his dogs is irrational?
 How come he is not to be hold responsible for his horrible crime?
 J.P.Sartre was also an existenstialist, yet, he never stopped asking himself the most honest, natural, logical and human question that one may ask himself: who am I? why am I here? why was I born? what is death? The fact that no one can answer these questions does not mean that you must stop asking them.
 Man, your philosophy lacks honesty. Put honesty in your work and rather than provide answers and draw lazy conclusions I suggest you should raise questions (this is what philosophers actually do!).

If a tree falls in a woods and lands on a human and no one hears it, is it responsible for doing it?  :lol:   Solitary

 Oh, I´m sorry, I forgot that there are some people to whom you need to explain letter by letter what you´re saying because their minds simply cannot make a commun logical connection. So, I will reformulate and take the time to explain to you, solitary, what I have ment when I asked "Who is to be hold responsible for this horrible crime?". Any person with an average IQ would have understood that I was questioning the concept of the "free will impossibilism" applyed to human beings (whom I believe to be capable of making moral choices) and not to a tree, nor to the dogs that ate the girl (that was my example).

Quote from: "SimonaM"

Quote from: "Solitary"

Quote from: "SimonaM""o Free will impossibilism renders irrational a whole range of negative emotions, including

guilt, regret, shame, remorse, indignation, anger, disgust, outrage, resentment, contempt

and hatred

? When one realizes that no one can be ultimately responsible for their actions, all of

these emotions are rendered irrational

? However, with respect to one's own past actions that may have hurt others, one

may still apologize, attempt to rectify the situation, and vow to act differently in the

future. And with respect to others' hurtful actions, one may still respond for the

sake of deterrence.

o Existential skepticism eliminates anxiety caused by a disconnect between events and what

one would otherwise judge to be the meaning or purpose of life"

 So being disgusted, angered, outraged, full of hatred toward the russian guy who fed a little girl to his dogs is irrational?
 How come he is not to be hold responsible for his horrible crime?
 J.P.Sartre was also an existenstialist, yet, he never stopped asking himself the most honest, natural, logical and human question that one may ask himself: who am I? why am I here? why was I born? what is death? The fact that no one can answer these questions does not mean that you must stop asking them.
 Man, your philosophy lacks honesty. Put honesty in your work and rather than provide answers and draw lazy conclusions I suggest you should raise questions (this is what philosophers actually do!).

If a tree falls in a woods and lands on a human and no one hears it, is it responsible for doing it?  :lol:   Solitary

 Oh, I´m sorry, I forgot that there are some people to whom you need to explain letter by letter what you´re saying because their minds simply cannot make a commun logical connection. So, I will reformulate and take the time to explain to you, solitary, what I have ment when I asked "Who is to be hold responsible for this horrible crime?". Any person with an average IQ would have understood that I was questioning the concept of the "free will impossibilism" applyed to human beings (whom I believe to be capable of making moral choices) and not to a tree, nor to the dogs that ate the girl (that was my example).

1) Being condescending is damaging your position emensely.
2) Solidarity has an enormously high IQ, I dare say probably much higher than yours.

Quote from: "SimonaM"

Quote from: "Solitary"

Quote from: "SimonaM""o Free will impossibilism renders irrational a whole range of negative emotions, including

guilt, regret, shame, remorse, indignation, anger, disgust, outrage, resentment, contempt

and hatred

? When one realizes that no one can be ultimately responsible for their actions, all of

these emotions are rendered irrational

? However, with respect to one's own past actions that may have hurt others, one

may still apologize, attempt to rectify the situation, and vow to act differently in the

future. And with respect to others' hurtful actions, one may still respond for the

sake of deterrence.

o Existential skepticism eliminates anxiety caused by a disconnect between events and what

one would otherwise judge to be the meaning or purpose of life"

 So being disgusted, angered, outraged, full of hatred toward the russian guy who fed a little girl to his dogs is irrational?
 How come he is not to be hold responsible for his horrible crime?
 J.P.Sartre was also an existenstialist, yet, he never stopped asking himself the most honest, natural, logical and human question that one may ask himself: who am I? why am I here? why was I born? what is death? The fact that no one can answer these questions does not mean that you must stop asking them.
 Man, your philosophy lacks honesty. Put honesty in your work and rather than provide answers and draw lazy conclusions I suggest you should raise questions (this is what philosophers actually do!).

If a tree falls in a woods and lands on a human and no one hears it, is it responsible for doing it?  :lol:   Solitary

 Oh, I´m sorry, I forgot that there are some people to whom you need to explain letter by letter what you´re saying because their minds simply cannot make a commun logical connection. So, I will reformulate and take the time to explain to you, solitary, what I have ment when I asked "Who is to be hold responsible for this horrible crime?". Any person with an average IQ would have understood that I was questioning the concept of the "free will impossibilism" applyed to human beings (whom I believe to be capable of making moral choices) and not to a tree, nor to the dogs that ate the girl (that was my example).

You obviously don't get the point I was making. A tree doesn't have free will and yet it is responsible for it's actions just like a person that doesn't have free will is. You assume a person has moral choices to make because they have freewill, and have freewill because they can make moral choices, an argument that is circular and not logical.  And your sarcasm is noted and not appreciated.  :P   [-X  Solitary

QuoteAny person with an average IQ would have understood that I was questioning the concept of the "free will impossibilism" applyed to human beings (whom I believe to be capable of making moral choices)

The question is, can you back up your belief that humans are capable of moral choices the way philosofer did, or are you just operating on wishful thinking, making your opinions worthless?

You have critique, but you have nothing to show that your critique is based on facts or rational arguments. It just sounds like the fairly common "I want the world to be X, so you must be wrong for thinking differently."

Free will is something we have debated here often. If you believe in determinism, or that a god has infinite knowledge of your past and future, then free will in the larger context does not exist. Your capacity for free will is also modified by a number of factors including environment, culture, genetic predisposition and so on. Yet at the end of all that, I can claim to have free will.

I can make a rational choice based on known factors and evidence available to me at the time. free will is ultimately about rational choice. In that context, I have free will.

Quote from: "Plu"Hm, having read through your document I feel that while you are right that one cannot be ultimately held responsible for their actions, by the way you define free will people can still be held somewhat responsible for their actions, which means reactions aren't entirely irrational.

It brings to mind the saying "he should've known better". If you can change your path in life, you can avoid bad doing things as well. And that means you might be responsible for the things you do under some circumstances.

Thank you for reading and commenting.

The way in which you decide to "change your path in life" is a function of how you are, mentally speaking.  And you cannot be responsible for how you are, because how you are is ultimately, in every detail, a matter of luck (as shown by the regress argument).  Therefore, you cannot be truly responsible for changing your path in life, or for any of the resulting effects.

Quote from: "Plu"I also disagree that you cannot feel significant negative emotions and happiness at the same time. It is quite possible to be happy with some things that are happening and angry/sad/distressed/regretful at others.

Recall that I define happiness as "any of a spectrum of agreeable mental states ranging from contentment to intense joy".  Under this definition, one cannot feel significant negative emotions and be happy at the same time.

Quote from: "stromboli"Free will is something we have debated here often. If you believe in determinism, or that a god has infinite knowledge of your past and future, then free will in the larger context does not exist. Your capacity for free will is also modified by a number of factors including environment, culture, genetic predisposition and so on. Yet at the end of all that, I can claim to have free will.

I can make a rational choice based on known factors and evidence available to me at the time. free will is ultimately about rational choice. In that context, I have free will.

You are describing compatibilist free will.  Please see my comment above.

Quote from: "stromboli"Free will is something we have debated here often. If you believe in determinism, or that a god has infinite knowledge of your past and future, then free will in the larger context does not exist. Your capacity for free will is also modified by a number of factors including environment, culture, genetic predisposition and so on. Yet at the end of all that, I can claim to have free will.

I can make a rational choice based on known factors and evidence available to me at the time. free will is ultimately about rational choice. In that context, I have free will.

Determinism is assumed to mean X therefore Y, but it really means that an infinite amount of events determine an out come, not I make a choice based on the fact I have freewill. You have will power and can make a choice, but that does not imply it is freely done and not determined by events unknowed to you that are unconsciously done. When you drive a car you are not conscious of decisions you do after you have learned to drive, but the first time you are very much aware which makes it hard at first before the car becomes part of you unconsciously. I'm not saying you can't make a choice, but where does free will fit in when you do it when so many variables come into play when all it takes is will power to do it? In other words I'm not denying will power that enables you to choose,   just that it is not freely done. Can you choose to make any choice you want, like all at once becoming a Christian or serial killer? If not, you don't have free will. Solitary

Quote from: "Solitary"

Quote from: "stromboli"Free will is something we have debated here often. If you believe in determinism, or that a god has infinite knowledge of your past and future, then free will in the larger context does not exist. Your capacity for free will is also modified by a number of factors including environment, culture, genetic predisposition and so on. Yet at the end of all that, I can claim to have free will.

I can make a rational choice based on known factors and evidence available to me at the time. free will is ultimately about rational choice. In that context, I have free will.

Determinism is assumed to mean X therefore Y, but it really means that an infinite amount of events determine an out come, not I make a choice based on the fact I have freewill. You have will power and can make a choice, but that does not imply it is freely done and not determined by events unknowed to you that are unconsciously done. When you drive a car you are not conscious of decisions you do after you have learned to drive, but the first time you are very much aware which makes it hard at first before the car becomes part of you unconsciously. I'm not saying you can't make a choice, but where does free will fit in when you do it when so many variables come into play when all it takes is will power to do it? In other words I'm not denying will power that enables you to choose,   just that it is not freely done. Can you choose to make any choice you want, like all at once becoming a Christian or serial killer? If not, you don't have free will. Solitary

Great post !

Quote from: "Solitary"

Quote from: "stromboli"Free will is something we have debated here often. If you believe in determinism, or that a god has infinite knowledge of your past and future, then free will in the larger context does not exist. Your capacity for free will is also modified by a number of factors including environment, culture, genetic predisposition and so on. Yet at the end of all that, I can claim to have free will.

I can make a rational choice based on known factors and evidence available to me at the time. free will is ultimately about rational choice. In that context, I have free will.

Determinism is assumed to mean X therefore Y, but it really means that an infinite amount of events determine an out come, not I make a choice based on the fact I have freewill. You have will power and can make a choice, but that does not imply it is freely done and not determined by events unknowed to you that are unconsciously done. When you drive a car you are not conscious of decisions you do after you have learned to drive, but the first time you are very much aware which makes it hard at first before the car becomes part of you unconsciously. I'm not saying you can't make a choice, but where does free will fit in when you do it when so many variables come into play when all it takes is will power to do it? In other words I'm not denying will power that enables you to choose,   just that it is not freely done. Can you choose to make any choice you want, like all at once becoming a Christian or serial killer? If not, you don't have free will. Solitary

Great post !

QuoteThe way in which you decide to "change your path in life" is a function of how you are, mentally speaking. And you cannot be responsible for how you are, because how you are is ultimately, in every detail, a matter of luck (as shown by the regress argument). Therefore, you cannot be truly responsible for changing your path in life, or for any of the resulting effects.

Under this assumption you are also not able to change your outlook on life the way you claim is possible. It's either going to happen or it's not, but that's not in your hands.

Quote from: "SimonaM"Oh, I´m sorry, I forgot that there are some people to whom you need to explain letter by letter what you´re saying because their minds simply cannot make a commun logical connection. So, I will reformulate and take the time to explain to you, solitary, what I have ment when I asked "Who is to be hold responsible for this horrible crime?". Any person with an average IQ would have understood that I was questioning the concept of the "free will impossibilism" applyed to human beings (whom I believe to be capable of making moral choices) and not to a tree, nor to the dogs that ate the girl (that was my example).

The problem is not our IQs, but your inability to post something that isn't incomprehensible gobbledygook. Perhaps if you said what you meant and meant what you said, you wouldn't have this problem. It follows the old saying: "You can do it right, or you can do it again."

Quote from: "Plu"

QuoteThe way in which you decide to "change your path in life" is a function of how you are, mentally speaking. And you cannot be responsible for how you are, because how you are is ultimately, in every detail, a matter of luck (as shown by the regress argument). Therefore, you cannot be truly responsible for changing your path in life, or for any of the resulting effects.

Under this assumption you are also not able to change your outlook on life the way you claim is possible. It's either going to happen or it's not, but that's not in your hands.

Not at all.  There is no inconsistency between the impossibility of being ultimately responsible for one's actions (that is, the impossibility of incompatibilist or contra-causal free will) and being able to change one's outlook on life.  The latter requires only compatibilist free will, which is perfectly compatible with my philosophy.

Quote from: "Solitary"

Quote from: "stromboli"Free will is something we have debated here often. If you believe in determinism, or that a god has infinite knowledge of your past and future, then free will in the larger context does not exist. Your capacity for free will is also modified by a number of factors including environment, culture, genetic predisposition and so on. Yet at the end of all that, I can claim to have free will.

I can make a rational choice based on known factors and evidence available to me at the time. free will is ultimately about rational choice. In that context, I have free will.

Determinism is assumed to mean X therefore Y, but it really means that an infinite amount of events determine an out come, not I make a choice based on the fact I have freewill. You have will power and can make a choice, but that does not imply it is freely done and not determined by events unknowed to you that are unconsciously done. When you drive a car you are not conscious of decisions you do after you have learned to drive, but the first time you are very much aware which makes it hard at first before the car becomes part of you unconsciously. I'm not saying you can't make a choice, but where does free will fit in when you do it when so many variables come into play when all it takes is will power to do it? In other words I'm not denying will power that enables you to choose,   just that it is not freely done. Can you choose to make any choice you want, like all at once becoming a Christian or serial killer? If not, you don't have free will. Solitary

Yes, but. The point is that it is experiential. If I make a conscious act of choosing between two or more choices, regardless of how you paint the bigger picture, that is an act of free will. If a god exists that knows the outcome of my choice before it happens, then in the larger sense it is not a free choice. But still, experientially, it is a free choice. If I choose to take my own life as a rational choice in a society that is against the action, I have made a choice based on parameters that I have found to be valid.

(edit) and this is why I don't like philosophy. Because it always turns into he said, she said, "but according to kant"........bleep bleep bleep dribble. Gag me. I'm done.

Quote from: "Philosofer123"

Quote from: "Plu"

QuoteThe way in which you decide to "change your path in life" is a function of how you are, mentally speaking. And you cannot be responsible for how you are, because how you are is ultimately, in every detail, a matter of luck (as shown by the regress argument). Therefore, you cannot be truly responsible for changing your path in life, or for any of the resulting effects.

Under this assumption you are also not able to change your outlook on life the way you claim is possible. It's either going to happen or it's not, but that's not in your hands.

Not at all.  There is no inconsistency between the impossibility of being ultimately responsible for one's actions (that is, the impossibility of incompatibilist or contra-causal free will) and being able to change one's outlook on life.  The latter requires only compatibilist free will, which is perfectly compatible with my philosophy.

You might not be ultimately responsible for your actions, but you are still somewhat responsible for your actions if you can change your outlook on life. Which means that you can still be held responsible for what you do in certain situations.

It makes no sense to have a system where you can make choices but are not responsible for them. You don't need ultimate responsibility to be responsible for the choices you can make.

Quote from: "Plu"

Quote from: "Philosofer123"Not at all.  There is no inconsistency between the impossibility of being ultimately responsible for one's actions (that is, the impossibility of incompatibilist or contra-causal free will) and being able to change one's outlook on life.  The latter requires only compatibilist free will, which is perfectly compatible with my philosophy.

You might not be ultimately responsible for your actions, but you are still somewhat responsible for your actions if you can change your outlook on life. Which means that you can still be held responsible for what you do in certain situations.

You can change your outlook on life, but you cannot be responsible for changing your outlook on life.  Therefore, you cannot be truly responsible for any of the effects of changing your outlook on life, such as what you do.

Quote from: "Plu"It makes no sense to have a system where you can make choices but are not responsible for them. You don't need ultimate responsibility to be responsible for the choices you can make.

It makes perfect sense.  Consider the following analogy:

Bob is normally a very nice and altruistic individual.  But one day, he is kidnapped and hypnotized to be vicious and selfish.  Under hypnosis, he chooses mug a stranger.  Would you hold Bob responsible for his choice to mug?  Clearly not, since Bob cannot be held responsible for the way he is under hypnosis.  But analogously, the regress argument demonstrates that no one can be responsible for the way that they are--that is, the way that they are is, in every detail, a matter of luck.  And our choices are a function of the way we are.  Hence, we cannot be truly responsible for our choices.

Quote from: "stromboli"

Quote from: "Solitary"

Quote from: "stromboli"Free will is something we have debated here often. If you believe in determinism, or that a god has infinite knowledge of your past and future, then free will in the larger context does not exist. Your capacity for free will is also modified by a number of factors including environment, culture, genetic predisposition and so on. Yet at the end of all that, I can claim to have free will.

I can make a rational choice based on known factors and evidence available to me at the time. free will is ultimately about rational choice. In that context, I have free will.

Determinism is assumed to mean X therefore Y, but it really means that an infinite amount of events determine an out come, not I make a choice based on the fact I have freewill. You have will power and can make a choice, but that does not imply it is freely done and not determined by events unknowed to you that are unconsciously done. When you drive a car you are not conscious of decisions you do after you have learned to drive, but the first time you are very much aware which makes it hard at first before the car becomes part of you unconsciously. I'm not saying you can't make a choice, but where does free will fit in when you do it when so many variables come into play when all it takes is will power to do it? In other words I'm not denying will power that enables you to choose,   just that it is not freely done. Can you choose to make any choice you want, like all at once becoming a Christian or serial killer? If not, you don't have free will. Solitary

Yes, but. The point is that it is experiential. If I make a conscious act of choosing between two or more choices, regardless of how you paint the bigger picture, that is an act of free will (No it isn't, it is an act of will power only.) If a god exists (He doesn't exist and changes nothing.) that knows the outcome of my choice before it happens, then in the larger sense it is not a free choice. But still, experientially, it is a free choice. If I choose to take my own life as a rational choice in a society that is against the action, I have made a choice based on parameters that I have found to be valid. Right, and those parameters determine the outcome from your will power.

(edit) and this is why I don't like philosophy. Because it always turns into he said, she said, "but according to kant"........bleep bleep bleep dribble. Gag me. I'm done.

^^^^ I hear you solitary . :)

Quote from: "Philosofer123"

Quote from: "Plu"

Quote from: "Philosofer123"Not at all.  There is no inconsistency between the impossibility of being ultimately responsible for one's actions (that is, the impossibility of incompatibilist or contra-causal free will) and being able to change one's outlook on life.  The latter requires only compatibilist free will, which is perfectly compatible with my philosophy.

You might not be ultimately responsible for your actions, but you are still somewhat responsible for your actions if you can change your outlook on life. Which means that you can still be held responsible for what you do in certain situations.

You can change your outlook on life, but you cannot be responsible for changing your outlook on life.  Therefore, you cannot be truly responsible for any of the effects of changing your outlook on life, such as what you do.

Quote from: "Plu"It makes no sense to have a system where you can make choices but are not responsible for them. You don't need ultimate responsibility to be responsible for the choices you can make.

It makes perfect sense.  Consider the following analogy:

Bob is normally a very nice and altruistic individual.  But one day, he is kidnapped and hypnotized to be vicious and selfish.  Under hypnosis, he chooses mug a stranger.  Would you hold Bob responsible for his choice to mug?  Clearly not, since Bob cannot be held responsible for the way he is under hypnosis.  But analogously, the regress argument demonstrates that no one can be responsible for the way that they are--that is, the way that they are is, in every detail, a matter of luck.  And our choices are a function of the way we are.  Hence, we cannot be truly responsible for our choices.

No, this is poor reasoning. The infinite regress argument fails the moment it bounces on a point where you did what you did because of a choice you made, because at that point you are responsible for choosing that path instead of another that would have avoided the point where you are now.

If the bad thing is in branch A, but you have stood at a point previous where you had the choice between taking branch A with the bad thing or branch B without the bad thing, then you are now responsible for the occurance of the bad things in branch A, as you could have also chosen to take branch B. (Becoming responsible obviously for any bad things that might happen to be in branch B)

Saying we cannot be responsible because we do not control every little part of our life is trying to dodge your way out of taking any kind of responsibility for the parts we do control.

Quote from: "Plu"No, this is poor reasoning. The infinite regress argument fails the moment it bounces on a point where you did what you did because of a choice you made, because at that point you are responsible for choosing that path instead of another that would have avoided the point where you are now.

I'm afraid not.  The regress argument successfully demonstrates that every single choice you make is ultimately a matter of luck.  Hence, you cannot be held truly responsible for any of your choices.

Quote from: "Plu"Saying we cannot be responsible because we do not control every little part of our life is trying to dodge your way out of taking any kind of responsibility for the parts we do control.

The regress argument demonstrates that we do not have ultimate control over any part of our lives.

There is a problem here with the word responsible. A tornado is responsible for the damage it causes, is it not. You can still be held responsible for what you do even if you don't have freewill, to protect society for example. We kill a vicious animal that causes harm because it was responsible for doing it even if it has freewill or not. Where did this concept of freewill come from? Religion and the belief in a god. There is only will power, which enables us to choose right or wrong for many reasons we have no control over. intelligence and just a little brain power is all that is required to know not to do something to another sentient creature you don't want done to yourself. No God needed or required. When the Nazi's did with their will and choice was an example of moral idiocy even though they were intelligent in other ways. Solitary

Quote from: "Solitary"There is a problem here with the word responsible. A tornado is responsible for the damage it causes, is it not. You can still be held responsible for what you do even if you don't have freewill, to protect society for example. We kill a vicious animal that causes harm because it was responsible for doing it even if it has freewill or not. Where did this concept of freewill come from? Religion and the belief in a god. There is only will power, which enables us to choose right or wrong for many reasons we have no control over. intelligence and just a little brain power is all that is required to know not to do something to another sentient creature you don't want done to yourself. No God needed or required. When the Nazi's did with their will and choice was an example of moral idiocy even though they were intelligent in other ways. Solitary

Yes, the tornado, in some sense, is responsible for the damage it causes.  But at the same time, it makes no sense to get angry at the tornado.  Analogously, it makes no sense to get angry at someone who is proximately responsible, but not ultimately responsible, for their actions.  And the regress argument demonstrates that no one can be ultimately responsible for anything.  Therefore, the impossibility of free will in the way I define it (in terms of ultimate responsibility) has great therapeutic benefits.  Namely, it renders irrational a number of negative emotions, including anger and regret.  And this is the primary purpose of including free will impossibilism in my philosophy.

That said, as you note, punishment may still be appropriate for pragmatic reasons--such as deterrence, quarantine, and perhaps rehabilitation.  But if no one can be ultimately responsible for anything, then punishment for retributive reasons makes no sense.

QuoteThe regress argument demonstrates that we do not have ultimate control over any part of our lives.

That means it's also ultimately not possible to change your outlook on life. You can't have the one without the other. If you make a choice, you're responsible for it. If you can change your outlook on life, you are responsible for that change, since you could have also made another choice.

If you're not responsible for anything, you also cannot be responsible for changing your outlook on life, which means it's not you making that choice, as making a choice is requires taking responsibility for it.

If you can't agree with that, I can't agree with your definitions of 'choice' and 'responsibility' and your entire philosophy becomes worthless to me. Sorry.

Quote from: "Plu"

QuoteThe regress argument demonstrates that we do not have ultimate control over any part of our lives.

That means it's also ultimately not possible to change your outlook on life. You can't have the one without the other. If you make a choice, you're responsible for it. If you can change your outlook on life, you are responsible for that change, since you could have also made another choice.

If you're not responsible for anything, you also cannot be responsible for changing your outlook on life, which means it's not you making that choice, as making a choice is requires taking responsibility for it.

If you can't agree with that, I can't agree with your definitions of 'choice' and 'responsibility' and your entire philosophy becomes worthless to me. Sorry.

I think that this guy is trying and very poorly I might add, to prove that there is a god that has predestined everything. He is just another chew toy. Have fun Plu!

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"

Quote from: "SimonaM"Oh, I´m sorry, I forgot that there are some people to whom you need to explain letter by letter what you´re saying because their minds simply cannot make a commun logical connection. So, I will reformulate and take the time to explain to you, solitary, what I have ment when I asked "Who is to be hold responsible for this horrible crime?". Any person with an average IQ would have understood that I was questioning the concept of the "free will impossibilism" applyed to human beings (whom I believe to be capable of making moral choices) and not to a tree, nor to the dogs that ate the girl (that was my example).

The problem is not our IQs, but your inability to post something that isn't incomprehensible gobbledygook. Perhaps if you said what you meant and meant what you said, you wouldn't have this problem. It follows the old saying: "You can do it right, or you can do it again."

 Why do you say "our IQs"? Do you have multiple personalities or you´re just too coward to speak in your own name?

Nah, he knows us well enough to speak for multiple people on these forums.

Keep in mind that "our" always includes the speaker, you seem to have missed that  :roll:

Quote from: "Plu"

QuoteThe regress argument demonstrates that we do not have ultimate control over any part of our lives.

That means it's also ultimately not possible to change your outlook on life. You can't have the one without the other.

It is clearly possible to change your outlook on life.  Many people, including myself, have done exactly that.

Quote from: "Plu"If you make a choice, you're responsible for it. If you can change your outlook on life, you are responsible for that change, since you could have also made another choice.

You are proximately responsible, but you cannot be ultimately responsible.  This is established by the regress argument.  And as I have pointed out, it is ultimate responsibility that is required for the rationality of emotions such as anger and regret.

Quote from: "Plu"If you're not responsible for anything, you also cannot be responsible for changing your outlook on life, which means it's not you making that choice, as making a choice is requires taking responsibility for it.

Again, you can make choices and be proximately responsible, and you can be proximately responsible for changing your outlook on life, but you cannot be ultimately responsible.  

Quote from: "Plu"If you can't agree with that, I can't agree with your definitions of 'choice' and 'responsibility' and your entire philosophy becomes worthless to me. Sorry.

That's okay.

QuoteYou are proximately responsible, but you cannot be ultimately responsible. This is established by the regress argument. And as I have pointed out, it is ultimate responsibility that is required for the rationality of emotions such as anger and regret.

You have not shown how ultimate responsibility is a requirement for rationality of negative emotions. You have only shown that we don't have it, and that if you have no responsibility these emotions aren't valid. There is no reasoning as to why you can't be legitimately angry with someone who is proximately responsible. It's perfectly valid to be just that.

Quote from: "Plu"

QuoteYou are proximately responsible, but you cannot be ultimately responsible. This is established by the regress argument. And as I have pointed out, it is ultimate responsibility that is required for the rationality of emotions such as anger and regret.

You have not shown how ultimate responsibility is a requirement for rationality of negative emotions. You have only shown that we don't have it, and that if you have no responsibility these emotions aren't valid. There is no reasoning as to why you can't be legitimately angry with someone who is proximately responsible. It's perfectly valid to be just that.

I have already demonstrated by analogy why it makes no sense to be angry with someone who is not ultimately responsible for their actions.  But let me try again:

Consider Bob, who has been a perfectly nice individual throughout his life.  But then Bob develops a brain tumor that completely changes his personality and character.  He becomes selfish and vicious.  He then chooses to mug an innocent bystander.

Does it make sense to be angry at Bob?  He is proximately responsible for the mugging, as he chose to do it.  But he is not ultimately responsible, as his brain tumor is what caused the personality/character transformation that led him to choose to mug.  I submit that it does not make sense to be angry at Bob, as he is simply the victim of a tumor.  Analogously, the regress argument demonstrates that no one can be ultimately responsible for their actions.  That is, our actions are ultimately the result of hereditary factors, our environment, and perhaps random/indeterministic factors.  Therefore, anger is irrational.

That's a poor example. The brain tumor causes bob to be not even proximately responsible for his actions, which was the whole thing you were trying to prove. Proximate responsibility for an action requires the actor to have at least one path that wil let them avoid taking that action.

If we take a simple example like bob being trapped in a room with two buttons, and given the information that if he presses the left one he gets $100 and if he presses the right one his best friend will die, and we add that bob has a reasonable education and understands what is asked of him, then bob will have proximite responsibility for whichever action he picks, and we can be legimately angry with him.

Quote from: "Plu"That's a poor example. The brain tumor causes bob to be not even proximately responsible for his actions, which was the whole thing you were trying to prove. Proximate responsibility for an action requires the actor to have at least one path that wil let them avoid taking that action.

Bob did have a path that would let him avoid taking the action.  He could simply have chosen not to mug.  Simply being selfish and vicious did not compel Bob to mug; he still made a choice.

Quote from: "Plu"If we take a simple example like bob being trapped in a room with two buttons, and given the information that if he presses the left one he gets $100 and if he presses the right one his best friend will die, and we add that bob has a reasonable education and understands what is asked of him, then bob will have proximite responsibility for whichever action he picks, and we can be legimately angry with him.

Yes, he would have proximate responsibility, but no, we cannot be legitimately angry with him.  This is because Bob's action is ultimately a function of factors beyond his control--hereditary factors, environment, and perhaps random/indeterministic factors.  Bob is a victim of these factors, just as much as he is a victim of a brain tumor in the analogy I provided.

I guess I'll just have to disagree with your philosophy then. Good luck selling it to others.

Quote from: "Plu"I guess I'll just have to disagree with your philosophy then. Good luck selling it to others.

I am not trying to "sell" my philosophy.  As noted in the OP, I am posting my philosophy in order to solicit feedback so that it may be improved.  It would not bother me if no one else agreed with it.

Thank you for your comments, Plu.

Quote from: "Philosofer123"

Quote from: "Solitary"There is a problem here with the word responsible. A tornado is responsible for the damage it causes, is it not. You can still be held responsible for what you do even if you don't have freewill, to protect society for example. We kill a vicious animal that causes harm because it was responsible for doing it even if it has freewill or not. Where did this concept of freewill come from? Religion and the belief in a god. There is only will power, which enables us to choose right or wrong for many reasons we have no control over. intelligence and just a little brain power is all that is required to know not to do something to another sentient creature you don't want done to yourself. No God needed or required. When the Nazi's did with their will and choice was an example of moral idiocy even though they were intelligent in other ways. Solitary

Yes, the tornado, in some sense, is responsible for the damage it causes.  But at the same time, it makes no sense to get angry at the tornado.  Analogously, it makes no sense to get angry at someone who is proximately responsible, but not ultimately responsible, for their actions.  And the regress argument demonstrates that no one can be ultimately responsible for anything.  Therefore, the impossibility of free will in the way I define it (in terms of ultimate responsibility) has great therapeutic benefits.  Namely, it renders irrational a number of negative emotions, including anger and regret.  And this is the primary purpose of including free will impossibilism in my philosophy.

That said, as you note, punishment may still be appropriate for pragmatic reasons--such as deterrence, quarantine, and perhaps rehabilitation.  But if no one can be ultimately responsible for anything, then punishment for retributive reasons makes no sense.

I agree, and why it has helped me with not wanting to roast OJ alive. But if it was my daughter or son that he did it to all bets are off.  :evil:  Solitary

Quote from: "Philosofer123"Yes, he would have proximate responsibility, but no, we cannot be legitimately angry with him.  This is because Bob's action is ultimately a function of factors beyond his control--hereditary factors, environment, and perhaps random/indeterministic factors.  Bob is a victim of these factors, just as much as he is a victim of a brain tumor in the analogy I provided.

I'm a bit late in this discussion, I haven't read the thread from the beginning, just a few recent posts, and Plu is having fun with you- one more reasons to barge in,  :wink: , anyways, what I would like to point out is the evolutionary angle that seems to be missing from your arguments. Emotions were/are necessary for our survival. For most species, the invidual has an inbuilt trigger to fight or flee. Also having invested a considerable amount of time and energy in raising our offsprings ( passing on our DNA), it is also a matter of survival to make sure our offsprings survive our own mortality. Imagine a mother not reacting if one of its offsprings were to be attacked. You can rest assured that such a species would have been longtime extinct.

Now why would I be angry with Bob? Because I would perceive that if he can attack anyone, he can certainly me, or one of my offsprings that carry my DNA. It's natural for me to see that this individual to be taken care - that is, neutralized so that he is no longer a threat. Now, along this, civilization was born, and many of our institutions were built around the very concept of our survival - think law and order with all its apparatus of police, judges, courts, jails, etc. Those are in place not only to do the noble "justice" ideal that philosophers have been pondering for ages, but at the very fundamental level, to ensure our survival both as individual and the survival of that society. Of course, there are situations in which the survival of the individual clashes with the survival of the society - but that is a different debate, good for another thread.

As to your point, "we cannot be legitimately angry with him," I say, we do get angry, and we can't help it. It's a reaction born out of million of years in the struggle for survival that was passed one from species to species, from individual to individual. Not getting angry would be abnormal and dangerous as it could spell the end of our will to survival.

Quote from: "Plu"

QuoteThe regress argument demonstrates that we do not have ultimate control over any part of our lives.

That means it's also ultimately not possible to change your outlook on life. You can't have the one without the other. If you make a choice, you're responsible for it. If you can change your outlook on life, you are responsible for that change, since you could have also made another choice.

If you're not responsible for anything, you also cannot be responsible for changing your outlook on life, which means it's not you making that choice, as making a choice is requires taking responsibility for it.

If you can't agree with that, I can't agree with your definitions of 'choice' and 'responsibility' and your entire philosophy becomes worthless to me. Sorry.

But his point is that you are responsible with out freewill and just will power with intelligence I believe. Solitary

I'm comfortable with my stoicism.

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"

Quote from: "Philosofer123"Yes, he would have proximate responsibility, but no, we cannot be legitimately angry with him.  This is because Bob's action is ultimately a function of factors beyond his control--hereditary factors, environment, and perhaps random/indeterministic factors.  Bob is a victim of these factors, just as much as he is a victim of a brain tumor in the analogy I provided.

I'm a bit late in this discussion, I haven't read the thread from the beginning, just a few recent posts, and Plu is having fun with you- one more reasons to barge in,  :wink: , anyways, what I would like to point out is the evolutionary angle that seems to be missing from your arguments. Emotions were/are necessary for our survival. For most species, the invidual has an inbuilt trigger to fight or flee. Also having invested a considerable amount of time and energy in raising our offsprings ( passing on our DNA), it is also a matter of survival to make sure our offsprings survive our own mortality. Imagine a mother not reacting if one of its offsprings were to be attacked. You can rest assured that such a species would have been longtime extinct.

Now why would I be angry with Bob? Because I would perceive that if he can attack anyone, he can certainly me, or one of my offsprings that carry my DNA. It's natural for me to see that this individual to be taken care - that is, neutralized so that he is no longer a threat. Now, along this, civilization was born, and many of our institutions were built around the very concept of our survival - think law and order with all its apparatus of police, judges, courts, jails, etc. Those are in place not only to do the noble "justice" ideal that philosophers have been pondering for ages, but at the very fundamental level, to ensure our survival both as individual and the survival of that society. Of course, there are situations in which the survival of the individual clashes with the survival of the society - but that is a different debate, good for another thread.

As to your point, "we cannot be legitimately angry with him," I say, we do get angry, and we can't help it. It's a reaction born out of million of years in the struggle for survival that was passed one from species to species, from individual to individual. Not getting angry would be abnormal and dangerous as it could spell the end of our will to survival.

Yes, our emotions do appear to be the product of evolution.  But that does not mean that the individual cannot reduce or eliminate negative emotions.

Anger is not necessary for one to take action to protect oneself, one's offspring, and/or society.

The realization and internalization that anger is irrational helps one to reduce or eliminate anger.  Even if a particular individual "can't help" getting angry, this realization can assuage his anger and reduce the amount of time he remains angry.

Quote from: "Philosofer123"

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"

Quote from: "Philosofer123"Yes, he would have proximate responsibility, but no, we cannot be legitimately angry with him.  This is because Bob's action is ultimately a function of factors beyond his control--hereditary factors, environment, and perhaps random/indeterministic factors.  Bob is a victim of these factors, just as much as he is a victim of a brain tumor in the analogy I provided.

I'm a bit late in this discussion, I haven't read the thread from the beginning, just a few recent posts, and Plu is having fun with you- one more reasons to barge in,  :wink: , anyways, what I would like to point out is the evolutionary angle that seems to be missing from your arguments. Emotions were/are necessary for our survival. For most species, the invidual has an inbuilt trigger to fight or flee. Also having invested a considerable amount of time and energy in raising our offsprings ( passing on our DNA), it is also a matter of survival to make sure our offsprings survive our own mortality. Imagine a mother not reacting if one of its offsprings were to be attacked. You can rest assured that such a species would have been longtime extinct.

Now why would I be angry with Bob? Because I would perceive that if he can attack anyone, he can certainly me, or one of my offsprings that carry my DNA. It's natural for me to see that this individual to be taken care - that is, neutralized so that he is no longer a threat. Now, along this, civilization was born, and many of our institutions were built around the very concept of our survival - think law and order with all its apparatus of police, judges, courts, jails, etc. Those are in place not only to do the noble "justice" ideal that philosophers have been pondering for ages, but at the very fundamental level, to ensure our survival both as individual and the survival of that society. Of course, there are situations in which the survival of the individual clashes with the survival of the society - but that is a different debate, good for another thread.

As to your point, "we cannot be legitimately angry with him," I say, we do get angry, and we can't help it. It's a reaction born out of million of years in the struggle for survival that was passed one from species to species, from individual to individual. Not getting angry would be abnormal and dangerous as it could spell the end of our will to survival.

Yes, our emotions do appear to be the product of evolution.  But that does not mean that the individual cannot reduce or eliminate negative emotions.

Anger is not necessary for one to take action to protect oneself, one's offspring, and/or society.

The realization and internalization that anger is irrational helps one to reduce or eliminate anger.  Even if a particular individual "can't help" getting angry, this realization can assuage his anger and reduce the amount of time he remains angry.

I fail to see it as being entirely negative, since it is a necessary component of our survival. I would rather argue that it should be channel in such away to avoid its potential destructive impact. As I see it, anger is one part positive, one part negative.

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"

Quote from: "Philosofer123"Yes, our emotions do appear to be the product of evolution.  But that does not mean that the individual cannot reduce or eliminate negative emotions.

Anger is not necessary for one to take action to protect oneself, one's offspring, and/or society.

The realization and internalization that anger is irrational helps one to reduce or eliminate anger.  Even if a particular individual "can't help" getting angry, this realization can assuage his anger and reduce the amount of time he remains angry.

I fail to see it as being entirely negative, since it is a necessary component of our survival. I would rather argue that it should be channel in such away to avoid its potential destructive impact. As I see it, anger is one part positive, one part negative.

I define "negative emotion" as any emotion that feels uncomfortable.  In this sense, anger is a negative emotion.  And I do not see anger as a "necessary component of our survival".  As I have already pointed out, anger is not necessary for one to take action to protect oneself, one's offspring, and/or society.

Quote from: "Philosofer123"

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"

Quote from: "Philosofer123"Yes, our emotions do appear to be the product of evolution.  But that does not mean that the individual cannot reduce or eliminate negative emotions.

Anger is not necessary for one to take action to protect oneself, one's offspring, and/or society.

The realization and internalization that anger is irrational helps one to reduce or eliminate anger.  Even if a particular individual "can't help" getting angry, this realization can assuage his anger and reduce the amount of time he remains angry.

I fail to see it as being entirely negative, since it is a necessary component of our survival. I would rather argue that it should be channel in such away to avoid its potential destructive impact. As I see it, anger is one part positive, one part negative.

I define "negative emotion" as any emotion that feels uncomfortable.  In this sense, anger is a negative emotion.  And I do not see anger as a "necessary component of our survival".  As I have already pointed out, anger is not necessary for one to take action to protect oneself, one's offspring, and/or society.

I don't think you've done much research if any. All emotions are necessary even though they may be inappropriate.
http://www.caringawareness.com/resource ... Anger.html (http://www.caringawareness.com/resources/VolII/6Anger.html)
Top scientist in their field have been studying emotions for centuries and in particular...."anger." I dare say that they are far more qualified an experienced than you at determining answers.
The problem here is your ego. The emotion of "pride." REAL philosophers do research. They don't just wander about contemplating about things. Thats the difference between you and a real philosopher. Research and qualifications. Seems to me that "your" philosophy is based solely on what YOU feel and YOUR emotions. I don't see anything to back up anything that you are professing.

:popcorn:

Anger is evolutionary necessary. If you are not angry at a mosquito that is eating you alive, you will be continuously harmed by it. Being angry helps us to achieve success in eliminating immediate negative outcomes. In this sense, it is a positive emotion. Evolutionary positive.

Anger, however, is a psychologically negative emotion, because it does not make you feel good or content.

All of this depends on how you look at the emotion. In some ways, they are positive and necessary for survival. In some ways, they are negative and we would like to stay away from them.

Quote from: "Philosofer123"

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"

Quote from: "Philosofer123"Yes, our emotions do appear to be the product of evolution.  But that does not mean that the individual cannot reduce or eliminate negative emotions.

Anger is not necessary for one to take action to protect oneself, one's offspring, and/or society.

The realization and internalization that anger is irrational helps one to reduce or eliminate anger.  Even if a particular individual "can't help" getting angry, this realization can assuage his anger and reduce the amount of time he remains angry.

I fail to see it as being entirely negative, since it is a necessary component of our survival. I would rather argue that it should be channel in such away to avoid its potential destructive impact. As I see it, anger is one part positive, one part negative.

I define "negative emotion" as any emotion that feels uncomfortable.  In this sense, anger is a negative emotion.  And I do not see anger as a "necessary component of our survival".  As I have already pointed out, anger is not necessary for one to take action to protect oneself, one's offspring, and/or society.

As mykcob4 pointed out in his post, from his link, there is healthy and unhealthy anger, which is pretty much in line with my "anger is one part positive, one part negative", and its neccessity with survival and as an evolutionary process. So I think you need to revise your position, which certainly does not correspond to scientific studies that are presently on the market.  You will undoubtedly find reluctance and resistance from the members of this forum if you persist in speculating from your ivory tower, rather than based your position on scientific studies. Don't regard these attacks as personal, they would be the same on those who espouses religious views and can't back them up with convincing empirical evidence.

Quote from: "SimonaM"Why do you say "our IQs"? Do you have multiple personalities or you´re just too coward to speak in your own name?

I do have multiple personalities. They manifest themselves in my head as smurfs. That was the lucid smurf you were speaking to. But the Old Seer smurf is very interested in dragging out your bullshit for 33 pages. And the psycho smurf just wants me to say, "Go suck a dick." No! Bad psycho smurf! We do not use ad hominem on this forum! *strangles self*

Quote from: "mykcob4"I don't think you've done much research if any. All emotions are necessary even though they may be inappropriate.
http://www.caringawareness.com/resource ... Anger.html (http://www.caringawareness.com/resources/VolII/6Anger.html)
Top scientist in their field have been studying emotions for centuries and in particular...."anger." I dare say that they are far more qualified an experienced than you at determining answers.

Clearly you have not done any real research.  The website you reference is authored by yoga teachers, not "top scientist [sic] in their field".  Your declaration that "all emotions are necessary" has no basis.

Quote from: "mykcob4"The problem here is your ego. The emotion of "pride."

Ad hominem attacks such as this are decidedly unphilosophical, to say the least.

Quote from: "mykcob4"Seems to me that "your" philosophy is based solely on what YOU feel and YOUR emotions. I don't see anything to back up anything that you are professing.

What I feel is what is most relevant to my philosophy.  Recall the very first sentence in the document:  "The primary purpose of this document is to advise myself on how to live well."  

If others benefit from my philosophy, that's great.  If not, then so be it.

Quote from: "Philosofer123"Your declaration that "all emotions are necessary" has no basis.

Emotions are evolutionary necessary. They evolved, because they are beneficial for the survival of an individual. I can provide you with tons of scientific papers if you wish. This is a well-known and widely accepted fact.

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"So I think you need to revise your position, which certainly does not correspond to scientific studies that are presently on the market.

Which statement in my document do I need to revise?  Please quote from my document.

Quote from: "Biodome"

Quote from: "Philosofer123"Your declaration that "all emotions are necessary" has no basis.

Emotions are evolutionary necessary. They evolved, because they are beneficial for the survival of an individual. I can provide you with tons of scientific papers if you wish. This is a well-known and widely accepted fact.

I am simply taking issue with the statement that "all emotions are necessary" for the survival of the individual.  Please point me to just one scientific paper that concludes that "all emotions are necessary for the survival of the individual".

My philosophy is designed for the individual, not for the human race as a whole.  Therefore, whether a particular emotion is evolutionarily advantageous is irrelevant to my philosophy.

Quote from: "Philosofer123"I am simply taking issue with the statement that "all emotions are necessary" for the survival of the individual.  Please point me to just one scientific paper that concludes that "all emotions are necessary for the survival of the individual".

My philosophy is designed for the individual, not for the human race as a whole.  Therefore, whether a particular emotion is evolutionarily advantageous is irrelevant to my philosophy.

The original emotion about which we were discussing was anger, and you said that anger was unnecessary. I strongly disagree with that, since anger has been scientifically shown to be evolutionary necessary.

You won't find a scientific paper that discusses all emotions simultaneously, because that would be a ridiculously broad research and no one would even think about doing it. However, you will find that there are scientific papers on the usefulness of specific emotions.

Natural selection cares about the survival of an individual, not the human race as a whole, therefore, the point still stands. Emotions are evolutionary advantageous, and, therefore, necessary for the individual. Thus, you cannot have any assumptions in your work that imply that anger is unnecessary, because it is not.

Quote from: "Biodome"

Quote from: "Philosofer123"I am simply taking issue with the statement that "all emotions are necessary" for the survival of the individual.  Please point me to just one scientific paper that concludes that "all emotions are necessary for the survival of the individual".

My philosophy is designed for the individual, not for the human race as a whole.  Therefore, whether a particular emotion is evolutionarily advantageous is irrelevant to my philosophy.

Emotions are evolutionary advantageous, and, therefore, necessary for the individual.

Non sequitur.  The fact that (at least some) emotions are evolutionarily advantageous does not imply that they are necessary for the individual.  This fallacy invalidates your entire post.

Quote from: "Philosofer123"

Quote from: "Biodome"Emotions are evolutionary advantageous, and, therefore, necessary for the individual.

Non sequitur.  The fact that (at least some) emotions are evolutionarily advantageous does not imply that they are necessary for the individual.  This fallacy invalidates your entire post.

Advantage comes from necessity. An emotion that helps an individual survive results in that individual having an advantageous trait, which is passed down to future generations.

Quote from: "Biodome"

Quote from: "Philosofer123"

Quote from: "Biodome"Emotions are evolutionary advantageous, and, therefore, necessary for the individual.

Non sequitur.  The fact that (at least some) emotions are evolutionarily advantageous does not imply that they are necessary for the individual.  This fallacy invalidates your entire post.

Advantage comes from necessity. An emotion that helps an individual survive results in that individual having an advantageous trait, which is passed down to future generations.

Even if I grant you that anger may (at least in some situations) help an individual survive, that does not mean that it is necessary for his survival.

Quote from: "Philosofer123"Even if I grant you that anger may (at least in some situations) help an individual survive, that does not mean that it is necessary for his survival.

While not immediately, in the long run, it probably would be. That's what natural selection is about. If an individual did not express any anger at all, he would have less chance of surviving when compared to an individual that is able to express anger.

If a trait is not necessary for survival, it would simply be removed through many generations due to chance. If a trait is persistent in most individuals in all generations, this is good evidence that selection is considering that trait necessary for survival.

Quote from: "mykcob4"I don't think you've done much research if any. All emotions are necessary even though they may be inappropriate.
http://www.caringawareness.com/resource ... Anger.html (http://www.caringawareness.com/resources/VolII/6Anger.html)
Top scientist in their field have been studying emotions for centuries and in particular...."anger." I dare say that they are far more qualified an experienced than you at determining answers.
The problem here is your ego. The emotion of "pride." REAL philosophers do research. They don't just wander about contemplating about things. Thats the difference between you and a real philosopher. Research and qualifications. Seems to me that "your" philosophy is based solely on what YOU feel and YOUR emotions. I don't see anything to back up anything that you are professing.

"Research"? Not always.  There may be a philosopher or two who goes into a laboratory on occasion, or peruses social data, but the fact is that much pf philosophy is an amusing mix of blue-skying and climbing up one's own ass.

Quote from: "Biodome"

Quote from: "Philosofer123"Even if I grant you that anger may (at least in some situations) help an individual survive, that does not mean that it is necessary for his survival.

While not immediately, in the long run, it probably would be. That's what natural selection is about. If an individual did not express any anger at all, he would have less chance of surviving when compared to an individual that is able to express anger.

Even if I grant you that anger may give an individual a greater chance of survival, this does not imply that anger is necessary for individual survival.

Quote from: "Biodome"If a trait is not necessary for survival, it would simply be removed through many generations due to chance. If a trait is persistent in most individuals in all generations, this is good evidence that selection is considering that trait necessary for survival.

No, that is evidence that the trait is advantageous for individual survival.  It does not show that the trait is necessary for individual survival.

When the fight or flight response kicks in I can guarantee it helps survival. We have inherited mitochondria in our cells that give us that extra kick of strength and energy when the fight or flight response kicks in to overcome fear that paralyzes. They are both survival mechanisms, one makes you avoid danger, and the other one kicks in to give you strength to survive. Fear can also overwhelm you so that you fall into a fetal position and look dead to survive.. You cannot feel two emotions at the same time. I have done both in extreme stress events for survival, as well as run as fast as I can. There have been times when my body took control with me along for the ride too. Solitary

Quote from: "Solitary"When the fight or flight response kicks in I can guarantee it helps survival. We have inherited mitochondria in our cells that give us that extra kick of strength and energy when the fight or flight response kicks in to overcome fear that paralyzes. They are both survival mechanisms, one makes you avoid danger, and the other one kicks in to give you strength to survive. Fear can also overwhelm you so that you fall into a fetal position and look dead to survive.. You cannot feel two emotions at the same time. I have done both in extreme stress events for survival, as well as run as fast as I can. There have been times when my body took control with me along for the ride too. Solitary

Thank you for the interesting information.  But as I previously stated:  even if I grant that anger may give an individual a greater chance of survival, this does not imply that anger is necessary for individual survival.  And whether anger is necessary for individual survival is what is at issue.

Quote from: "Philosofer123"Thank you for the interesting information.  But as I previously stated:  even if I grant that anger may give an individual a greater chance of survival, this does not imply that anger is necessary for individual survival.  And whether anger is necessary for individual survival is what is at issue.

"Greater chance of survival" means that if an individual is presented with a situation where a specific trait is necessary for survival, he will survive if he has that trait, as opposed to an individual that lacks that trait. You can always think of specific cases where anger is necessary for survival. In addition to that, there are many cases where anger is also necessary for successful reproduction, which also makes a trait advantageous.

Of course, since this is based on chance, an individual may very well live his life without experiencing a situation where anger is necessary for survival. However, during many generations, you can very well expect that at least some of the individuals will be presented with such situations, and that having this trait will make them survive.

In general, anger is necessary, but not all of the time. If you would somehow "remove" the emotion of anger, you would probably not die immediately, but you can be pretty sure that somewhere in your generation, possibly even in your life, a situation will occur when you would wish you hadn't removed this trait.

As I said, anger might not be necessary in the short run, but definitely necessary in the long run. That's what keeps this emotion so prominent not only between the human species, but between other animals as well.

That's like buying a gun for self-defense.

Probably a gun is not immediately necessary, but believe me, if you see an assassin coming towards you with a knife, you would certainly wish you had one. So a gun might be necessary in the long run.

Quote from: "Philosofer123"

Quote from: "Solitary"When the fight or flight response kicks in I can guarantee it helps survival. We have inherited mitochondria in our cells that give us that extra kick of strength and energy when the fight or flight response kicks in to overcome fear that paralyzes. They are both survival mechanisms, one makes you avoid danger, and the other one kicks in to give you strength to survive. Fear can also overwhelm you so that you fall into a fetal position and look dead to survive.. You cannot feel two emotions at the same time. I have done both in extreme stress events for survival, as well as run as fast as I can. There have been times when my body took control with me along for the ride too. Solitary

Thank you for the interesting information.  But as I previously stated:  even if I grant that anger may give an individual a greater chance of survival, this does not imply that anger is necessary for individual survival.  And whether anger is necessary for individual survival is what is at issue.

Consider the trait "non-anger". If an individual carries that trait, he is unlikely to survive and pass on that trait to the next generation. So with each generation, there will be fewer and fewer of these individuals with the "non-anger" trait. What you get after several generations are individuals with the opposite trait "anger" that survive. This is how natural selection works.

Quote from: "Philosofer123"

Quote from: "Solitary"When the fight or flight response kicks in I can guarantee it helps survival. We have inherited mitochondria in our cells that give us that extra kick of strength and energy when the fight or flight response kicks in to overcome fear that paralyzes. They are both survival mechanisms, one makes you avoid danger, and the other one kicks in to give you strength to survive. Fear can also overwhelm you so that you fall into a fetal position and look dead to survive.. You cannot feel two emotions at the same time. I have done both in extreme stress events for survival, as well as run as fast as I can. There have been times when my body took control with me along for the ride too. Solitary

Thank you for the interesting information.  But as I previously stated:  even if I grant that anger may give an individual a greater chance of survival, this does not imply that anger is necessary for individual survival.  And whether anger is necessary for individual survival is what is at issue.

Of course anger is necessary for survival, I gave you personal example's of how I survived with it.  :roll:  Solitary

Holy fuck 6 pages of this ! :roll:

Quote from: "Philosofer123"

Quote from: "Solitary"When the fight or flight response kicks in I can guarantee it helps survival. We have inherited mitochondria in our cells that give us that extra kick of strength and energy when the fight or flight response kicks in to overcome fear that paralyzes. They are both survival mechanisms, one makes you avoid danger, and the other one kicks in to give you strength to survive. Fear can also overwhelm you so that you fall into a fetal position and look dead to survive.. You cannot feel two emotions at the same time. I have done both in extreme stress events for survival, as well as run as fast as I can. There have been times when my body took control with me along for the ride too. Solitary

Thank you for the interesting information.  But as I previously stated:  even if I grant that anger may give an individual a greater chance of survival, this does not imply that anger is necessary for individual survival.  And whether anger is necessary for individual survival is what is at issue.

Again all you offered is unsubstantiated speculation which anyone can do. It isn't worth the paper it's printed on so to speak. All this back and forth about "negative emotion". Why don't you offer one shred of evidence to support your EMOTIONAL driven theory. Your ego is what drives you and in most cases that is a negative emotion, yet YOU ignore that fact.
I think that you're full of shit. Is that negative? Sure but it based on fact. The fact that you don't back up a single word of your supposition. I did a cursorary search and dispelled your little theory with very little effort.
This all boils down to one day you were "thinking" about your life and decided that it was a full blown philosophical theory. Beleive me it isn't. You didn't exclude all the variables, didn't account for many factors direct and indirect, which is why theorizing about the human condition is very hard. And you could and did only analyze from one very narrow point of view. You excluded economic factors, environmental factors, social and cultural factors. What you basically did is say to yourself "hey, I'm a pretty successful guy. I'm going to tell everyone just how special I am. Gee won't they all fall overthemselves applauding me."
Well you ain't that special. Your theory is full of holes. Your full of yourself. DeCartes you are not.

Quote from: "leo"Holy fuck 6 pages of this ! :roll:

I wouldn't be surprised if this lasts for dozens of pages. I have to admit that his philosophical work is interesting. Personally I have never given much thought to the concept of free will, and I don't think I ever will, but let's face it - it is a fun thought experiment. His arguments are mostly sound. The only problem is where it clashes with science, as in this case of the necessity of emotions.

On topic though, we don't feel anger because we choose to feel it. We feel it because it is encoded in our evolutionary behavior. This has nothing to do with someone being responsible for something.

The law ultimately is there to protect the individual, not to discuss responsibility, although this method is used in courts. In practice, it is effective, as it helps to filter out potentially dangerous individuals and put them in quarantine. All of this is simply a product of self-defense. It is encoded in our genes and it is not a choice. If someone kills a person you love, you are angry not because the murderer is proximately responsible for the crime (although that's the argument that is used in courts), but because your subconscious perceives the murderer as a threat and activates a response that has evolved to protect you, namely, anger: your heart starts beating faster, you blood flow and pressure increases, you feel the adrenaline etc. - you are preparing to eliminate the threat to your survival. That's how it works ;)

So because free will doesn't exist we have to choose to behave differently?
How exactly does that make sense?

Quote from: "Bibliofagus"So because free will doesn't exist we have to choose to behave differently?
How exactly does that make sense?

In the compatibilist theory of free will, you are able to choose to act on your motives, but you are not responsible for the motives themselves. "You can do what you will, but you cannot will what you will."

Quote from: "Philosofer123"

Quote from: "Biodome"

Quote from: "Philosofer123"I am simply taking issue with the statement that "all emotions are necessary" for the survival of the individual.  Please point me to just one scientific paper that concludes that "all emotions are necessary for the survival of the individual".

My philosophy is designed for the individual, not for the human race as a whole.  Therefore, whether a particular emotion is evolutionarily advantageous is irrelevant to my philosophy.

Emotions are evolutionary advantageous, and, therefore, necessary for the individual.

Non sequitur.  The fact that (at least some) emotions are evolutionarily advantageous does not imply that they are necessary for the individual.  This fallacy invalidates your entire post.

That is not a Non Sequitur because it is shown to be a fact that emotions are necessary for an individual to survive. If you are driving a car and a car in the other lane is driving toward you fear makes you swerve as an individual to keep from getting hurt or killed. If you don't think fear keeps you from getting hurt as an individual put you hand on the burner of your stove top.  :roll: Solitarty

(//http://i.imgur.com/vDJnGKg.jpg)  If you are being serious, which I doubt, you are being silly.

Quote from: "Biodome"

Quote from: "Philosofer123"Thank you for the interesting information.  But as I previously stated:  even if I grant that anger may give an individual a greater chance of survival, this does not imply that anger is necessary for individual survival.  And whether anger is necessary for individual survival is what is at issue.

Of course, since this is based on chance, an individual may very well live his life without experiencing a situation where anger is necessary for survival.

Thank you.  This is all I need to make my case that anger is not necessary for individual survival.

He's just trolling. His purpose was to promote his underlying theme that all things are destiny and guided by a god. You see he has an enormous ego. He believes that he was born elite a chosen one that there is nothing worth considering that comes from science and nature. His bullshit idea that emotions are to be ignored and actually need to be erradicated isn't reality at all.
The fact is that emotions, positive negative are crucial for human behavior all animal behavior. Controlling those emotions are key to success and happiness (yet another emotion). Emotions are the driving force for everything.
So this troll needed to satisfy his ego (emotion) so he decides that he is a genius concernig philosophy. He can't even live his philosophy on this forum. He also suffers from dismissing valid information. By ignoring it he is acting on his emotion and using a negative emotion to commit such an act.
He is a troll!

Quote from: "mykcob4"Your theory is full of holes.

I will not reply to the ad hominem attacks in the rest of your post, but if you believe that my theory "is full of holes", then please describe a few holes in my document.  If you cannot or will not do so, then you cannot be taken seriously.

Quote from: "Philosofer123"

Quote from: "mykcob4"Your theory is full of holes.

I will not reply to the ad hominem attacks in the rest of your post, but if you believe that my theory "is full of holes", then please describe a few holes in my document.  If you cannot or will not do so, then you cannot be taken seriously.

WHAAAAT!? I already have. I even provided proof.
Attack my ass. Get a clue. You won't reply unless I point out your holes, which I did with a cited reference, and you didn't provide a shred of evidence to support your OP. What a complete ass.
You're the one that can't be taken seriously.
I provided facts and you provided, oh I don't know...BULLSHIT!

Quote from: "Biodome"

Quote from: "leo"Holy fuck 6 pages of this ! :roll:

I wouldn't be surprised if this lasts for dozens of pages. I have to admit that his philosophical work is interesting. Personally I have never given much thought to the concept of free will, and I don't think I ever will, but let's face it - it is a fun thought experiment. His arguments are mostly sound. The only problem is where it clashes with science, as in this case of the necessity of emotions.

On topic though, we don't feel anger because we choose to feel it. We feel it because it is encoded in our evolutionary behavior. This has nothing to do with someone being responsible for something.

The law ultimately is there to protect the individual, not to discuss responsibility, although this method is used in courts. In practice, it is effective, as it helps to filter out potentially dangerous individuals and put them in quarantine. All of this is simply a product of self-defense. It is encoded in our genes and it is not a choice. If someone kills a person you love, you are angry not because the murderer is proximately responsible for the crime (although that's the argument that is used in courts), but because your subconscious perceives the murderer as a threat and activates a response that has evolved to protect you, namely, anger: your heart starts beating faster, you blood flow and pressure increases, you feel the adrenaline etc. - you are preparing to eliminate the threat to your survival. That's how it works ;)

Thank you for some interesting comments.  Yes, I agree that anger is a product of evolution, and that anger may have subconscious elements that one cannot control.  However, I submit that by focusing on the impossibility of ultimate responsibility, one's anger may be assuaged, and it may not last as long as it otherwise would have.

Quote from: "Philosofer123"

Quote from: "Biodome"

Quote from: "leo"Holy fuck 6 pages of this ! :roll:

I wouldn't be surprised if this lasts for dozens of pages. I have to admit that his philosophical work is interesting. Personally I have never given much thought to the concept of free will, and I don't think I ever will, but let's face it - it is a fun thought experiment. His arguments are mostly sound. The only problem is where it clashes with science, as in this case of the necessity of emotions.

On topic though, we don't feel anger because we choose to feel it. We feel it because it is encoded in our evolutionary behavior. This has nothing to do with someone being responsible for something.

The law ultimately is there to protect the individual, not to discuss responsibility, although this method is used in courts. In practice, it is effective, as it helps to filter out potentially dangerous individuals and put them in quarantine. All of this is simply a product of self-defense. It is encoded in our genes and it is not a choice. If someone kills a person you love, you are angry not because the murderer is proximately responsible for the crime (although that's the argument that is used in courts), but because your subconscious perceives the murderer as a threat and activates a response that has evolved to protect you, namely, anger: your heart starts beating faster, you blood flow and pressure increases, you feel the adrenaline etc. - you are preparing to eliminate the threat to your survival. That's how it works ;)

Thank you for some interesting comments.  Yes, I agree that anger is a product of evolution, and that anger may have subconscious elements that one cannot control.  However, I submit that by focusing on the impossibility of ultimate responsibility, one's anger may be assuaged, and it may not last as long as it otherwise would have.

Thats called CONTROLLING the emotion which has nothing to do with YOUR OP or fucked up philosophy.

Quote from: "mykcob4"

Quote from: "Philosofer123"

Quote from: "mykcob4"Your theory is full of holes.

I will not reply to the ad hominem attacks in the rest of your post, but if you believe that my theory "is full of holes", then please describe a few holes in my document.  If you cannot or will not do so, then you cannot be taken seriously.

WHAAAAT!? I already have. I even provided proof.
Attack my ass. Get a clue. You won't reply unless I point out your holes, which I did with a cited reference, and you didn't provide a shred of evidence to support your OP. What a complete ass.
You're the one that can't be taken seriously.
I provided facts and you provided, oh I don't know...BULLSHIT!

You are clearly quite upset.  You know, you could really benefit from some of the methods in my document that reduce or eliminate negative emotions.

And this concludes our conversation, as you have demonstrated that you are not capable of civil discourse.

Quote from: "Philosofer123"You are clearly quite upset.  You know, you could really benefit from some of the methods in my document that reduce or eliminate negative emotions.

And this concludes our conversation, as you have demonstrated that you are not capable of civil discourse.

HAHAHAHAHA! I'm not upset, but I was able to push you to be upset. I can not only participate in civil discourse, I can clearly converse in logic and facts. It's painfully obviouse to the most casual observer that I out foxed you and exposed you as a fruad, but also clearly proved that you can't live by your own philosophy.
If I had responded to Nelson Mendella do you think that he would have pouted like you, complete with an insult? No he would have turned it around and found the positives. You see you are driven by ego and Mendella was driven by reality and results.
I admit that I baited you but you fell for it hook line and sinker. I wanted to know if you actually believed the crap that you were doling out, and it's obvious that you're full of shit.

Quote from: "Philosofer123"

Quote from: "Biodome"

Quote from: "Philosofer123"Thank you for the interesting information.  But as I previously stated:  even if I grant that anger may give an individual a greater chance of survival, this does not imply that anger is necessary for individual survival.  And whether anger is necessary for individual survival is what is at issue.

Of course, since this is based on chance, an individual may very well live his life without experiencing a situation where anger is necessary for survival.

Thank you.  This is all I need to make my case that anger is not necessary for individual survival.

Umm... no.

You don't get to cut my reply into half and claim that the first half is all that you need, cause it's not. You fail to see the evolutionary point: if anger was not necessary for survival, it would not have evolved. Since it has evolved, it is necessary.

Necessary traits are kept, the unnecessary ones are dismissed. As a biologist I would be happy to explain evolution in detail, but it would be more beneficial for you to read a biology textbook by yourself.

Philosophy does not work on its own. You have to include scientific and experimental context where it is needed. If you fail to do that, your work lacks credibility and I cannot support your work and/or give it constructive criticism.

Quote from: "Biodome"

Quote from: "Philosofer123"

Quote from: "Biodome"Of course, since this is based on chance, an individual may very well live his life without experiencing a situation where anger is necessary for survival.

Thank you.  This is all I need to make my case that anger is not necessary for individual survival.

Umm... no.

You don't get to cut my reply into half and claim that the first half is all that you need, cause it's not. You fail to see the evolutionary point: if anger was not necessary for survival, it would not have evolved. Since it has evolved, it is necessary.

You claim that you are a biologist, but your post reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works.

Just becomes something has evolved does not mean that it is necessary for individual survival today.  It may be advantageous for individual survival today, but it may or may not be necessary for individual survival today.  And in some cases, it may not even be advantageous for individual survival today.  For example, each of us has an appendix--produced through evolution--but it is debatable whether the appendix does anything to promote individual survival today.  And it is possible that some of our emotions may be analogous to our appendix--perhaps not even advantageous for individual survival today.

I am afraid that you have completely destroyed your credibility.

Quote from: "Philosofer123"Just becomes something has evolved does not mean that it is necessary for individual survival today.  It may be advantageous for individual survival today, but it may or may not be necessary for individual survival today.

"Advantageous" simply implies that there exist scenarios where having the trait lets the individual survive, as opposed to not having the trait. Even a small chance of such a scenario happening is enough for the genes of that particular trait to be kept in the gene pool.

Talking about humans, chances of dying are very high. And this is not only limited to rapists, murderers and other criminals. You can very well include other animals: snakes, deadly insects etc. This applies to the whole world and this is exactly why the emotion of anger is so wide-spread. If it weren't necessary, it would deteriorate, just as the appendix that you mentioned, although it is a bad example, because there is evidence that the appendix has acquired the function of providing the body with certain vitamins.

The problem is that you completely dismiss anger as a necessary emotion without thinking of the consequences. The reason that anger is philosophically harmful/negative/whatever is not enough. Evolution provides evidence that it is still necessary. You aren't arguing against my opinion here. You are arguing against the evidence that is present in the natural world. You have to rethink your statements and change the tactics. You cannot remove emotions solely on a philosophical basis.

Quote from: "Biodome"

Quote from: "Philosofer123"Just becomes something has evolved does not mean that it is necessary for individual survival today.  It may be advantageous for individual survival today, but it may or may not be necessary for individual survival today.

"Advantageous" simply implies that there exist scenarios where having the trait lets the individual survive, as opposed to not having the trait. Even a small chance of such a scenario happening is enough for the genes of that particular trait to be kept in the gene pool.

Talking about humans, chances of dying are very high. And this is not only limited to rapists, murderers and other criminals. You can very well include other animals: snakes, deadly insects etc. This applies to the whole world and this is exactly why the emotion of anger is so wide-spread. If it weren't necessary, it would deteriorate, just as the appendix that you mentioned, although it is a bad example, because there is evidence that the appendix has acquired the function of providing the body with certain vitamins.

The problem is that you completely dismiss anger as a necessary emotion without thinking of the consequences. The reason that anger is philosophically harmful/negative/whatever is not enough. Evolution provides evidence that it is still necessary. You aren't arguing against my opinion here. You are arguing against the evidence that is present in the natural world. You have to rethink your statements and change the tactics. You cannot remove emotions solely on a philosophical basis.

You continue to fail to make the case that anger is necessary for individual survival today.  And that is what is being debated.

Quote from: "Philosofer123"You continue to fail to make the case that anger is necessary for individual survival today.  And that is what is being debated.

I am telling you for the third time in a row:

A serial killer breaks into your house and has intentions of murdering you. If you are able to express anger, you will be able to fight and defend yourself. If you are not able to express anger, you will not be able to fight and defend yourself.

In other words, if you do not express anger, you fail to survive in certain situations where anger would make you fight for that survival. Without the trait of anger, you are being selected against. You are effectively watching the killer murder you, expressing nothing more but a poker face and being in a state of peace of mind.

Quote from: "Biodome"

Quote from: "Philosofer123"You continue to fail to make the case that anger is necessary for individual survival today.  And that is what is being debated.

If you are not able to express anger, you will not be able to fight and defend yourself.

False.  One may defend oneself without feeling or expressing anger.

Quote from: "Biodome"In other words, if you do not express anger, you fail to survive in certain situations where anger would make you fight for that survival.

Even if this were true, it does not show that anger is necessary for individual survival today.  This is because one may go through life without facing such a situation.

Quote from: "Philosofer123"You continue to fail to make the case that anger is necessary for individual survival today.  And that is what is being debated.

I gave you an answer on page 4, another on page 5, and another on page 6 - which went unanswered. Biodome and mykcob4 have more than adequately answered you, yet you persist in your untenable position. If people are no longer taking seriously, you just have to look at that face in the mirror.

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"

Quote from: "Philosofer123"You continue to fail to make the case that anger is necessary for individual survival today.  And that is what is being debated.

I gave you an answer on page 4, another on page 5, and another on page 6 - which went unanswered. Biodome and mykcob4 have more than adequately answered you, yet you persist in your untenable position. If people are no longer taking seriously, you just have to look at that face in the mirror.

I have re-read all of your posts, and in none do you establish that anger is necessary for individual survival today.  None of the others have established this conclusion either.

Quote from: "Philosofer123"

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"

Quote from: "Philosofer123"You continue to fail to make the case that anger is necessary for individual survival today.  And that is what is being debated.

I gave you an answer on page 4, another on page 5, and another on page 6 - which went unanswered. Biodome and mykcob4 have more than adequately answered you, yet you persist in your untenable position. If people are no longer taking seriously, you just have to look at that face in the mirror.

I have re-read all of your posts, and in none do you establish that anger is necessary for individual survival today.  None of the others have established this conclusion either.

If anger has been transmitted from species to species for hundreds of millions of years, do you really think that this trait will disappear over a few thousands of years?!??!

Quote from: "Philosofer123"False.  One may defend oneself without feeling or expressing anger.

No - one cannot. The whole act of defense requires anger as a motivation, which comes from the instinct to survive at any cost, otherwise you will not have any reason to defend in the first place.

Quote from: "Philosofer123"Even if this were true, it does not show that anger is necessary for individual survival today.  This is because one may go through life without facing such a situation.

True, that is an extreme case. But you must also take into account other cases, such as the threats from other animals and the environmental threats. However, even if you somehow managed to live a perfect life without any dangers, this in no way diminishes the necessity of anger, since natural selection is a slow process and immediate benefits or disadvantages are not required for it to function. You are simply an exception, but not a rule. You must also take into consideration that, ultimately, the reason why you want to survive is the ability to reproduce, which is exactly why anger has evolved in the first place. Male-male competition is still very relevant, just as it was at the dawn of our species. If it wasn't, you wouldn't be here.

Quote from: "Philosofer123"I am afraid that you have completely destroyed your credibility.

For someone who likes pointing out logical fallacies, you sure do love to use them.

The fight or flight response is what allows you to get angry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight-or-flight_response (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight-or-flight_response)
You need the response to survive because many situations require a quick boost of adrenaline. Without this quick boost in adrenaline you won't have the reaction time needed to survive. If a car is speeding towards you that adrenaline boost is the difference between life and death.

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"

Quote from: "Philosofer123"I have re-read all of your posts, and in none do you establish that anger is necessary for individual survival today.  None of the others have established this conclusion either.

If anger has been transmitted from species to species for hundreds of millions of years, do you really think that this trait will disappear over a few thousands of years?!??!

You are attacking a straw man.  I am not arguing that anger "will disappear over a few thousands of years".  I am arguing that anger is not necessary for individual survival today.

Quote from: "Philosofer123"

Quote from: "mykcob4"Your theory is full of holes.

I will not reply to the ad hominem attacks in the rest of your post, but if you believe that my theory "is full of holes", then please describe a few holes in my document.  If you cannot or will not do so, then you cannot be taken seriously.[/quot


That is not an Ad Hominem Attack it is an opinion! But what you said is.  :roll: Solitary

Quote from: "Philosofer123"I am arguing that anger is not necessary for individual survival today.

And several posters have just shown that it is necessary.

Quote from: "Biodome"

Quote from: "Philosofer123"False.  One may defend oneself without feeling or expressing anger.

No - one cannot. The whole act of defense requires anger as a motivation, which comes from the instinct to survive at any cost, otherwise you will not have any reason to defend in the first place.

False.  I can be concerned with my survival without feeling anger.  Let us say that I am carrying a gun, and a wild-eyed stranger wielding a bloody knife yells "I am going to kill you" and rushes toward me.  It does not require anger as a motivation for me to shoot him.  It simply requires concern for my own safety.

Quote from: "Biodome"

Quote from: "Philosofer123"Even if this were true, it does not show that anger is necessary for individual survival today.  This is because one may go through life without facing such a situation.

True, that is an extreme case.

It is not an extreme case at all, particularly in the developed world.

Quote from: "Biodome"However, even if you somehow managed to live a perfect life without any dangers, this in no way diminishes the necessity of anger, since natural selection is a slow process and immediate benefits or disadvantages are not required for it to function. You are simply an exception, but not a rule. You must also take into consideration that, ultimately, the reason why you want to survive is the ability to reproduce, which is exactly why anger has evolved in the first place. Male-male competition is still very relevant, just as it was at the dawn of our species. If it wasn't, you wouldn't be here.

None of this shows that anger is necessary for individual survival today--and nor does it show that anger is necessary for individual reproduction today.  I am a father, and like many men, I have never had to fight another man over a woman.

Quote from: "Biodome"

Quote from: "Philosofer123"I am arguing that anger is not necessary for individual survival today.

And several posters have just shown that it is necessary.

Not one of them has produced an argument demonstrating that anger is necessary for individual survival today.

Quote from: "Icarus"The fight or flight response is what allows you to get angry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight-or-flight_response (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight-or-flight_response)
You need the response to survive because many situations require a quick boost of adrenaline. Without this quick boost in adrenaline you won't have the reaction time needed to survive. If a car is speeding towards you that adrenaline boost is the difference between life and death.

There is no mention of anger in the link you provide on the fight-or-flight response.

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"

Quote from: "Philosofer123"I am afraid that you have completely destroyed your credibility.

For someone who likes pointing out logical fallacies, you sure do love to use them.

If you believe that I have committed a logical fallacy, then please demonstrate exactly how.  Otherwise, you cannot be taken seriously.

QuoteAnger is the emotion that expresses dislike or opposition toward a person or thing that is considered the cause of aversion. Psychologists consider anger a natural emotion needed for survival. Anger can bring forth behavioral improvements; however, uncontrolled anger can cause social and personal problems.

Psychologists divide anger into three categories. One type of anger is an instinctual reaction to being trapped or hurt. Another type is a reaction to the perception of being intentionally harmed or mistreated by others. The third type of anger, which includes irritability, reflects an individual's personal character traits.

"If our anger doesn't sustain justice there will never be any justice." This is how tyrants and churches control people, by making them sheep that never get angry by being in control of their negative feelings for survival. There's more to survival than just controlling one's feelings, even if psychologists and psychiatrist get the shit scared out of them when a patient goes into a rage because he knows they are full of shit like you are, and that is an opinion of you, not an Ad Hominem.

A psychopath is a person that doesn't need emotions to survive, is that what people should be like? We are humans not androids without feelings and emotions controlled by someone for their benefit. (//http://i.imgur.com/hUlJxCy.jpg) Solitary

Quote from: "Philosofer123"False.  I can be concerned with my survival without feeling anger.  Let us say that I am carrying a gun, and a wild-eyed stranger wielding a bloody knife yells "I am going to kill you" and rushes toward me.  It does not require anger as a motivation for me to shoot him.  It simply requires concern for my own safety.

No, that "concern for your own safety" comes directly from the instinct of survival, whether you possess a weapon or not. The instinct of survival necessarily produces the fight-or-flight response, which includes many psychological/physiological effects and emotions such as anger (that Wikipedia article indeed mentions anger and aggressiveness if you only cared to look closely):

Quote from: "Wikipedia"Psychological effects
*Anxiety
*Restlessness
*Lack of motivation or focus
*Irritability or anger
*Depression

Quote from: "Philosofer123"

Quote from: "Biodome"However, even if you somehow managed to live a perfect life without any dangers, this in no way diminishes the necessity of anger, since natural selection is a slow process and immediate benefits or disadvantages are not required for it to function. You are simply an exception, but not a rule. You must also take into consideration that, ultimately, the reason why you want to survive is the ability to reproduce, which is exactly why anger has evolved in the first place. Male-male competition is still very relevant, just as it was at the dawn of our species. If it wasn't, you wouldn't be here.

None of this shows that anger is necessary for individual survival today--and nor does it show that anger is necessary for individual reproduction today.  I am a father, and like many men, I have never had to fight another man over a woman.

Not necessarily fight in the literal sense. Women are programmed to choose their partners based on their perception of how "good" the male is when compared to other males. This results in (not necessarily visible and/or physical) competition between the males. This is a rule and a fact that applies to all biological populations of individuals that reproduce sexually. You are a part of such population and you cannot escape biological mechanisms.

Quote from: "Philosofer123"

Quote from: "Icarus"The fight or flight response is what allows you to get angry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight-or-flight_response (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight-or-flight_response)
You need the response to survive because many situations require a quick boost of adrenaline. Without this quick boost in adrenaline you won't have the reaction time needed to survive. If a car is speeding towards you that adrenaline boost is the difference between life and death.

There is no mention of anger in the link you provide on the fight-or-flight response.

If you didn't read anything in the link how do you expect to find anger.

QuotePsychological effects
Anxiety
Restlessness
Lack of motivation or focus
Irritability or anger
Depression

Use control+f then type in 'anger'

Quote from: "Biodome"

Quote from: "Philosofer123"False.  I can be concerned with my survival without feeling anger.  Let us say that I am carrying a gun, and a wild-eyed stranger wielding a bloody knife yells "I am going to kill you" and rushes toward me.  It does not require anger as a motivation for me to shoot him.  It simply requires concern for my own safety.

No, that "concern for your own safety" comes directly from the instinct of survival, whether you possess a weapon or not. The instinct of survival necessarily produces the fight-or-flight response, which includes many psychological/physiological effects and emotions such as anger.

The fact that the fight-or-flight response may cause anger does not imply that anger is necessary for individual survival today.  In fact, it does not even imply that anger is required to have a fight-or-flight response.

Therefore, you have failed to establish that one's concern for one's safety necessarily involves anger.

Quote from: "Biodome"

Quote from: "Philosofer123"

Quote from: "Biodome"However, even if you somehow managed to live a perfect life without any dangers, this in no way diminishes the necessity of anger, since natural selection is a slow process and immediate benefits or disadvantages are not required for it to function. You are simply an exception, but not a rule. You must also take into consideration that, ultimately, the reason why you want to survive is the ability to reproduce, which is exactly why anger has evolved in the first place. Male-male competition is still very relevant, just as it was at the dawn of our species. If it wasn't, you wouldn't be here.

None of this shows that anger is necessary for individual survival today--and nor does it show that anger is necessary for individual reproduction today.  I am a father, and like many men, I have never had to fight another man over a woman.

Not necessarily fight in the literal sense. Women are programmed to choose their partners based on their perception of how "good" the male is when compared to other males. This results in (not necessarily visible and/or physical) competition between the males. This is a rule and a fact that applies to ALL biological populations. You are a part of such population and you cannot escape biological mechanisms.

The fact that there is competition between males does not imply that anger is necessary for individual survival today.  And that is what is being debated.

Findings of Harvard scientists have made it possible to argue that venting negative emotions in a controlled manner ensures sustaining mental health.

Today's society regards anger as very threatening emotion. So called "positive thinking" has been widely cultivated recently, an attitude that could possibly lead to a life totally devoid of anger. According to the head of the study, professor George Valliant, this practice couldn't be more wrong because suppressing negative emotions (which are vital to our survival) eventually bounce back badly on a person. Scientists claim it again that fear, anger and other negative feelings are natural to humans and bear significant meaning.

Scientists say negative emotions give us the power to survive. However, professor Valliant who is director of the Study of Adult Development (the publisher of the study) points out that uncontrolled anger is destructive. According to the professor, we all feel anger (Note, if normal.)but people who are able to vent some steam without serious consequences tend to make a lot of progress in emotional growth and mental health.

What's this say about you control freak?  :roll:  I had a friend that never got angry like you say we don't need to do survive. He was a perfect soldier and never got angry and did his job killing 80 people as a tunnel rat. He killed his wife without getting angry with a pistol just because it was for his benefit. He got away with it because he was so cool and calm during the trial no one thought he could have done it. If you don't get angry that means you are a psychopath and mentally ill. Solitary

PLEASE NOTE:

Despite the best efforts of several individuals on this thread, no one has been able to establish that anger is necessary for individual survival today.  It is not worth my time to continue arguing the point, so I will not respond to any additional posts on the topic of anger.

I will be happy to respond to any constructive feedback on any other aspect of my philosophy.

Thank you for your comments up to this point.  I look forward to constructive dialogue.

Quote from: "Philosofer123"Therefore, you have failed to establish that one's concern for one's safety necessarily involves anger.

Alright, I can supply you with lots of other sources if you wish - up until the point when you start agreeing to the facts. Let's start with this one:

QuoteFight/Flight Response

Anger triggers the fight/flight response, which mentally and physically prepares the body for survival. During the flight/flight response, the body automatically responds to a threat without conscious thought.

Source: http://www.pathwaytohappiness.com/anger ... -anger.htm (http://www.pathwaytohappiness.com/anger/understanding-anger.htm)

Quote from: "Philosofer123"The fact that there is competition between males does not imply that anger is necessary for individual survival today.  And that is what is being debated.

You are right when it comes to competition for females - usually that does not result in any blood or deaths (the key word: "usually"), however, I, for the fourth time in a row tell you to look at the dangers in the contemporary world: murder, accidents, animal threats, environmental threats. Being ready to take action in the case of such dangers is necessary for successful survival. This has been repeated to you several times in a row now. Stop repeating yourself and look at what is being written to you.

Quote from: "Philosofer123"PLEASE NOTE:

Despite the best efforts of several individuals on this thread, no one has been able to establish that anger is necessary for individual survival today.  It is not worth my time to continue arguing the point, so I will not respond to any additional posts on the topic of anger.

I will be happy to respond to any other constructive feedback on any other aspect of my philosophy.

Thank you for your comments up to this point.  I look forward to constructive dialogue.

Ironically, you have created exactly the same thread on several other intelligent forums. And in most of them the discussions ended with exactly this - a declaration by you that no one has enough IQ to actually argue against your splendid work of art.

Might I take a step further and conclude that, since you are not considering to accept any of the criticism that is presented to you, your real motive in advertising your work is actually to gain real money for every visit to your .doc? This would make sense, because you have not considered revealing your identity either. If you are a proud self-declared professional philosopher and an ex-executive, you might as well tell us who you are. After all, you should be treated as a real star in the world of philosophy, shouldn't you?

Quote from: "Philosofer123"PLEASE NOTE:

Despite the best efforts of several individuals on this thread, no one has been able to establish that anger is necessary for individual survival today.  It is not worth my time to continue arguing the point, so I will not respond to any additional posts on the topic of anger.

ie. "You have proven me wrong and I don't want to admit it"

Hot damned, another troll bites the dust out of frustration which is a form of anger for survival, proving he was wrong. I think he was ready to blow his top. If he can't even survive here, he is really in trouble outside his bubble in the real world.  :rollin:  :lol:  8-) Solitary

Quote from: "Philosofer123"

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"

Quote from: "Philosofer123"I have re-read all of your posts, and in none do you establish that anger is necessary for individual survival today.  None of the others have established this conclusion either.

If anger has been transmitted from species to species for hundreds of millions of years, do you really think that this trait will disappear over a few thousands of years?!??!

You are attacking a straw man.  I am not arguing that anger "will disappear over a few thousands of years".  I am arguing that anger is not necessary for individual survival today.

IOW, you think that it has disappeared, which shows you are totally clueless how natural selection works.

This is hilarious: Submission History

Most recent topics:

•Arguments for moral anti-realism?

•Is death harmful for the one who dies?

•What makes a moral fact "moral"?

•Critique My Philosophy of Life?

•Ways to combat loneliness?

Find all topics submitted by philosofer123


Most recent posts:
• I used to be a physicalist, but I gradually became uncomfortable with the arguments that support it--there were just too many potential objections...

• In my view, the whole point of moral realism is that objective moral facts would have inescapable practical authority--they would provide normativ...

• I did not say that our emotions are rendered useless. I said that some of our emotions are rendered irrational. That is, they are based on false... No shit red ryder!

• Determinism, if true, would preclude the existence of ultimate responsibility. And without ultimate responsibility, a whole range of negative emo... Why would that be, even without freewill your actions would be determined by you and be your responsibility.

•By the way, yochay, your overall philosophy is very similar to Stoicism. You might want to check out the three books on Stoicism in the recommended r...

Find all posts posted by philosofer123  It appears he may not have been a troll, but just wrong, and trying to convince himself he is right. Solitary

Quote from: "Solitary"It appears he may not have been a troll, but just wrong, and trying to convince himself he is right. Solitary

That does not make him really much different from the regular Christian chew toys we get. Both are blind when the evidence turns against their conclusions.

What do you call someone so involved with their own ego that they completely dismiss facts from experienced well respected scientist who have conducted exhaustive studies decades long compiled with centuries of data?
You call that person a troll for that is exactly what they are.
What do you call a person that post a theory and when you prove them wrong by setting a simple trap and they fall into that trap...easily, but said person continues to keep posting they same old crap that has more than been refuted?
You call that person a troll.
That is what we have here, a bonofide troll.
He claims that a biologist doesn't know what evolution is all because that biologist doesn't agree with his fucked up theory. He gets facts presented to him backed up by credible sources and he claims that it never happened.
He claims someone is angry, but the fact is that it is he that is angry and frustrated.
It's understandable. He wanted everyone to respect his little theory even though the theory wasn't researched, is baseless, isn't supported by the facts.
All that matters is his ego...HIS emotion. Too bad that reality has set in and he is reduced in defending a unatainable position.
But that is what trolls do and how the threads always end up when dealing with one. When you put your ego ahead of facts, you're stuck. If you can't admitt to being wrong you are always the loser in these things.
So we are dealing with a loser troll that is so full of himself that he forgot the fundemental rule in arguing a position....FACTS.
Inscedently, I can't believe that this guy was a successful executive. Most if not all successful executives can write a thesis that is supported by facts. You can't obtain a masters degree if you can't do so.
So put it to the forum that we not only have a troll but a fraud as well.

Quote from: "Philosofer123"

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"

Quote from: "Philosofer123"I am afraid that you have completely destroyed your credibility.

For someone who likes pointing out logical fallacies, you sure do love to use them.

If you believe that I have committed a logical fallacy, then please demonstrate exactly how.  Otherwise, you cannot be taken seriously.

Attacking someone's argument on the grounds of credibility is classic ad hominem. As someone who has called ad hominem on others before now, you should know this.

Quote from: "Philosofer123"PLEASE NOTE:

Despite the best efforts of several individuals on this thread, no one has been able to establish that anger is necessary for individual survival today.  It is not worth my time to continue arguing the point, so I will not respond to any additional posts on the topic of anger.

I will be happy to respond to any constructive feedback on any other aspect of my philosophy.

Thank you for your comments up to this point.  I look forward to constructive dialogue.

Translation: I'm right, you're wrong, now fuck off. TROLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

Plenty of people have proven it, and your only answer has been to say, "That's not good enough." You never bother to say why it's not good enough, of course; but if there's anything I've learned from people as set in their opinions as you are, it's that there is no "why" aspect to your logic, because no amount of evidence will ever persuade you otherwise.

Oh, and before you call "ad hominem," that doesn't apply here: I'm not trying to attack your argument by attacking you. I'm just attacking you.

He's still here in the philosophy section.  :Hangman:

Quote from: "Plu"Nah, he knows us well enough to speak for multiple people on these forums.

Keep in mind that "our" always includes the speaker, you seem to have missed that  :roll:

 So, he´s a coward.

If you say so  :roll:

If you feel people are cowards for speaking for themselves as well as others because they know it applies to them as well, then whatever floats your boat.

Quote from: "Plu"If you say so  :roll:

If you feel people are cowards for speaking for themselves as well as others because they know it applies to them as well, then whatever floats your boat.

 I responded to one specific user, but if you want to be treated like an uniform mass that thinks the same, then so be it :). Usually, when someone uses the first person in plural (plural of cowards), he does that because he´s afraid to face his interlocutor alone. It´s a cheap trick used in rhetorics.

The keyword in your post being "usually", as that's not really our style.

(Not to mention that in any kind of proper debate Hijiri Byakuren could tear you so many new assholes you could be sold as swiss cheese, so he has nothing to be afraid of :P)

Quote from: "Plu"The keyword in your post being "usually", as that's not really our style.

(Not to mention that in any kind of proper debate Hijiri Byakuren could tear you so many new assholes you could be sold as swiss cheese, so he has nothing to be afraid of :P)

 He sure has problems in understanding simple formulated phrases :) (as he himself admitted it). He can only tear me with a punch, not with words.

With your track record so far, I don't think it's anyone's fault but your own that people have problems understanding you. You don't exactly seem to be taking the time to properly explain your beliefs and statements.

Since nobody here knows you, it'd help if you'd take the time to make us understand you. We come from different cultures, believe different things, are different in every way. It's a good idea to start from the idea that if someone that different doesn't understand you, it's probably your own fault.

Quote from: "Plu"With your track record so far, I don't think it's anyone's fault but your own that people have problems understanding you. You don't exactly seem to be taking the time to properly explain your beliefs and statements.

Since nobody here knows you, it'd help if you'd take the time to make us understand you. We come from different cultures, believe different things, are different in every way. It's a good idea to start from the idea that if someone that different doesn't understand you, it's probably your own fault.

  If you don´t understand what I say than you can chose to be honest and ask. My first comment here was adressed to the OP alone and it was about his philosophy of life. He understood very well what I asked although he elegantly avoided the answer.

Considering the medium we are in, it's considered a better approach to do what you can to make it unneccesary to ask. But I'll keep it in mind if I ever feel the need to consider your opinion  :wink:

Quote from: "Biodome"

Quote from: "Bibliofagus"So because free will doesn't exist we have to choose to behave differently?
How exactly does that make sense?

In the compatibilist theory of free will, you are able to choose to act on your motives, but you are not responsible for the motives themselves. "You can do what you will, but you cannot will what you will."

It's still determinism right? As in: There is only one possible outcome?

:popcorn:  :popcorn:

Quote from: "SimonaM"He sure has problems in understanding simple formulated phrases :) (as he himself admitted it). He can only tear me with a punch, not with words.

For being so willing to call me a coward, you sure do like to insult me behind my back. It's almost like you're afraid of what would happen if you tried to engage me in a proper discussion.

If you think you're such hot stuff, why don't you head over to the Informal Debates section and challenge me, hmm? A little mano a mano, if you will. Surely someone of your caliber should have no trouble dealing me a little smackdown. 8-)

Quote from: "SimonaM"

Quote from: "Plu"With your track record so far, I don't think it's anyone's fault but your own that people have problems understanding you. You don't exactly seem to be taking the time to properly explain your beliefs and statements.

Since nobody here knows you, it'd help if you'd take the time to make us understand you. We come from different cultures, believe different things, are different in every way. It's a good idea to start from the idea that if someone that different doesn't understand you, it's probably your own fault.

  If you don´t understand what I say than you can chose to be honest and ask. My first comment here was adressed to the OP alone and it was about his philosophy of life. He understood very well what I asked although he elegantly avoided the answer.

Look you are new here and you don't know much about the people on the forum at all. You attacked a person that is not only well liked but very very intelligent. Now we don't know much about you and because of that fact you get a free pass in most cases.
Consider those facts when you post and tread just a little lighter next time, or at least be more informed about people that you are making unwarranted accuzations of.

Quote from: "Bibliofagus"

Quote from: "Biodome"

Quote from: "Bibliofagus"So because free will doesn't exist we have to choose to behave differently?
How exactly does that make sense?

In the compatibilist theory of free will, you are able to choose to act on your motives, but you are not responsible for the motives themselves. "You can do what you will, but you cannot will what you will."

It's still determinism right? As in: There is only one possible outcome?

Yes, the compatibilist view accepts determinism, but they do not think that this contradicts free will, since they define it as: "the freedom to act according to one's determined motives without arbitrary hindrance from other individuals or institutions". It is not freedom to choose (i.e. in a completely identical situation and circumstances you would always make the same choice), but it is freedom to act on one's own desires.

Quote from: "Philosofer123"

Quote from: "Solitary"There is a problem here with the word responsible. A tornado is responsible for the damage it causes, is it not. You can still be held responsible for what you do even if you don't have freewill, to protect society for example. We kill a vicious animal that causes harm because it was responsible for doing it even if it has freewill or not. Where did this concept of freewill come from? Religion and the belief in a god. There is only will power, which enables us to choose right or wrong for many reasons we have no control over. intelligence and just a little brain power is all that is required to know not to do something to another sentient creature you don't want done to yourself. No God needed or required. When the Nazi's did with their will and choice was an example of moral idiocy even though they were intelligent in other ways. Solitary

Yes, the tornado, in some sense, is responsible for the damage it causes.  But at the same time, it makes no sense to get angry at the tornado.  Analogously, it makes no sense to get angry at someone who is proximately responsible, but not ultimately responsible, for their actions.  And the regress argument demonstrates that no one can be ultimately responsible for anything.  Therefore, the impossibility of free will in the way I define it (in terms of ultimate responsibility) has great therapeutic benefits.  Namely, it renders irrational a number of negative emotions, including anger and regret.  And this is the primary purpose of including free will impossibilism in my philosophy.

That said, as you note, punishment may still be appropriate for pragmatic reasons--such as deterrence, quarantine, and perhaps rehabilitation.  But if no one can be ultimately responsible for anything, then punishment for retributive reasons makes no sense.

I agree completely with this. Solitary

Quote from: "Biodome"

Quote from: "Bibliofagus"

Quote from: "Biodome"In the compatibilist theory of free will, you are able to choose to act on your motives, but you are not responsible for the motives themselves. "You can do what you will, but you cannot will what you will."

It's still determinism right? As in: There is only one possible outcome?

Yes, the compatibilist view accepts determinism, but they do not think that this contradicts free will, since they define it as: "the freedom to act according to one's determined motives without arbitrary hindrance from other individuals or institutions". It is not freedom to choose (i.e. in a completely identical situation and circumstances you would always make the same choice), but it is freedom to act on one's own desires.

The problem with the compatibilist position is that motives/desires are the effect of certain causes - some are conscious, some are unconscious - and therefore by redefining free will in this manner, this is basically pushing the goalposts.

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"

Quote from: "Biodome"Yes, the compatibilist view accepts determinism, but they do not think that this contradicts free will, since they define it as: "the freedom to act according to one's determined motives without arbitrary hindrance from other individuals or institutions". It is not freedom to choose (i.e. in a completely identical situation and circumstances you would always make the same choice), but it is freedom to act on one's own desires.

The problem with the compatibilist position is that motives/desires are the effect of certain causes - some are conscious, some are unconscious - and therefore by redefining free will in this manner, this is basically pushing the goalposts.

Of course our motives are predetermined, but that is irrelevant to their definition of free will. You can say that it's pushing the goalpoasts, but I have no problem with that definition of free will. Free will in the ultimate sense of being able to create and control your future does not exist, but one does not need to be free in the ultimate sense to feel free. That feeling is satisfactory for most.

Quote from: "Biodome"

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"

Quote from: "Biodome"Yes, the compatibilist view accepts determinism, but they do not think that this contradicts free will, since they define it as: "the freedom to act according to one's determined motives without arbitrary hindrance from other individuals or institutions". It is not freedom to choose (i.e. in a completely identical situation and circumstances you would always make the same choice), but it is freedom to act on one's own desires.

The problem with the compatibilist position is that motives/desires are the effect of certain causes - some are conscious, some are unconscious - and therefore by redefining free will in this manner, this is basically pushing the goalposts.

Of course our motives are predetermined, but that is irrelevant to their definition of free will. You can say that it's pushing the goalpoasts, but I have no problem with that definition of free will. Free will in the ultimate sense of being able to create and control your future does not exist, but one does not need to be free in the ultimate sense to feel free. That feeling is satisfactory for most.

If the compatibilist position is make us all feel good by making us all feel we have free will, even though technically/semantically for lack of better words we don't have it, how can I argue against that?  :P

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"If the compatibilist position is make us all feel good by making us all feel we have free will, even though technically/semantically for lack of better words we don't have it, how can I argue against that?  :P

I guess they just want to make a distinction between a person who has motives and cannot act upon them and a person that has motives and is able to act upon them. "Free will"? I guess it is suitable for the task. Of course, one cannot get rid of all possible ambiguities due to tons of definitions. Every human chooses the one which fits them best...

Quote from: "Biodome"Yes, the compatibilist view accepts determinism, but they do not think that this contradicts free will, since they define it as: "the freedom to act according to one's determined motives without arbitrary hindrance from other individuals or institutions". It is not freedom to choose (i.e. in a completely identical situation and circumstances you would always make the same choice), but it is freedom to act on one's own desires.

Thank you. Didn't know about that. I had some questions but your conversation with palazzo covers these nicely.
So I guess I should thank you both.

This should be on a demotivational poster to make sense:
Asks for critique of philosophy of life.
All critiques deemed, "not worth the time".

Quote from: "TrueStory"This should be on a demotivational poster to make sense:
Asks for critique of philosophy of life.
All critiques deemed, "not worth the time".

(//http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/43730519.jpg)

Please note that I have revised the "Negative hedonism" section of the document.

I have also added a new section entitled "Beyond peace of mind".

I look forward to any helpful feedback you may have.

Quote from: "Philosofer123"Over the past few years, I have formulated my philosophy of life

Okay.

QuotePlease note that I have revised the "Negative hedonism" section of the document.

ah wat?

QuoteI have also added a new section entitled "Beyond peace of mind".
.

aw wat?


Oh you mean you are still formulating.....okay..... one should really be more careful with the making them damn statements as if they are...you know..statments.

Oh no... Oh no... It returns...

I was excited to read the document and then very let down to discover that the link no longer works...

I am willing to offer a critique OP if you are still requesting them.

Quote from: Casparov on April 11, 2014, 01:23:45 AM
I was excited to read the document and then very let down to discover that the link no longer works...

I am willing to offer a critique OP if you are still requesting them.

The link in the OP should still work.  That said, you may find another copy of the document at the following link:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/183418623/My-Philosophy-of-Life

I look forward to your critique.

I agree with almost everything you say accept I believe death is only harmful to those that love you. Solitary