Critique My Philosophy of Life?

[Solitary]

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

[SimonaM]

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.

[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.

[SimonaM]

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.

[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)

[SimonaM]

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.

[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.

[SimonaM]

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.

[Plu]

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  

[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?

[leo]

 

[Sargon The Grape]

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-)

[mykcob4]

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.

[Biodome]

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.

[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