Posts by EricR

I thought I'd offer some thoughts on this. There seem to be 2 topics under discussion, free will and anarchism. I will address them separately.

Free will is a topic that is so crucial that I think we need to treat it cautiously. In fact, because of its religious overtones, I don't really like the term. I prefer volition or even better, "choices and avoidances"! Mathitis Kipouros, can you please clarify this sentence for me. I need some help to understand, "...we actually use our free will to try an approach/achieve whatever determinism we can get a hold of." I suspect it's something like the following, but please correct me if not.

Neuroscientists, physicists, etc. claim determinism to be the law of nature, and the evidence they recruit for this is powerful. In fact, I accept their evidence yet still have a problem with their conclusion. If I am a scientist wanting to validate or invalidate a hypothesis, I have to test it and assess the results of the experiment. If I have no free will, then whatever assessment I make is determined so I cannot actually know if it’s correct. Since I had no choice in my conclusion, how can I know that conclusion is right? I suppose one can say that logical deduction itself is what tells me something is correct or not, but how do I know logic is correct? I’m still faced with the same problem assessing logic. I know there are whole books out there that refute the notion of free will. But I still get stuck on this point. How can I know anything if I cannot make any choices about what is true or false?

As for anarchy, it is a word that means "no rulers". So I must disagree with your statement that "anarchism espouses the view that an authority figure is not bad in and of itself as long as its authority is justified by the benefits it provides to the ones it's leading." Anarchism is the rejection of rulers. I know of no political context in which a committed anarchist justifies being ruled. Yes, there are situations in which being ruled is tolerated, but the rulers have no standing in the mind of an anarchist.

"Transcending the self" is yet another important topic. But my old brain struggles to juggle multiple topics in a single thread.

Ok, there's quite a bit to digest here.

I will say this much. As I said at the beginning of this thread, I thought this was important because it "...puts to the test every law of the land to determine whether it harmonizes with the innate idea of justice".

To me, this means the anticipation of justice is key to those small things in our culture such as the legal system, laws, legislation, government power, etc.!!

In other words, the Anticipations as a key part of the natural ability to understand reality really, really, really matters. We need, at least, I need to get it clear and correct.

Quote from Cassius

This also addresses the argument which immediately must be confronted by anyone who asserts that there are truly innate "ideas." They must be confronted immediately with the question: "Well, then, give me a list of them!"

That is almost exactly where I was headed with my original post. When I read that passage in which DeWitt names "justice" and "divine nature" AND "other such abstractions" I took them to be named anticipations. So I wanted to understand what makes them so and then could we start sorting out (listing) others.

But I see I was making a mistake in being so specific. But I think Don has a good point about them being "always true" in their role as primary ways of knowing. If they represent principles incorrectly, in way that sight can be incorrect in the case of colour blindness, then the rational mind must be engaged to correct the perceptual error. I gather the anticipations must work the same way? They are considered true unless their is a known deficiency in function?

Boy, this is hard to sort through, at least for me.

Ok, think I'm sloooooowly getting the idea here. The feeling that something is unfair is the operation of the faculty of anticipation while the actual thought of "this is unfair because..." is the operation of the rational mind. That mind can make mistakes due to personal issue, incorrect information, ideoligical bias, etc. But the original ability of sensing "something" unfair is the faculty in operation that requires interpration.

Interestingly, I came across this picture this morning. I think it speaks to this question despite what I suspect is a religious origin.

Thanks, Don. That is very helpful. Clearly, the important detail in all of this is differentiating between the sense or feeling of fairness and actual thoughts of it. My reference to the blank slate is related to the latter. What is blank are the actual ideas, thoughts, concepts, etc. that are later conceived via the interaction of the Anticipations with experiences. Am I understanding this correctly?

Now, how about "divine nature"? If we are not born with actual innate ideas, what is going on with this one? What is innate in us that refers to what we later define conceptually?

Great responses, guys, thanks! I find the concept of the Anticipations to be the most difficult to understand. Indeed for me, the notion that we are born with innate ideas makes no sense and I can understand its opposite, the blank slate.

However, as Cassius describes it as faculty or ability, I can start to get my head around it. The concept of "justice" is an awkward one to deal with because of the various ways it can be described. Look a the daily news to see what I mean. Which "justice" is actually just? This question will take us into endless conceptual debates.

When I've watched children at play and they get into a dispute over a toy, game, etc. I've witnessed the indignant retort, "hey, no fair!" This is usually the result of a desire being thwarted, but they don't say, "hey, I didn't get my want fulfilled!" or some childhood equivalent. They refer to something called "fair" that represents the feeling of their desire being denied. In other words, they sense innately that there was something unfair, or unjust, about the situation. Does this sound like the existence of an Anticipation of "justice"?

An example from our adult world is pornography. While definitions abound in trying to pin down what is pornographic and what is not, I can say with confidence that "I know it when I see it." While the context can vary historically and across cultures, I've often wondered if most people "know it when they see it" and then attempt to define it afterward. Is this an example of an Anticipation?

Hi All,

It has been a loooong time since I posted here. I've been roaming philosophical/spiritual landscapes and my explorations have led me back here. Go figure! I will talk about that on my wall as it is personal.

I'm slow-reading DeWitt's book. I came across this line on page 213 (ch 11 Soul, Sensation, and Mind) and it struck me as very important:

Quote

...the volitional mind takes cognizance of the Anticipations, that is, the innate ideas of justice, of the divine nature, and other such abstractions, and it puts to the test every law of the land to determine whether it harmonizes with the innate idea of justice.

The importance of this quote is its applicability to modern times since we are living in a culture of laws, for better or worse. The key anticipations mentioned of justice and divine nature are particularly important as they relate to the laws under which we currently live.

So I am curious to know what innate ideas are thought to be "justice" and "divine nature".

Eoghan, your story is similar to mine with regard to Stoicism. I too dipped my toes into the Stoic pond for a while although I came to it through my curiosity about Virtue (that's another story). I too stared at the question of "why is virtue itself a good?" and its obvious answer "because it feels good".

Further, I kept coming across nasty comments about Epicurus so started wondering more about him. His goal of pleasure fit with my other passion, Buddhism, with its goal of reduced suffering. (also no gods, eternal universe etc.).

So welcome and may you have conversations here that build a pleasant life.

Kevin, in your Epicurean outline you said: "The fact that that the question of free will has been discussed for millennia, does make me feel like my perhaps over-simplified view may have a huge blind spot. To the extent that the question of free will is interesting to you I welcome any further thoughts."

That is one of the most honest and open statements I've seen on any philosophical topic. Very impressive and trust me, rare. I too try to be open about others' ideas and the likelihood of being blinded by my own notions.

I don't think your view is over-simplified. I think you have thought this through. That you have done this yet still "welcome further thoughts" is commendable. If I may offer a possibility for you to consider - I think your blind spot is that you are using free will to deny free will. Everything you said is based on the ability to assess evidence and decide on conclusions. As I said in my post here http://mindmusing.net/free-will/ there seems to be something about the psyche must be able to choose what is true or false.

I do not deny the deterministic aspect of nature. It's there to be seen by any thinking person. I also don't understand free will and don't even like the phrase given its religious overtones. I prefer volition. Further, the idea that we are "completely free" is silly. Obviously we react to stimuli, are affected by our environment, influences etc. But somewhere, somehow, we have the ability to make some choices.

You now have the choice about responding to me or not. If you do, you can choose to agree, argue, discuss, condemn, laugh, or insult me. Take a moment to think about how you want to come across in your response. That too is an act of volition.

I'll be interested in what kind of response your post gets. It's no secret that I left FB last fall, although I opened a pseudonym account there to help out some friends with their marketing. I am questioning even that at the moment. Friendship vs. online privacy. Such a crappy choice!

KDF Have you read my blog post on Free Will? If so, I would love to read your response to the central question I pose there. Namely, if we cannot make any free choices, how can we assess evidence and come to a conclusion about something being true or false?

Why bother giving any topic the thought and examination in order to come to a conclusion? We have no choices so it's all a waste of time. Further, why present any arguments or evidence in order to persuade someone of an alternate position to the one they hold? They cannot make any choices about what is true or false, and even if they do seem to, how can we know if they are correct? We have no free will with which to assess anything. Without free will, how can we have knowledge?

Please forgive me if I am being a pain about this. Also, understand that I am not talking about some kind of ghost in the machine that is free of all influences. I am talking a level of evolutionary complexity that over the vastness of time has given rise to our unique ability to "know that we know" and make choices about what is true or false.

Perhaps I'm way off base on this and someone can show me how to have knowledge without free will. I am open to ideas.

This is among my favourite topics. The philosophical and psychological debate has raged forever and for me it seems to come down the "momentary ability to assess information and choose what is correct".

Here is my blog about it. http://mindmusing.net/free-will/ which explains this is more (but not tons of) detail.

I make no claims as to how or why or to what extent our will is free. Bigger brains than mine have grappled with that down the ages.

Ah...there he is!

The other pic was fine. But there's something about this one......I think it's the sense of not talking oneself too seriously.

I find great pleasure in that simple idea of taking a lighter view of oneself. I see so many who are desperate to be right, to be authoritative, to be seen a certain way. When we make a mistake we cringe as if that should never happen or somehow our reputation will take a hit and we won't be taken seriously. Once one wakes up to being fallible, the inner life becomes much lighter.

Thanks so much for posting this personal story, Brett. While I deeply appreciate the huge pitcher knowledge that is available here and I drink from it regularly, it is the lived experience of a philosophy that interests me the most. It is the affect of internalizing a set of ideas on one's outlook and, as in your case, choices.

Kudos to you for having the presence of mind in the midst of imbibing to see into the immediate future and make the choice to place future pleasure over the present. Alcohol is notorious for obscuring the ability to do that. You also did it in a party atmosphere. Well done!

I will add that repeatedly doing this will create what I am calling "the habit of long-term pleasure". By this I mean each time one makes the choice to forego the momentary pleasure for the longer lasting, one gets better at doing this. For example, I enjoy a glass of wine before dinner. But I know from experience that having more than that will make me too lethargic and apathetic to enjoy dinner. So I don't have more than the 1 glass and have no desire for more.

By the way, I like your new profile picture of you being thoughtful. But I miss the one of the guy looking joyful, bordering on insane!

I'm not sure quite where to go with this topic because it is so varied. Many people, myself included, were raised within a religious tradition. Further, there are others who may not have been in a specific religion but were still raised to believe in abstract virtues as real existing things to be obeyed. Many of them have internalized the world views of their traditions and even if they might have turned away from their upbringing, the seeds that were planted are constantly at work in the psyche. This is why taking an attitude of "your just plain wrong so listen to me" is useless. I'm not saying anyone here does that, but I've seen it elsewhere. It fails utterly!

Further, there is a growing constituency of people who list "none" on a census question as to their religion, yet who identify as "spiritual but not religious". I understand where they are coming from. They've rejected their traditional upbringing but are still feeling the of "something more" that they call the spiritual feeling. This may be that seed in the psyche and the plethora of forms this has taken is huge.

So I am wondering how folks here would approach someone in that position in a way that addresses their feeling via EP.

Will take a look thanks.

This is a topic worth exploring. How to talk with those who've been raised in a tradition, either religious or virtuous, in a way that draws them in rather than shuts them out. Not sure which forum to start a thread on this. Advice?

Quote from Cassius

Even looking back at Japan vs USA, same analysis. Japan's leaders saw their interest one way, the USA's leaders saw it differently. One side one, and the other lost, but neither can legitimately claim that God or ideal virtue justified their side, because those things simply don't exist.

I imagine that is among the hardest things for anyone having been raised in a tradition that teaches "God or abstract virtue" to deal with when encountering a philosophy without those ideas. Those concepts feel so solid that to remove them is to feel adrift.

This is great information and lots of thought food. When I post these "thinking out loud" ideas, I am aware that they are not fully developed. So I post them with the hope that those with far deeper experience than I in EP can help me (and others) gain more clarity.

With regard to Japan, it did not quite reform itself after WW2. It was occupied and rebuilt by the U.S. with Britain, China, and the Soviet Union advising. Here's the story: https://history.state.gov/milestones/194…-reconstruction My purpose in highlighting this is to be sure the history is correct, but it also illustrates the idea of making an enemy into a friend which I believe is an EP value.

I was pondering this the other day. If pain is an evil, then inflicting it on others is immoral. Of course, there is also the acceptance of personal momentary pain in order to avoid later and presumably worse pain. But inflicting pain on others is questionable if it denies their option of accepting it for that later avoidance.