Thomas_More
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
We can speculate for fun. But to say “it could” is to ignore all the antecedents that led up to what actually happened.
It was not in one’s power to think about what one didn’t think about at any given moment. It is ludicrous to say one could have.
One cannot will to will.
And free will is really an insidious notion that buttresses capitalism: from punishment and penal law to the Great Man Theory.
It rejects materialism.Necessity was the one truth that Godwin said would take the longest for people to accept, and he was right.
As well as reading books, one can confirm these things by contemplating one’s life. Know someone well enough, and one can say in advance how they are likely to respond to a certain situation, what they are likely to do, etc.
You expect yesterday’s friend to still be your friend today. If not, then you will seek the motive for his change of attitude toward you. But, were his will independent of causation, his behaviour would be totally anarchic, without history.
Social historical development would also not exist, were there no cause and effect.I never said humans were passive. Of course they change their environment, but in response to motivation.
We make the future in the same way.
Yes. Our aim must be to nudge the chain of causation in the direction we would like to see.
Yes again, the material conditions are ripe for socialism and we know that and work to nudge consciousness forward.We don’t know what will happen, of course. We don’t just wait to see, because that would minimise the possibility of a favourable outcome.
But in talking of the past, we know what happened – like me forgetting the paracetamols – so we can’t say “could have” because obviously it couldn’t because it didn’t. What happened happened.It’s like saying “You should have thought of that before you did it.” Not an issue, because I didn’t think of it, so could not.
The human will affects the chain of causation, but that will itself is compelled to yield to the strongest motive weighing upon it, which in turn is influenced and determined by a multitude of factors within an individual as well as outside of him, and not all are conscious. These are determined by personal history and experiences as well as social reality. You weren’t born a socialist. You became one. You cannot cease being one – unless a stronger motive comes along to change your thinking.
The common misunderstanding of my position, which I hold with the other materialist opponents of free will.
Recognising that the universe is governed by necessity does not make me a fatalist. Nor has it anything to do with predestination.
Predestination is the Calvinist doctrine that “the elect”, e.g. their Church members, are PREDESTINED for Heaven. So it is completely irrelevant to the necessity vs free will argument.You need to read your Shelley, Godwin, Voltaire and Holbach, as well as the Western Socialist’s famous Free Will article.
We want socialism, which is why we try our best to motivate others toward it. If people have free will, their will would not be subject to motive, so trying to motivate them would be a waste of time. It’s because will (thoughts and feelings) spring from antecedents and are therefore not free, that we try to push their thoughts and therefore their actions toward the socialist objective.
Socialism’s realisation will mean they had the motivation to achieve it; its failure to materialise will mean they didn’t. Either way, what will be will be. But because we are motivated we must do our utmost to push their minds toward the positive way.If they don’t make socialism then they couldn’t. If they do, they could. If I forgot to buy the paracetamols, I couldn’t have remembered, because I didn’t.
In fact there are two Britains. Little Britain is Brittany. The islands are Great Britain. Nothing to do with imperialism. They are geographic terms older than the age of imperialism.
“In any event, arrogance can only be an attitude of individuals not of a species.”
Agreed.
“It is true that the leading thinkers and traditions used to teach that humans were the most important life-form, that the Earth had been created for them and was the centre of the Universe, etc, etc but that is no longer the dominant view (even if religion still preaches it).”
Long after a belief has been overthrown, its influence remains. Most who accept evolution think it is a progressive thing, with humans the “result” of a mounting towards complexity and superiority.
“… as they could have done for some 150 years.”
Obviously they couldn’t, because they didn’t. “Could have” is like “if”. “I could have bought some paracetamols in the shop.” No you couldn’t, because you didn’t.
We may bring about socialism, or we may not. But whatever we do or not do, we will do what we do, and “could have” will likewise be meaningless.
And I wasn’t talking about sudden annihilation, but normal extinction. I doubt humans will be here anywhere near as long as other species have*, although humans are likely to annihilate more species before we disappear – species whose longevity as life forms dwarf ours.
*For the reason Gould gave, mentioned earlier: the apes (us) are ripe for extinction. (Which can still mean a few million years, which we won’t have at all unless we get rid of capitalism, as I’m sure you’ll agree).
