Wez
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
TM – To say that we are the only species (on this planet) that is conscious of the laws of nature is not arrogance but a fact.
TM – ‘You see i have no problem because i don’t see humans as “above” anything. We are an animal species, material organisms, including our wills, which are the effects of sense impressions, external and internal motion.’
Of course we are ‘above’ all other species because we are an example of the universe becoming conscious of itself. Suck it up TM and all the responsibilities it implies.
TM-‘The motive in you to believe in free will, because you feel the opposite diminishes your sense of moral agency, seems so strong, you maybe should yield to it, and reject a materialism which you feel is reductionist.’
There you go again, telling me what I think. I was a materialist probably before you were born so don’t be telling me that I’m an idealist. I’ve said that I accept that: ‘One answer is that even if we see free will as an illusion, we can still recognize the social requirements for ethics and morals.’ but don’t like it because it points to a weakness in materialism/determinism. Here’s something I wrote many years ago that might set your heart at rest: https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2017/2010s/no-1357-september-2017/crime-and-capital/
‘One answer is that even if we see free will as an illusion, we can still recognize the social requirements for ethics and morals.’
I like that but it goes against the socialist grain a bit since we value ‘truth’ above all things.
TM- ‘You will, however, yield to the strongest acting upon your will, not the weakest, and your choice will be made accordingly.’
In other words you believe that we are moral automatons.
TM-‘You think there is an entity called “you” inside your body, inside your brain, receiving audiences like a king, or god, and whose decisions are independent of material motion.’
You’re not very good at this debating thing are you – telling people what they think is very annoying and confrontational. Like Freud I think the ego, the ‘you’, is an evolutionary entity that enhances survival. As I keep saying, to your apparently deaf ears, I too am a determinist but I believe the theory can and does erode individual moral agency and dehumanizes. Despite your name (real or not) you seem to have a deep contempt for Christianity and perhaps this is what drives your contempt for agency or ‘free will’ as you call it. Have you heard this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00z5y9z
BD – I agree with most of what you say and indeed you restate the very point I was trying to make. However we dedicate ourselves to educating the working class to a level where they can understand their class and its revolutionary role. This is quite an elevated concept for many and if we are to have a mass movement then your contention that only those who are ‘talented’ in this area can achieve consciousness makes the revolution impossible.
TM – Intelligence has always been a problematic concept because it seems impossible to measure and define different levels of it within the human population. I only mention it because you gave me the impression that you thought it was an important factor in the development of moral and political character. Your determinism makes internal moral debate seem redundant but we all constantly wrestle with opposing scenarios before we act and are not moral automatons.Getting back to the theme of this thread would you agree that the problematic concept of intelligence has very little to do with the formation of politcal ideologies? And isn’t it the case that without moral integrity no amount of ‘intelligence’ is a substitute? This places moral agency at the heart of political activity and therefore seems to undermine determinism.
TM -I refer to his elitist views concerning the ‘Übermensch’ who would rise, through his own will, and become a superior being. I was never able to discern a coherent political thesis in his work which is why he can be interpreted by almost all types of politics as one of their own – this is probably both a strength and certainly a weakness in his writing.
‘If you’re referring to the elected members of the government, educated – agreed, intelligent – perhaps not.’
It’s an old leftist cliché based on elitism that ‘if only people were more intelligent they would agree with us.’ Levels of intelligence have little or no influence on political ideologies. Some of the most brilliant scientists have appalling reactionary political views. Nietzsche and Heidegger were undoubtedly geniuses but just look at their politics!
‘Those who would are not likely to think in philosophical terms in the first place; unless they are the fictional villains of De Sade’s novels. (And i don’t think your unrepentant rapist or street thug is that bright).’
TM – Just to point out that some of the greatest criminals have been highly intelligent. The government is full of highly educated and intelligent people without one moral compass between them.
” Do you take moral responsibility for your actions? TM ‘Yes’.
A determinist and denier of free will would have to answer ‘no’ because he believes he has no control of his actions since they are all predetermined. ”So, Wez, you do not take responsibility for your actions, since you have said you reject free will too!
TM – That’s rather below you as you fail to quote me in full. In the next sentence I go on to say that I recognize the contradiction between taking moral responsibility for my actions and my belief in determinism. You do not recognize that problem – or perhaps you choose not to?
Do you take moral responsibility for your actions? TM ‘Yes’.
A determinist and denier of free will would have to answer ‘no’ because he believes he has no control of his actions since they are all predetermined. I agree that many ‘free-willies’ are unprincipled hypocrites and I too am a determinist but I do recognize the paradox of our position in this respect and although I have read a great deal on the subject nobody seems to be able to resolve it satisfactorily – for me.‘Societies have different codes of morality.’
True but they also share a great deal. I notice you didn’t answer my question – do you take moral responsibility for your actions?TM – So when you have done something ‘immoral’ do you not feel guilt? Do you not hold yourself to account for your actions? Or do you blame your dysfunctional family for what you did? Surely a moral compass together with taking responsibility for your actions is a prerequisite of maturity. I’m reminded of the many stories you hear from friends concerning traffic accidents – it’s always the other guy’s fault. Your statement concerning ‘grafting our morality onto the universe’ overlooks the fact that we are part of that universe – we do not live outside of it so it follows that our ideas have their origins within it.
TM – You seem to be ‘putting the cart before the horse’ here – before we consider the punishment or restraint of those who act profoundly anti-socially we first have to consider if they’re ‘victims’ of their environment or take individual responsibility for them. I speak of the here and now rather than of what may pertain within a socialist society. If we have no will to decide what our actions will be how can we be blamed for them? Do you not consider this a dilemma?
