|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
posted May 27, 2010 03:59 PM |
|
|
Thanks. Looks like great work - as usual - Corribus, so, I will need some time to go through it.
____________
The empty set
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 07:38 PM |
|
|
Ohforf:
Quote:
So unintentional damage to your possibilities turning you from your current state into a state of purely observation on some mental plane is nothing that should be aimed to be prevented?
If it was the direct result of an action, then it's still coercion. If it happened naturally, then it's not.
And let's not get into metaphysics here.
JJ:
In a sense you're correct - about the social contract - although you sort of fall into the same trap as Ohforf in thinking of freedom as "the ability to do anything that one wants to do". It's really "the ability to do anything you want without harming others". Indeed, in a society, it is impossible to have freedom of the first definition. On the other hand, outside of society, it is impossible to have freedom of the second definition. Which makes sense, because questions of freedom are only applicable to interpersonal interacts - whether I can make you do something. Whatever issues he faces, a man on a desert island does not have any questions of freedom. (Unless, of course, he's religious.)
Also, there cannot be such a thing as becoming a slave willingly. If you're a slave, then it's unwilling. Otherwise, you're just a permanent volunteer. 
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 07:44 PM |
|
|
@Mvass
Not sure if you even want me to reply? If you don't, just tell me and I'll stop.
Mvass wrote:
Quote:
If it was the direct result of an action, then it's still coercion.
I don't think you can make this seperation. Everything is connected through the laws of nature. Just the extreme example of how the difference of a butterfly wing makes the hurricane. You could replace butterfly with human if you want. Who knows, maybe if I go to school tomorrow, a chain of reactions will result in someone getting a broken leg. If I don't, I'd affect the chain of reaction very little, but just enough for that someone not to get a broken leg.
I hope this example shows why I believe intentions matter, though I'm not quite certain what you actually mean by direct result, is direct result intentions?
In that case, the part you replied to would still apply, wouldn't it? You'd be extremely limited, yet not think this person did anything wrong, because said person never intended to.
Eventhough my examples are the extremes, I just want to show the possible holes, which needs to be glued together before I can accept your perception as reasonable.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 07:48 PM |
|
|
No, it doesn't matter if the person meant the specific end of coercing, but it does matter if it directly harms you. The person's act was a choice, and so that person is responsible for its consequences. That's what I meant.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 08:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
In a sense you're correct - about the social contract - although you sort of fall into the same trap as Ohforf in thinking of freedom as "the ability to do anything that one wants to do". It's really "the ability to do anything you want without harming others". Indeed, in a society, it is impossible to have freedom of the first definition.
I think it's you who falls for the trap. 
Freedom isn't an ability. Freedom is Nike: Just do it. "Doing anything you want without harming others" is no ability either; it's a voluntary sacrifice of part of your freedom - an act of rationality. A compromise. I'm NOT just doing it, instead I stop and think, how about the others?
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 08:21 PM |
|
|
I still see a very arbitrary line.
So is it the guy who pushes the stone, or the guy who pushes the stone that pushes the stone, or how far out shall it go before the difference is clear if it's not based on intention?
To me, it seems like you try to define an objective world upon measuring in stead of measuring from everyones own perspective. There's nothing wrong in that, that's basicly the way the scientific method applies (the third person observer) for what I know. However since the world is assumed to be interlinked through the laws of physics and since it's not intentions that differs on what is coercion, what is exactly your objective measurement, what is the direct harm? Is it driving the car, is it hitting with the club, in stead of hitting a rock that hits the club that hits you? I mean is every cheerleader of Russia responsible because their ways of life combined is part of the reason of someone getting harmed (and had they not become a cheerleader, no harm would have been done)?
What I search for is some clearly defined limit and then my plan is to show that this limit depends on perspective and is therefore not useable and through that conclude the system should always depend on the perspective of the individual, to the degree possible. Yet that'll probably have to wait until tomorrow, good night heroescommunity.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 08:41 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Obviously you have to think about the consequences of your actions, but I don't see how that's an infringement on freedom.
Ohforf:
The line is easy to draw. Are you doing anything that directly does harm to someone? It's easy to tell.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 08:48 PM |
|
|
|
Well, you can think about consequemces alright - but why would you stop doing what you want to do because of the consequences your doing has for others? Don't you have thee freedom to say, I don't care?
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 08:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
Obviously you have to think about the consequences of your actions, but I don't see how that's an infringement on freedom.
Because thinking might result in you realising that this will infringe on someone else than you. Example: You need money. You could rob someone. You think of the consequenses and decides not to, because that would infringe on the person you robbed.
So thinking will nullify some of your options in life, thus reducing your freedom (you could turn it around and say that you have the free choice of actually robbing, but...).
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 09:08 PM |
|
|
And then the cops have the freedom to arrest you. So we're talking about physical freedom when we should be talking about freedom in the political sense.
So the real question is what kind of behaviour should be permitted.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 09:24 PM |
|
|
That and what a choice is, but every one but me seems to disregard it.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 09:47 PM |
|
|
Not at all, Shares, that's what my point is: you ultimately are free to sacrifice a part of your freedom in order to maximize your options/opportunities. That's why people choose to build a society.
See it this way: freedom allows you to say, heck, why learn (finish my work...)? I relish my time and see. This way you may make a living by working here or there when you need to, suffering hardships and so on, but enjoying your freedom.
On the other hand you may sacrifice the freedom to be undisciplined, coerce yourself to learn (work) and maximize your options.
Freedom is - in the end, and in reality - to be free to make your own decisions. How you decide, well...
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 09:54 PM |
|
|
Yes, now take a step deeper if you can? Philosofy is my thing, so I meant on a more philosofic way of thinking.
What is a choice really? Not as in action or as in freedom, but as in what defines a choice of action from an action? And are subconsious choices also choices, or just actions?
Are a human just a sum of it's product? If not, how much does the sum affect us, and are you (partly?) excused for it?
I have all my answers, but I'd like to hear yours.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 10:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Are a human just a sum of it's product? If not, how much does the sum affect us, and are you (partly?) excused for it?
.
I don't know what you mean here. Can you explain that?
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 11:03 PM |
|
|
In it's simplicity a human is controlled by two or three things things.
1) Genetics. We are all born with a unique DNA, thus a unique body. The body defines the mind. For example people tend to be easier to upset when they are tired. This will off course affect their choices in life.
2) Experiences. People will always have a unique set of experiences, even more so than DNA, as in seeing enviroments, events and make choices they will learn to behave in a special way.
3) So does 1 and 2 define all that a human mind is? If you know everything about 1 and 2, can you then predict every single action they will make in specific situation? Are they a sum of their products? Or are there a third factor? The free will, would then be the third factor.
We can make a comparison with computerprogramming. 1 and 2 are perfect examples of how a human could be programmed, but would they act as anticipated?
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 11:22 PM |
|
|
There are so many factors within 1 and 2 that it is impossible to know all of them, so we can't predict people's actions anyway.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 11:25 PM |
|
|
Quite so. That's not the matter at my hand. You could stop pointing at the details and look at the actual point. It is a question of philosofy so it's quite obvious that we can not get a hold of all factors.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 11:45 PM |
|
|
Well, according to quantum physics we can't have all the factors.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted May 27, 2010 11:47 PM |
|
|
Well, cars have wheels.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 28, 2010 12:11 AM |
|
|
Yes, but we can't know where every specific particle in that wheel is.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
