Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
If we cannot be accountable for our actions, then we cannot hold anyone responsible for anything.
A nameless member stated that we have no control over our actions, and that if we think that we do then it is our Ego talking.
To me this is a rediculous question and a rediculous answer. If we cannot be accountable for our actions, then we cannot hold anyone responsible for anything.
To me this is a rediculous question and a rediculous answer. If we cannot be accountable for our actions, then we cannot hold anyone responsible for anything.
This kinda seems like a question of free will?
Without the context with which you are making your assumptions it is impossible to accurately comment on what you are efforting to put forth. In the context you have provided which is exclusively in defense of what you yourself believe, is precisely a matter of ego as you wish to defend your belief based on little information using only "sound bites" as your only justification. Give us a little more to work with.
Thanks,
William
Do we have control over our actions?
A nameless member stated that we have no control over our actions, and that if we think that we do then it is our Ego talking.
To me this is a rediculous question and a rediculous answer.
If we cannot be accountable for our actions, then we cannot hold anyone responsible for anything.
A nameless member stated that we have no control over our actions, and that if we think that we do then it is our Ego talking.
To me this is a rediculous question and a rediculous answer. If we cannot be accountable for our actions, then we cannot hold anyone responsible for anything.
"The physical is limited to the body and does not extend from or away from it. The physical is limited, too, entirely to the actions of the body but not to its reactions. When it comes to body reactions we are Spirit, if we define it as Spirit; thus you can see how the physical body is limited.
Read "LES MISERABLES". That is a prime example of what I am talking about. Talk about a great read. One of my all time favorites.
With all these influences upon us, I think it safe to say that although our actions may indeed be the mind's end-result of an equation taking into account all influences and simply reacting, there is still the inner individual who says 'yes' or 'no'. We may not use this trump authority very often, but I believe it exists.
[...]
whether you believe in the will of the individual, principles of chaos, the rebel mind that decides to go against all he knows 'just because he feels like it' or the young mind who wants to assert against all she knows, etc., I think it reasonable to assert that yes, there is free will - despite all the taskmasters at work in our minds and our environment.
A host of influences bombard our minds, prodding, pushing us towards <this> or <that>. There are preferences, values, insecurities, physical needs, physical wants, ideals of good or bad, senses of obligations, bias and prejudice, circumstances that suggest or insist; there are events to react to, compassion, selfishness, influences of faulty perception, miscommunication, perceived importance, goals, fears, reels of tape running in our heads from childhood and many, many more influences.
Good post Khethil
Is this "inner individual" the human rational intellect ?
I think this free will is not as free as we like to think it is. I'll take a somewhat more materialistic and rationalistic approach to the matter.
... So what's the deal ? We have two individuals capable of rational thought (i.e. Khethil's "inner man" who says yes or no). One of them, Jack, rationalised all those insults and got over them but the other, Jill, took them as personal beliefs. Where is the 'yes' or 'no' in Jill's case ?
... Bottom line is, it's free will in its TRUE sense ONLY if you have a perfectly working brain, both structurally intact and neurochemically balanced.
A nameless member stated that we have no control over our actions, and that if we think that we do then it is our Ego talking.
To me this is a rediculous question and a rediculous answer. If we cannot be accountable for our actions, then we cannot hold anyone responsible for anything.
The context in which I mean this would define it as the 'irrational', the whimsical, the impulsive part of us that enables us to exercise free will despite whatever the other influences say.
My first reaction is to say; That one exercised their free will while the other did not doesn't preclude the existence of this 'free will' of which I speak.
Whether or not circumstances, in all cases *allow* the inner-person to exercise this is open for debate. Often times emotions short-circuit the rational thought process [1] and blind us to alternatives.
If we cannot be accountable for our actions, then we cannot hold anyone responsible for anything.