Do humans actually have free will?

@Fido,

Fido,

The form is the object, and like the relation between subject and object, the truth is not about object per se, nor is it soley about the subject, but the relation between the two, experience is the effect of this relation. Well I don't think we really disagree here, systems intended to serve however somehow are turned into objects that ask to be served even where this was never its function to begin with. Example where one must prove ones devotion to it, as in patriotism, as some students are ask to do in relation to their school.

Just an added thought, this business of a system which becomes demanding of service, generally it is the functionaries of that system that turn the coin to this, that is for another thread though I guess.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Fido,

The form is the object, and like the relation between subject and object, the truth is not about object per se, nor is it soley about the subject, but the relation between the two, experience is the effect of this relation. Well I don't think we really disagree here, systems intended to serve however somehow are turned into objects that ask to be served even where this was never its function to begin with. Example where one must prove ones devotion to it, as in patriotism, as some students are ask to do in relation to their school.

Just an added thought, this business of a system which becomes demanding of service, generally it is the functionaries of that system that turn the coin to this, that is for another thread though I guess.

If Fido can understand what you have just written, I congratulate him.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

If Fido can understand what you have just written, I congratulate him.

I have to say, Fido lost me originally.

At this point I don't know what to think of this discussion. Forms, relationships, object, subject? I'm very confused.

@Mr Fight the Power,

What does form rely on? Socially and if I might ask, in actuality. This is where I'm lost, everything else is easy.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

I have to say, Fido lost me originally.

At this point I don't know what to think of this discussion. Forms, relationships, object, subject? I'm very confused.

When very abstract terms are used, and the user doesn't tie them down in any way, if he is not himself confused he will certainly confuse the reader. You should not take it for granted that the reason you are confused is that you don't understand what is being said. It may very well be that the writer is a a world of abstraction of his own, and that he is talking nonsense.

@kennethamy,

Abstraction is not nonsense. Its like a gate to the realm of the writer's mindset. It's just usually questionable and incoherent is all.

I hope for my sake.

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Abstraction is not nonsense. Its like a gate to the realm of the writer's mindset. It's just usually questionable and incoherent is all.

I hope for my sake.

What makes you think I believe that abstraction is nonsense? Unexplained abstraction is confusing, and if it isn't tied down, it is nonsense. Philosophy is especially prone to nonsense because it is so abstract, and people use terms without worrying about whether they mean anything. We have had example of that on this thread.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

When very abstract terms are used, and the user doesn't tie them down in any way, if he is not himself confused he will certainly confuse the reader. You should not take it for granted that the reason you are confused is that you don't understand what is being said. It may very well be that the writer is a a world of abstraction of his own, and that he is talking nonsense.

Their ability to converse in these terms signals to me that this is a matter of context.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

Their ability to converse in these terms signals to me that this is a matter of context.

Mr Fight the Power,

Yes of course you are right, it is in context to the extent that what is important about an object or an institution is ones experience of it, in this is your experience of being served or serving a given system. Most institutions are biological extensions of ourselves and as such the intention for their creation is to serve humanity, when this somehow gets turned around and ones life is devoted to the service of a system/s, there is in a sense a betrayal of our very nature. The institution then becomes what is important and not the individual, the old saying comes to mind, you can't fight cityhall, well, we had better hope it is always possiable to fight cityhall, the nature of cityhall is to serve, that is its rightful function, unless corrupted. The term relationship would just indicate the nature of your experience, to serve or to be served. I do hope this clarifies somewhat.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

Their ability to converse in these terms signals to me that this is a matter of context.

O.K. So what did he mean? Can you explain it to me in simple English?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

O.K. So what did he mean? Can you explain it to me in simple English?

From rereading it, it appears to be about the reversal of roles between social structures and the individuals who compose them.

It seems that both of them believe that the social structures should serve individuals and not vice versa.

I won't use their terminology, but I must say that these social structures are not providers in their own right. Someone must serve the structures for anyone to recieve benefit. Furthermore, we must have a very broad interpretation of the word "benefit"

These social structures are complex and a cost/benefit analysis must not focus merely on the structure and the individual alone.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

From rereading it, it appears to be about the reversal of roles between social structures and the individuals who compose them.

It seems that both of them believe that the social structures should serve individuals and not vice versa.

I won't use their terminology, but I must say that these social structures are not providers in their own right. Someone must serve the structures for anyone to recieve benefit. Furthermore, we must have a very broad interpretation of the word "benefit"

These social structures are complex and a cost/benefit analysis must not focus merely on the structure and the individual alone.

From rereading it, it appears to be about the reversal of roles between social structures and the individuals who compose them.

It seems that both of them believe that the social structures should serve individuals and not vice versa.

It only appears to be? Can't you tell what it is? Does it have to be decoded?
Not that I am at all clear what what you think it appears to be means, and especially what it is supposed to do with free will. Have you any idea how it is germane to the issue?
Philosophy is supposed to clarify, not obfuscate.

@kennethamy,

I believe Holiday and Fido put the discussion of free will into a political context and then began talking about ideology. Also, boagie was looking at free will and its connection to social mores and structures.

I am not one to get upset when a discussion gets a little off-topic though, as I can be a major offender myself.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power. Smile

I guess your right it is much more complex then that outline, but it is a basic starting point, when the individual [ as in not a functionary of the given system] a member of the public, is forced to serve instead of being served it would directly effect his freewill------no? The Dart fader example in star wars indicates what happens to the individual whos only function in life is to serve a system, granted it might be an exaggeration, but think of the system as being a dictatorship, how much of an exaggeration would it then be. Come over to the dark side!! The question becomes, is the system going to serve your humanity or is it going to eat you up.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and be carrying a cross." Stclair Lewis

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

I have to say, Fido lost me originally.

At this point I don't know what to think of this discussion. Forms, relationships, object, subject? I'm very confused.

I would say: Join the crew. There has been a lot of confusion on the issue of form throughout philosophy. Rather than saying what the truth is let me tell you how it is expressed; as form. When we understand a phenomenon we see in reality it is by way of form. And by forms we recognize what we are seeing as distinct from background. Since these forms are shared, through other abstractions like language, they are, like language, forms of relationship. When people quit relating through them they fall, even out of the language. We still talk about the olympics, but not a goat will die to placate an olympic god. The form has lost all meaning. So, there are two relationships in every form. One is between the form and every form, and one is between the people who find meaning in the form. Now, as a practical matter there is no difference between the form of an object an an object. The name we give to our dog is our dog. The form of the dog in our consciousness is the dog in fact. It is like the reflection in a mirror. If I see my reflection, I can point at it and say that is me. Really? Well no. It is a reflection, but this simple fact does not stop my shaving with the help of a mirror. Now, Forms are not all exact. They must be tested against reality for accuracy and utility. Out of simple forms of relationship we often develop more complex ideas of larger relationships.

Out of the form of the family, one might develop a form of a monarchy with the king as the father and the queen as the mother. Will it work as a family works? Each monarchy needs to be checked against reality. If the form is modeled after a natural form, like the family, then how well it follows its model is a measure if truth. But we have the ability to form ideas out of opposites too, to get a sense of peace from war, or of beauty from ugliness, and then we can only judge our forms on their utility. Math is a form of relationship that mirrors reality. So long as it mirrors reality it can, to an extent, predict reality. As far as object as opposed to subject. I would say everything can be understood as form, or relationship. The form of every government is the same, so each objectively, and formally is a government. How each form comes to be considered unique from every other, and how each is expressed differently, and experienced differently is the result of the living part of society, and of the form. It is the people in their relationships that provide the subjective side of all forms. Every marriage is the same. As a form. As a relationship every Marriage is different. I hope this helps the confusion.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

I believe Holiday and Fido put the discussion of free will into a political context and then began talking about ideology. Also, boagie was looking at free will and its connection to social mores and structures.

I am not one to get upset when a discussion gets a little off-topic though, as I can be a major offender myself.

I think this turn is important because we often have only one method of expressing will, and that is through crime or sin. When people stick with society, and do what is moral, they are only doing what is natural, which is to say determined for them, because it is not usually contrary to life, propagation, and survival to stick with society. And yet, few societies would advance if some did not have the force of will to overcome their fears to find out what lay beyond the next hill. To me, much of history has been made by those most able to see and think in terms of forms, which I take as a form of intlligence; but, who were unable to enjoy relationships, and so were ruthless, restless people given to bold strokes and close fights.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

I believe Holiday and Fido put the discussion of free will into a political context and then began talking about ideology. Also, boagie was looking at free will and its connection to social mores and structures.

I am not one to get upset when a discussion gets a little off-topic though, as I can be a major offender myself.

It is not a little off topic. It has, at most, a tangential relation with the issue which is the connection of determinism with freedom. Not that I understand what even the tangential relation is.

@Fido,

Fido,

Do you have any recommended reading on this apparently historical idea, it is new to me, but fascinating. Does it fit in with a boarder understanding of relationalism?

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and be carrying a cross." Stclair Lewis

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Mr. Fight the Power.

I guess your right it is much more complex then that outline, but it is a basic starting point, when the individual [ as in not a functionary of the given system] a member of the public, is forced to serve instead of being served it would directly effect his freewill------no? The Dart fader example in star wars indicates what happens to the individual whos only function in life is to serve a system, granted it might be an exaggeration, but think of the system as being a dictatorship, how much of an exaggeration would it then be. Come over to the dark side!!

Certainly forced servitude usurps free will.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Fido,

Do you have any recommended reading on this apparently historical idea, it is new to me, but fascinating. Does it fit in with a boarder understanding of relationalism?

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and be carrying a cross." Stclair Lewis

Not at all. All I can tell you is that if you are aware of the word, Form, it will jump off a lot of pages at you. You can read it in the declaration of independence, and there Jefferson clearly gives what I consider the truth of the matter, that people change forms as they become necessary. But, if we have forms, and hold to forms, and dare not go abroad without them, what are they forms of? A concrete form holds the concrete until it is cured. What do human forms do? As far back as I can see with the help of myth and anthropology, people formalized their relationships. Some times the forms grew naturally, from the family, and the word nation comes from this sense of a common mother. But it was only natural that relationships should be formal in small communities because the smaller the community the greater is the danger of incest, or at least inbreeding. Here nature taught us our first science.
But, also, the word relationship will also stand out. I picked up A Modern College Rhetoric, (for a quarter) by Herbert Slusser, copyright 1954, hardly modern at a year younger than myself; but the first sentence of the introduction says: Words and language are our means of growing into rewarding relationships with other human beings and with human affairs... I would argue that words and language, as abstractions of reality are both forms, as are human affairs. But, I don't know of anyone who makes a big deal about it. I guess forms as forms of relationship are either something most people cannot see, or see so well that they miss it. I don't think I would ever have caught it myself except in trying to explain what all relationships have in common, and how every group, club, or party includes and excludes, so that it is impossible to find a group like humanity that actually enrolls all people in a meaningful fashion. But I was pissed at some one on some forum, and hammering away, and my wife asked if I was having a relationship with the person. I could not deny it even if I did not at that moment wish to admit it. Every relationship we have is to some extent, structured, and that was the word I was thinking of, and asking why, when these structure do not work, when they hold natural friends apart, when they support pain and violence, why are people so willing to suffer themselves and destroy others rather than changing their structure. But, it is one thing we do with a passion, and my guess is that we fear change because change brings all evil, so we build forms (institutions, unions, associations, governments, on and on)to resist change. What do you think

Philosophy Forum

Do humans actually have free will?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know