Well, they're categorized however they happen to be categorized. Language seems to be the main way in which things are categorized. We refer to things with commonly used words. It's irrelevant for my argument, since the only category that I use is "man". It's not that I don't consider "plant" a category, it's just that it's not relevant to my case and I have little to say about it.
"The incentive that impels a man to act is always some uneasiness."
Yeah, but removing uneasiness is a merely formal motivation. The content of that uneasiness is determined by the facts of the case. So I might be "uneasy" because I'm hungry.
It's very relevant. Are there any other applications for categorization besides language? Do you consider "plant" a catergory of things, or a "thing itself"?
If one was at ease, i.e. completely free of uneasiness, would they cease to act?
I don't know. I'm not read on this subject. I can only speak with some competence on Aristotle's ethics.
Jackson LaRose: It's very relevant. Are there any other applications for categorization besides language? Do you consider "plant" a catergory of things, or a "thing itself"? If one was at ease, i.e. completely free of uneasiness, would they cease to act?
Most likely. And then he or she would get hungry, or thirsty, or get a cramp, or experience pins and needles, etc. Complete contentment is possible, but not for any extended period.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned. - Avicenna
@ tunk,
Than you admit to the potential error in your conclusions?
Since categorization and identity are the foundation of your whole argument, I would recommend you become a little more familiar with what you even mean by those terms, if you wish to keep asserting ultimate, universal "Truths".
Buddha:All things appear and disappear because of the concurrence of causes and conditions. Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else.
JackCuyler:And then he or she would get hungry, or thirsty, or get a cramp, or experience pins and needles, etc. Complete contentment is possible, but not for any extended period.
That's your opinion on the matter, but I disagree,
Buddha:The cause of all pain and suffering is ignorance.
Buddha:But whoever overcomes this wretched craving, so difficult to overcome, from him sorrows fall away like water from a lotus leaf.
Buddha:He who experiences the unity of life sees his own Self in all beings, and all beings in his own Self, and looks on everything with an impartial eye.
@gotlucky,
It's a start...
Jackson LaRose: JackCuyler:And then he or she would get hungry, or thirsty, or get a cramp, or experience pins and needles, etc. Complete contentment is possible, but not for any extended period. That's your opinion on the matter, but I disagree, Buddha:The cause of all pain and suffering is ignorance.
You asked, "If one was at ease, i.e. completely free of uneasiness, would they cease to act?" and not, "If one was... completely free of pain and suffering..."
There is quite a difference. I'm quite sure even the most enlightened get hungry and eat, and get thirsty and drink.
tunk:Than you admit to the potential error in your conclusions? Since categorization and identity are the foundation of your whole argument, I would recommend you become a little more familiar with what you even mean by those terms, if you wish to keep asserting ultimate, universal "Truths".
I'm perfectly "familiar with what I mean by those terms", thank you.
My argument rests, among other things, on the law of identity, ie. that everything that exists has a specific nature. Among those things are agents who are self-conscious and in possession of reason (meaning the ability to hypothesize and symbolize), that is, man. "Man" is a set which you and I fit into. It doesn't matter what the Buddha says about it.
All the questions you brought up are irrelevant to my case. Maybe the metaphysical immutability of plants is a topic you're interested in. I'm not interested in it, haven't researched it, and don't feel the need to comment on it.
gotlucky:Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned. - Avicenna
I totally forgot about this quote. This is great. Thanks for bringing it up.
I'd say coercion is wrong because it violates your self-ownership of your body and mind. You, as an owner of your self, have the right to control yourself and all actions. To be coerced is to in essence remove your right of self-ownership. Generally we are coerced in order to remove a value from us to be taken by another whom did not earn it, thus showing that coercion is generally a double-violation of property rights, of the right to your right of self-determination and choice, and your right to what you earned freely.
tunk,
What you mean when you use categorical terms is very important. I was simply using "plant" because it seems like an easy example. I could just as easily use "man" or "human" if it makes it seem more relevant to you.
tunk:My argument rests, among other things, on the law of identity, ie. that everything that exists has a specific nature.
And as you've demonstated, you have no clue as to that "nature", since you said yourself you don't even know what a "plant" (or anything else for that matter) is! Wouldn't the "Law of Identity" you so desperately lean on only help your argument if you were able to "identify" anything in the first place?
tunk:All the questions you brought up are irrelevant to my case. Maybe the metaphysical immutability of plants is a topic you're interested in. I'm not interested in it, haven't researched it, and don't feel the need to comment on it.
That's right, tighten those blinders a little more. Nevermind plants, it's the metaphysical immutability of any of the terms you've been using thusfar that is staring you and your pet theories in the face.
tunk:"Man" is a set which you and I fit into.
I decided we are both "ferbs" too. Big deal. You can't even describe what "man" is, or what "men" are.
JackCuyler,
Perhaps how you are defining those terms,
Lama Yeshe:When Lord Buddha spoke about suffering, he wasn't referring simply to superficial problems like illness and injury, but to the fact that the dissatisfied nature of the mind itself is suffering. No matter how much of something you get, it never satisfies your desire for better or more. This unceasing desire is suffering; its nature is emotional frustration.
Jackson LaRose:you said yourself you don't even know what a "plant" (or anything else for that matter) is!
I'm sure you would like to believe that. You're doing battle with a caricature.
I've defined "man" several times. "Man" is a self-conscious actor in possession of reason (the ability to hypothesize and symbolize). You could call this "man", you could call it "ferbs". The point is, there are entities with these characteristics that fit in this set. I like to think I'm one of them. If you would like to heretofore declare yourself as lacking the ability to reason, feel free.
I also find it amusing how you continually refer to my "pet theories", as if you are not defending any of your own "pet theories". Skeptics are hypocrites.
I am certainly defending my pet theories, I've made no contention to the contrary. I'm not ashamed of that, because that is the best we are able to do. If you refuse to consider that position when I state it, maybe a Classical Greek may help persuade you.
Socrates:When I left him, I reasoned thus with myself: I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.
Buddha's not the only game in town, you know.
Oh wait, let me guess. Socrates is apparently condradicting himself, and is therefore a fool, or a troll. No wonder they killed him! Death by tunking!
tunk:"Man" is a self-conscious actor in possession of reason (the ability to hypothesize and symbolize).
So "man" as you describe it could hypothetically be a disembodied consciousness? It is only an "ego", nothing more or less?
My representation of your argument is certainly not a caricture, unless you are now claiming that you "know" what a "thing" is, without being able to tell me.
Jackson LaRose:Socrates is apparently condradicting himself, and is therefore a fool, or a troll. No wonder they killed him! Death by tunking!
You're ridiculous. So I'm personally responsible for the death of Socrates? Guess what, fanatical and murderous "Imperial Way" Buddhists served in Hirohito's army. Guess that makes you a fascist! Death by LaRose, LOL! I win!
Socrates was fighting the superstition of his day. He was informing Athenians that true wisdom is acknowledgement of one's ignorance, with which I agree, at least in part. He wasn't engaging in the kind of kindergarten pseudo-philosophy that says knowing anything is impossible, denying the applicability of reason. You'll have to do more to convince me that were he alive today he would have been a Buddhist. I daresay he would have had a few choice words to say about the "leave your mind and your shoes at the gate" mentality.
Jackson LaRose:So "man" as you describe it could hypothetically be a disembodied consciousness? It is only an "ego", nothing more or less?
....no. Conscious action requires a physical body, blood flowing through your cardiovascular system, perception and pleasure-pain mechanisms to feed in input, and other survival tools. A mere "ego", whatever that would be, couldn't act.
You guys are having a very weird fight. Both Buddha and Socrates bow before modern rational thought. I'd put Rand above both fo them. And hers is an Aristotle based method. So, again Aristotle above both of them :P
You look at the philosophic roots of leftist/socialist/fascist thinking today and it comes directly back to father Socrates. The political desire for centralization, rule by the Philosopher King, use of coercion to mold society? It's all right there in Plato's Republic.
It's funny how you think I'm a "Buddhist", and that I'm implying Socrates would be a Buddhist!
Yes, that's right, resort to the ad hominems to squirm out of the fact that Socrates is stating the EXACT SAME CONCEPT I've been. To put it succinctly,
"We are both full of shit."
Remember that one? How is that any different?
And now you "somewhat agree" with this position all of a sudden???
You want the truth?
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!
tunk:Conscious action requires a physical body, blood flowing through your cardiovascular system, perception and pleasure-pain mechanisms to feed in input, and other survival tools. A mere "ego", whatever that would be, couldn't act.
So what then, or rather, who is the actor?
Jackson LaRose:Yes, that's right, resort to the ad hominems to squirm out of the fact that Socrates is stating the EXACT SAME CONCEPT I've been.
Excuse me, but it was you who resorted to personal insults. (Calling it ad hominem is a misnomer, since that would imply what you said about me was actually true.) According to you, Socrates drank the hemlock because the Athenian authorities took a page from my book and found him guilty of epistemological self-contradiction. Now, this is a self-evidently stupid accusation and it should be withdrawn.
I agree that human knowledge is severely limited. It is foolish to pretend you know what you can't know. But this is just the old virtue of modesty. (And I'm the one here, not you, who actually believes in virtue.) It's a far jump from this to the claim that no knowledge is possible, which I would accuse of being just as arrogant as the claim to know for certain that Zeus will smite one's enemies.
Some truths are self-confirming; that is, they are proven true by the attempt to deny them, or even by the very attempt to do anything. They are a very basic part of the reality we're stuck with. By affirming them, I'm not claiming to know what I can't know. Actually, I'm sticking to what I do know and starting ethical inquiry from there.
tunk:Conscious action requires a physical body, blood flowing through your cardiovascular system, perception and pleasure-pain mechanisms to feed in input, and other survival tools. A mere "ego", whatever that would be, couldn't act. So what then, or rather, who is the actor?
Man is the actor. "Man" is a conscious being with a physical body that is confronted with a reality of material scarcity that forces him to make choices in order to sustain his existence.
tunk:Socrates drank the hemlock because the Athenian authorities took a page from my book and found him guilty of epistemological self-contradiction.
Ugh, no I didn't. I'm saying they killed him because they got all pissed when he reminded them they were full of it.
tunk:I agree that human knowledge is severely limited.
tunk:They are a very basic part of the reality we're stuck with.
tunk:By affirming them, I'm not claiming to know what I can't know. Actually, I'm sticking to what I do know and starting ethical inquiry from there.
How do you know you know, considering how "severely limited" we agree our knowledge is? How do you know "we" share the same "reality" (whatever you mean by that)? You may be starting with what you (think you) "know", but I'm saying it's inadequate to be able to derive universal "truth" (the ethics you tout) from that "severely limited knowledge".
tunk:It's a far jump from this to the claim that no knowledge is possible, which I would accuse of being just as arrogant as the claim to know for certain that Zeus will smite one's enemies.
I agree. That's why THIS WAS NEVER MY ARGUMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't care how much you keep insisting it was, it wasn't.
We may know, but neither of us can know if we know, making the problem of who "knows" and who "doesn't know" vis a vis ultimate reality, or truth, an unsolvable one (until one achieves omniscience, a state I believe is achievable). That's all I've been saying this whole time, which is essentially Socrates' argument, too.
Please, take a look back at some of the older posts. "Neither of us know what the truth is" is what I've been saying this whole time.
tunk:Man is the actor. "Man" is a conscious being with a physical body that is confronted with a reality of material scarcity that forces him to make choices in order to sustain his existence.
Could you define "physical body"?
Jackson LaRose: I'm saying they killed him because they got all pissed when he reminded them they were full of it.
No, that's not what you said. That's what you're imagining you said, because you would like to cast yourself as a bold hero who is fighting dogmatism and superstition. In reality, what you actually said was
Socrates is apparently condradicting himself, and is therefore a fool, or a troll. No wonder they killed him! Death by tunking!
You are saying Socrates was killed because he was found guilty of contradicting himself. I repeat, this is a self-evidently stupid accusation against me and should be withdrawn.
I "know" that the law of identity is a basic part of the world around us because, I repeat, the truth of it is confirmed I do anything. "All hippos are pink" is not confirmed everytime I do anything. "Everything that exists exists as itself" is so confirmed. There is no way a thing could not exist as itself, since it wouldn't exist if it didn't. You still haven't addressed this.
I "know" we share the same reality because it seems highly likely, according to my sensory input, that I'm arguing with another conscious person and not a spambot. I rely on my sensory input because it's the only access I have to the outside world and, as long as adequate information is being fed into it, it tends not to mislead me. (E.g. when I "sense" I am about to bump into a wall.) Asking me how my senses can be relied on when this could all be a dream is silly because it's only by virtue of my senses that I know what it is to be "dreaming" to begin with.
"Neither of us know what the truth is" is what I've been saying this whole time.
Then you are asserting as true that nobody knows what is true.
Could I "define physical body"? I've already done that. Your physical body consists of your survival mechanisms.
tunk: Calling it ad hominem is a misnomer, since that would imply what you said about me was actually true.
Calling it ad hominem is a misnomer, since that would imply what you said about me was actually true.
This is somewhat off-topic, but errors like this always glare at me. Ad hominems do not need to be true. They only need to attack an argument by attacking a supporter of the argument.
Examples:
You are blond, so you can't possible know what you are talking about.
You are a woman, so you you can't possibly understand science.
You are a Christian, so you can't understand Islam.
It doesn't really matter if the first part of these statements is true or not; They could be said to a male athiest with red hair. They are still ad hominems. Further, it doesn't matter if the attack is against one's opponent. In fact, one of the most commonly used ad hominem, on the internet, at least, is the invocation of Hitler: "Hitler supported X, so X must be bad."
I didn't make an error. Argumentum ad hominem means "argument to the person". It means bringing up some apparent characteristic about someone as evidence that their views are wrong.
You are blond, so you can't possible know what you are talking about. You are a woman, so you you can't possibly understand science. You are a Christian, so you can't understand Islam. Yeah, these are in themselves ad hominems. But said to an atheist with red hair, they would just be nonsense. They wouldn't even qualify as a fallacy, since a fallacy is an invalid inference. And argumentum ad Hitlerum is more guilt by association. | Post Points: 20
Yeah, these are in themselves ad hominems. But said to an atheist with red hair, they would just be nonsense. They wouldn't even qualify as a fallacy, since a fallacy is an invalid inference.
And argumentum ad Hitlerum is more guilt by association.
tunk: I didn't make an error. Argumentum ad hominem means "argument to the person". It means bringing up some apparent characteristic about someone as evidence that their views are wrong.
You're three quarters of the way there. The referenced negative characteristic can be made by anyone supporting the argument. "Your argument is wrong because X agrees with you, and X has some negative attribute."
Guilt by association is very often a form of ad hominem, depending on its use. The determining factor is the use of the negative association to actually attack the argument.
But that was besides the point. Ad hominems do not need to be true.
You've gotten ad hominem and guilt by association mixed up. One argues against the person's qualities, the other argues against the company he keeps. And for something to qualify as an "ad hominem" in the actual context of a debate, the characteristic brought up does need to actually be possessed. Otherwise, it's not really a "fallacy" (i.e. an invalid inference) but just nonsense.
tunk:I "know" that the law of identity is a basic part of the world around us because, I repeat, the truth of it is confirmed I do anything.
OK, so it may well hold true for you (as far as you know), as it holds for me (due to the illusory distinctions I've created in my head). That doesn't mean it holds for everyone. It's called Enlightenment, and it is direct conflict with the concept you advocate. Ther's no way to tell which of these concepts, if either is the "truth".
tunk:"Everything that exists exists as itself" is so confirmed. There is no way a thing could not exist as itself, since it wouldn't exist if it didn't. You still haven't addressed this.
I've been trying to. The problem is, you keep dodging a central aspect of this contention. There may (or may not) "be" a reality, but the "things" you keep referring to are not discrete, seperate quanta as you keep treating them. Those distinctions are all in your head, which was demonstrated by the "plant" posts. That concept can be carried to our own "selves" as well, which I think you must be aware of given this lame-o response,
tunk:Your physical body consists of your survival mechanisms.
What the hell does this even mean?
This is a stupid argument. Coercion is immoral because it's already defined as immoral.
It's like asking why object x is white; it's because x appears to people whitely. Epistemology/linguistics 101.
Jackson LaRose:OK, so it may well hold true for you (as far as you know), as it holds for me (due to the illusory distinctions I've created in my head). That doesn't mean it holds for everyone.
This reminds me of a dialogue between Richard Dawkins and that noted philosopher Bill O'Reilly:
O' REILLY: [...] I'm sticking with Judeo-Christian philosophy and my religion of Roman Catholicism, because it helps me as a person - DAWKINS: Ah, that's different. If it helps you that's great. That doesn't mean it's true. O'REILLY: Well, it's true for me. The point is, something is either "true" or "not true". There's no such thing as "true for you" or "true for me". The laws of logic are confirmed as "true" anytime anyone does anything. If it were not true, absolutely and objectively, that everything exists as itself, then nothing could exist and no one could take any action of any kind. It's not that, if I reach for a soda, the statement is affirmed: "tunk exists as tunk". If that was all that was being affirmed, there would be nothing for me to reach, no way for me to reach it, nothing for me to reach it with, no air to breath while I reach it, etc. There are an innumerable number of factors that make it possible for me to reach and drink the soda. So, ultimately, what is being affirmed is the statement: "everything that exists exists as itself." If there were no fundamental reality undergirding me as I reached for the soda, then my attempt to drink and quench my thirst would be just as fruitless as if I were dead. the "things" you keep referring to are not discrete, seperate quanta as you keep treating them. Those distinctions are all in your head I think what you mean is that concepts and definitions are a product of the human mind. Sure, I don't have any problem affirming that. The fact that human beings can debate about definitions is not really controversial and doesn't disprove the law of identity. For example, I'm sure you would agree that you are someone who disputes the law of identity. If the law of identity weren't true, however, then it would never be possible for you be someone who disputes the law of identity. So your denial, yet again, affirms the very truth you are attempting to deny. tunk:Your physical body consists of your survival mechanisms. What the hell does this even mean? Well, if you want to be obtuse then you will not grasp what it means. Your physical body consists of those processes which are geared to maintain your life; blood flowing through your cardiovascular system, your lungs, liver, perception and pleasure-pain mechanisms to feed in input, etc. | Post Points: 20
the "things" you keep referring to are not discrete, seperate quanta as you keep treating them. Those distinctions are all in your head
tunk:Your physical body consists of your survival mechanisms. What the hell does this even mean?
tunk:The point is, something is either "true" or "not true". There's no such thing as "true for you" or "true for me".
Supposing the existence of some ultimate, external Truth, I agree.
tunk:The laws of logic are confirmed as "true" anytime anyone does anything. If it were not true, absolutely and objectively, that everything exists as itself, then nothing could exist and no one could take any action of any kind.
Given the existence of that same external Truth, I disagree that this statement is necessarily true.
You know, it's funny you bring up that quote. I'm assuming you think I am O'reilly, which is funny because I feel like Dawkins, but instead of O'reilly (you) stopping at,
"it's true for me",
he's so brazen as to say
"it's true for me, and for you, and the rest of the universe, too!"
tunk:So, ultimately, what is being affirmed is the statement: "everything that exists exists as itself." If there were no fundamental reality undergirding me as I reached for the soda, then my attempt to drink and quench my thirst would be just as fruitless as if I were dead.
I don't think this is right, because there is some intellectual dishonesty here. What does "exists as itself" mean here? How tunk interprets a "soda", how I do? Maybe the bottling company? A "soda" is a myth. A "soda" is an illusion. You've decided to name this phenomena you think you are experiencing, but that is a classification, a characterization, a mental fiction. A delusion of your own making.
If you think I'm nuts or stupid, take a look at the Planck scale, you will no longer find the formerly obvious "soda" you were so assured of the true nature of, as it pertained to the also obvious "reality" all around you.
And all of this completely ignores the temporal aspect of this obvious "thing". The "soda" you mentioned is in a state of constant flux. Exchanging electrons, evaporation, expanding, contracting. Never the same thing for any length of time (because as you divide into smaller and smaller time periods, you will run into the Planck noise again, and your obvious "object" disappears once again).
That being said, I don't think death is all we are left with when we are able to at least admit to ourselves that we are groping around relative to Truth. It's really OK. Drink your "soda", and enjoy it, there's no need to have to be sure of it's fundamental nature to do so!
tunk:I think what you mean is that concepts and definitions are a product of the human mind.
What's more important to the conversation is the habit of projecting these internal fabrications onto the perceptual world, which I am skeptical of.
tunk:Sure, I don't have any problem affirming that.
Why do you consider it valid to project mental fabrications on what you are arguing is external and independent of the workings of your brain?
tunk:he fact that human beings can debate about definitions is not really controversial and doesn't disprove the law of identity.
Ah, but it does expose the "law of identity" to be another fabrication you've built upon your previous, perceptual fabrications. It may not disprove it, but it does demonstrate its irrelevancy to an external, non-conceptualized reality.
tunk:For example, I'm sure you would agree that you are someone who disputes the law of identity.
I think my ignorance has led me to conclude I am "someone", but I don't think that is actually the case. I think that "I am" I bet I'll be called a troll for that answer!
Thought this was a relevant quote,
Tao Te Ching:The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao The name that can be named is not the eternal name The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth The named is the mother of myriad things Thus, constantly without desire, one observes its essence Constantly with desire, one observes its manifestations These two emerge together but differ in name The unity is said to be the mystery Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders
No matter how many times I try to explain my position, you repeat your talking points and accuse me of being delusional. You insist that there is no way to determine which of us is right, and yet you are convinced that people who disagree with you are delusional. You invoke quantum physics as if it disproves the law of identity, when there could not even be a quantum level if the law of identity didn't hold. That the "soda" is made up of innumerable changing components is exactly what I said in my original post.
You refuse to see that you are asserting absolute truth just as much as I am, and that skepticism is self-refuting. And your last reply was unduly hostile and revealed far more about you than it did about me. It's pointless talking to you.
You and I are standing on exactly the same ground when we started. At least we both seem to understand how baseless both of our claims are. If hostility was detected, it was not intended.
Jackson LaRose:At least we both seem to understand how baseless both of our claims are.
If you say so. Anyone can go over the thread and decide for themselves if that's correct.
The "soda" you mentioned is in a state of constant flux. Exchanging electrons, evaporation, expanding, contracting. Never the same thing for any length of time (because as you divide into smaller and smaller time periods, you will run into the Planck noise again, and your obvious "object" disappears once again).
Heraclitus, is that you? As a side note, Buddhism has a strong following in the philosophy department at my college. Buddhism, it seems, is very adaptable, and these philosophers seem ready to glom onto workings in modern science. They are especially infatuated with quantum physics--it reminds me of the other spiritualists who attempt to incorporate positive quantum vibes(among other things) into their (ever-changing) frameworks to appeal to a larger crowd.
It's all quantum vibes, maaaaaaaaaan. I'm not mocking, just making an observation.
LOL, I've never heard of him! After quick peek on Wikipedia, he seems very intriguing, though.
As in most religions/philosophies, Buddhism can be interpreted in any number of ways.
This is just me, but quantum physics seems to jibe so well with non-dualism becuase it utilizes materialistic, dualistic thinking, to arrive at non-dual conclusions.
These conclusions also have parallels in many religions. If you think of the biblical creation myth in this frame, you can see what I mean,
Genesis 1.1-2:In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Nothingness, until God begins to define and therefore "create" the world around us.
John 1.1:In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Only He had this ability, until we are tempted to take this ability himself by eating of the tree of Good and Evil,
Genesis 3.4-7:And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
Thus they were able to begin to define the world for themselves, but since they did not also eat the fruit of the tree of life, they were only half-way to realizing the divine,
Genesis 3.22-23:And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
So, we have the ability to "create the world" for ourselves, but we do not have the knowledge of eternal life, the gnosis, an understanding of the true nature of things, which equates to "eternal life", since the concept of death itself assumes a dualistic, ego-centric reality.
John 17.3:Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
I interpret "God" in this passage more as "Godhead" than a bearded man in the clouds. This is also the concept of enlightenment in the eastern schools, and "gnosis" in Neo-Platonism and Gnostic Judaism/Christianity.
Coercion, as in the armed robbery scenario, restricts freedom of choice. But to restrict abundance of choice is also a form of coercion. To restict the abundance to a single choice is in effect the removal of the freedom of choice.
Voluntary exchange will have some level of coercion if the abundance is removed. When the free-choice becomes a "no-brainer" there is no freedom of choice.
tunk:Purposeful action makes use of some means to arrive at a consciously chosen end. You can't act purposefully without thinking in some way shape or form. Otherwise you are merely reacting involuntarily to physical stimuli.
Can you expand a bit more on purposeful action then? In one case someone can decide "hey I'm going to open that door for that pretty lady"- but in another someone can just open the door for her out of force of habit. In that case an observer of these two similar actions would have no idea which one was involuntary and which one was voluntary.
Thoughts themselves can also arise involuntarily and people can react to that personal stimulus. . Let's just say speaking for yourself- what criteria do you use to distinguish from your own purposeful thoughts- and thoughts of habit? Is it just whatever makes you feel like you're more in control?
Un-purposful action can be more than habit due to cultural norms. Girard suggests that all desire is socially mediated in a sysrtem of mimesis. IOW there is no individual desire as the purpose which compels action. We are as a school of fish which act in unison. "The Joneses'" supply for us our desires and thus direct our actions.
Zerubbabel: Un-purposful action can be more than habit due to cultural norms. Girard suggests that all desire is socially mediated in a sysrtem of mimesis. IOW there is no individual desire as the purpose which compels action. We are as a school of fish which act in unison. "The Joneses'" supply for us our desires and thus direct our actions.
That's a bit silly in the context we care about here. In its base form, what compels your action is your desire to continue living, to survive. That's determined by external realities and the internal realities that respond to them (such as a growling stomach or parched lips).
No one can choose anything for you. While a culture can affect your values, ultimately it is the individual who acts on those values. And if you choose to agress, you're responsible for the outcome of that aggression, even if your society raised you with bad values.
“The ultimate goal of human action is always the satisfaction of the acting man's desire.” Mises
This is the axiomatic a-priori premise on which Mises builds 900 pages of praxeology.
"what compels your action is your desire to continue living, to survive."
Your axiom might be what Schopenhauer would counter to Mises based on "the will to live" and evolutionary psychology. I imagine That Rene Girard would finish Mises' axiom like this:
“The ultimate goal of human action is always … to compete with one’s mimetic rival. All desire is merely the socially mediated rules of this competition."