Augustine

1235»

Comments

  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Why can't I apply causality to what I observe? I do it all the time, we all do.

    Hehe...because you can't apply anything. You are determined. Whether or not "you" "apply causality" has nothing to do with you. You either will, or your won't. Reason implies that you can, or cannot, freely.
    Wow dude. That quote by Einstein doesn't imply human or divine will. It's a totally unrelated quote. Now I see why you don't understand the concept. No worries, it's a difficult concept to grasp and few will ever understand it.

    You wonder why people impugn you? It's one thing to be condescending to an opposing idea, it's another to be condescending to the author.

    But I won't lose any sleep over not "understanding" your ideas. After all, it's not my fault. And you understanding them is not your success. Puppets do as they are told.
    "Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper." - Albert Einstein

    Hehe....funny how the "invisible piper" wouldn't really fit into your "observation" model, eh?
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Hehe...because you can't apply anything. You are determined. Whether or not "you" "apply causality" has nothing to do with you. You either will, or your won't. Reason implies that you can, or cannot, freely.

    'I' as the sum of my determinants. An entity of organic life in it's totality.

    'I' am determined to suspect that 'I' am determined. 'I' am determined to apply causal inference to reality. Causal inference is a very deterministic system.
    You wonder why people impugn you? It's one thing to be condescending to an opposing idea, it's another to be condescending to the author.

    But I won't lose any sleep over not "understanding" your ideas. After all, it's not my fault. And you understanding them is not your success. Puppets do as they are told.

    That's right, and I should not apologize for my state of mind, as it is the result of determinants. But I will, for it's biosocial merit.
    Hehe....funny how the "invisible piper" wouldn't really fit into your "observation" model, eh?

    The "invisible piper" is figurative. It may simply be a set of fundamental rules, as opposed to an actual entity. Einstein believed in Spinoza's God.

    "All things in nature proceed from certain necessity and with the utmost perfection" - Benedict de Spinoza, a.k.a, Baruch Spinoza
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Ahnimus wrote:
    'I' as the sum of my determinants. An entity of organic life in it's totality.

    Hehe...congratulations. You have quite the view of yourself.
    'I' am determined to suspect that 'I' am determined. 'I' am determined to apply causal inference to reality. Causal inference is a very deterministic system.

    You are determined to apply causal inference to reality??? Cool. Unfortunately, you can easily be determined to be completely incorrect in your application. And since you have no free reason to actually measure your determinants against, you have no ability to claim truth.
    That's right, and I should not apologize for my state of mind, as it is the result of determinants. But I will, for it's biosocial merit.

    I'm not asking you to apologize. Funny, however, that you choose to apologize instead of absolving yourself of any responsibility for success, as my earlier post implicated.
    The "invisible piper" is figurative. It may simply be a set of fundamental rules, as opposed to an actual entity. Einstein believed in Spinoza's God.

    "All things in nature proceed from certain necessity and with the utmost perfection" - Benedict de Spinoza, a.k.a, Baruch Spinoza

    Cool. So you see now how the Christian God and your determinants share more in common than in difference? Probably not.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Hehe...congratulations. You have quite the view of yourself.

    You are determined to apply causal inference to reality??? Cool. Unfortunately, you can easily be determined to be completely incorrect in your application. And since you have no free reason to actually measure your determinants against, you have no ability to claim truth.

    Yes, a newborn child is evidence of causal inference as innate in humans. I don't know where you are trying to go with the rest of your logic, but it's not working.
    I'm not asking you to apologize. Funny, however, that you choose to apologize instead of absolving yourself of any responsibility for success, as my earlier post implicated.

    I didn't say that.
    Cool. So you see now how the Christian God and your determinants share more in common than in difference? Probably not.

    No, they share very little in common.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Yes, a newborn child is evidence of causal inference as innate in humans. I don't know where you are trying to go with the rest of your logic, but it's not working.

    I didn't say that.

    No, they share very little in common.

    Meh...this beats "you're myopic" or just plain "no, you're wrong".

    Until next time, Ahnimus.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    Paraphrased*

    Evodius: What causes the variation of will?

    Augustine: Why would you want to know that? For the cause of the will means there is no sin, and no one to label a sinner. We must only look at the will it's self.

    Oh great! That makes a lot of sense. We can't label people sinners if we look too deep into human nature, so let's just stop at that place where we can blame people. Don't get too close to disproving your own religion, I guess that's the idea.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    I finished that Augustine book today and I gotta say, it's some of the most rubbish I've ever read on Free-will. He talks about the fundamentals of free-will very very briefly, the rest of the book reads like a Catholic Preacher. Worst of all, I couldn't make sense out of any of it.

    Example; He says that the reason children are born with terminal illnesses, is not because they sinned, but because their parents sinned.

    Well, holy shit, we are all screwed. I'm sure someone in my family line did something God wouldn't like. I've done a number of things myself.

    Anyway, the basic feel of the book is that you must submit to God and obey the eternal law. I could have been reading the Bible, I swear it. It had footnotes citing the Bible. It's only reference is the Bible.

    But probably my biggest problem is this; Evodius asks why two people would will something different and what is the cause of this variation? This is one of my biggest concerns with the free-will concept. But Augustine responds "Why would you want to look any further?" he rationalizes, if something does cause it then there can be no sin, and no sinner. So... he goes back to preaching from the Bible. Evodius didn't get another chance to speak before Augustine said "Well, we can talk about this forever, but we are out of book space."

    Exactly what I'm saying. It doesn't make any sense. There is literally only two pages in this 125 page book that deal with the philosophical question of free-will. I just sat through hours of religious preaching and none of it made any sense to me, including the parts on free-will. It's unfortunate that this doesn't get me any closer to understanding Christians, in-fact, it boggles my mind how the key religious icons like Augustine can think like this. Furthermore how can you run out of book space? The book was only 125 pages.

    But, none of these questions are addressed in the Bible either. When it comes down to it, I don't think any follower of God knows what the fuck any of it means. Out of all that rambling came a few good phrases, "Do unto others..." etc.. Which probably already existed 100,000 years or so before Moses.

    I'm seriously not convinced that the solution to the question of Free-will is the Bible.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Discipline is a Bitch.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • Kann
    Kann Posts: 1,146
    Ahnimus wrote:
    I'm seriously not convinced that the solution to the question of Free-will is the Bible.
    You already have it anyway.
    And before dissing Augustine remember you don't live in the same time/culture/city/country. I wonder what your philosophical tricks would have looked like at that time.

Categories