[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong, you cannot scan this book and think you have understood it. It's impossible. Do you understand why man's will is not free, according the definition being presented? Do you know what the two-sided equation is? If you can't answer these pivotal questions, you cannot give an accurate review.

People keep telling me that about books lately. Yes I do, actually, I just do not agree that what he says follows, follows. Nor do I agree that in a blameless society the desire to hurt will disappear.

This is not about idealism, nor could a person bring this system down.

I disagree. A single person who develops, say, a desire for rape and subjugation can wreak havoc on it. You can say that such a person will simply not occur in your system, but this is a moot point as it will have to start with them already on it (nor do I believe that they would not arise.)

That is true, but the conditions of the environment can be changed in such a way that the desire to hurt others is prevented.

This does not change the nature of people. Some people derive pleasure out of hurting others, not because of environmental reasons, but for physical ones. Determinism is admitting that our thoughts are the expression of brain chemistry - this can be abnormal in many ways and for many reasons.

No, it is just pointing out how some people respond. That is why the introduction was necessary so that the people who have a closed mind need not read the book.

Well, it frustrated the hell out of me. I was internally shouting at the pages saying "yes yes yes i KNOW what determinism means, get on with it!"

Your conclusion is based on absolutely nothing. I urge you to carefully read the first two chapters before any other reading is done, which the author stressed; or don't read the book at all which is okay with me. But please don't read the book in a haphazard fashion because many things will be taken out of context and you will have more reason to criticize that which you don't understand.

[/QUOTE]

Fair enough - here is what I gather from the first 2 chapters after a slow read.

Once we accept determinism on the authors terms, blame becomes useless for man has no free will. This does not negate responsibility, but it simply acknowledges the fact that we do not choose our preferences.

If everyone accepted this, then it should remove all satisfaction derived from wrong-doing. You know that all hurt you cause, you cause yourself because no-one can make you do so. You also know that anyone who hurts you does so because their will is not free. There is no blame, nothing is making you do deleterious things.

It seems to hinge on this scenario, in which we are contemplating person a moving over to person b to accupy the space they occupy. This action will hurt person b.

Remember now, you haven’t hurt me
yet, and you know as a matter of undeniable knowledge that nothing,
no one can compel you to hurt me unless you want to, for over this
you have mathematical control; consequently, your motion from here
to there, your decision as to what is better for yourself, is still a choice
between two alternatives — to hurt me or not to hurt me. But the
moment it fully dawns on you that this hurt to me, should you go
ahead with it, will not be blamed in any way because no one wants to
77hurt you for doing what must now be considered a compulsion beyond
your control, ALTHOUGH YOU KNOW IT IS NOT BEYOND
YOUR CONTROL AT THIS POINT SINCE NOTHING CAN
FORCE YOU TO HURT ME AGAINST YOUR WILL —
UNLESS YOU WANT TO — you are compelled, completely of
your own free will, so to speak, to relinquish this desire to hurt me
because it can never satisfy you to do so under these changed
conditions.

This only applies to someone with a brain chemistry that matches the writer, who is obviously a nice, kind and gentle man. I however have 2 objections: moving into this system, you will start with a fair amount of people who are none of the above. Also, there is no guarantee that no people with a desire to hurt other people will arise.

Imagine the above scenario, only turn person B into a small child and person A into a pedophile. It immediately becomes clear that there is a huge payoff for person A to hurt person B, because of the sexual satisfaction it would bring. The knowledge that this is choosing to hurt that person would not change a lot - many pedophiles know perfectly well that their desires lead to pain.

The lack of blame would not work either, because it is not retaliation that keeps this problem going, it is some sort of environmentally or otherwise induced abnormality in their brain chemistry.

It sounds lovely, but I am of the opinion it is doomed to fail, and I think there is a good reason the glorious revolution never happened.