A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You posted all the words

I ask about some of the words

You tell me those words I asked about are irrelevant

I am asking you to not post words you think are irrelevant or that you don't want to answer questions about

If you do post all the words, be prepared to discuss all of them

This discussion is going down the drain. I refuse to be a part of it.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This discussion is getting sicker and sicker. I refuse to be a part of it.

Counting down to peacegirl's next post: five, four, three, two, one ...

[peacegirl]

dupe

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by thedoc

On this thread it is one of the main premises of Lessans book, apart from that it's only as important as you want it to be. But Lessans book looks a lot like theology.

Actually, I was curious how important it is in the various philosophical studies. It has obvious applications in morals and ethics, but I don't see what else the argument is useful for.

Is it just one of those great "unanswerable" questions that intrigue people?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know what David? This is not normal. It's biased in the worse way, and I am going to leave.

Did I call it, or what? I R winnah.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Did I call it, or what? I R winnah.

david won

[davidm]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Actually, I was curious how important it is in the various philosophical studies. It has obvious applications in morals and ethics, but I don't see what else the argument is useful for.

Is it just one of those great "unanswerable" questions that intrigue people?

There is a big literature on free will apart from theology. As mentioned, various forms of determinism that seem to impede free will include logical determinism or fatalism (sea battle argument), causal determinism, ontological determinism, the lack of agency or a true "I," and others. The Libett experiments of the 80s showed that our conscisous decisions were actually settled subconcisouly before we became aware of them.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

There is a big literature on free will apart from theology. As mentioned, various forms of determinism that seem to impede free will include logical determinism or fatalism (sea battle argument), causal determinism, ontological determinism, the lack of agency or a true "I," and others. The Libett experiments of the 80s showed that our conscisous decisions were actually settled subconcisouly before we became aware of them.

It's so disheartening that your definitions have taken on the significance they have to the point where I cannot even begin to demonstrate his findings. I know what I'm up against. I am resigned to the fact that this is not the way I'm going to be able to bring this discovery to light. It will have to come from somewhere else because all of you are too entrenched in your beliefs to even consider that he could be right.

[LadyShea]

davidm mentioned multiple historic arguments found in philosophical literature related to the freewill/determinism topic. This is called offering up discussion points.

There are no "your definitions" nor an entrenched way of thinking on display here, except by YOU.

You really have no idea how to have a serious or scholarly discussion, peacegirl. I have told you from day one that these types of forums are not the place for you unless you are willing and able to handle criticisms and address objections.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

davidm mentioned multiple historic arguments found in philosophical literature related to the freewill/determinism topic. This is called offering up discussion points.

There are no "your definitions" nor an entrenched way of thinking on display here, except by YOU.

You really have no idea how to have a serious or scholarly discussion, peacegirl. I have told you from day one that these types of forums are not the place for you unless you are willing and able to handle criticisms and address objections.

This was suppose to be a scholarly discussion but it turned out to be anything but. Thank you for your criticism and objections LadyShea, but they are not based on accuracy. Of course you are the epitome of someone who is in the know.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

davidm mentioned multiple historic arguments found in philosophical literature related to the freewill/determinism topic. This is called offering up discussion points.

There are no "your definitions" nor an entrenched way of thinking on display here, except by YOU.

You really have no idea how to have a serious or scholarly discussion, peacegirl. I have told you from day one that these types of forums are not the place for you unless you are willing and able to handle criticisms and address objections.

Your response only makes me realize that this discussion is going nowhere. I'm glad you were honest about your trust in the historic arguments found in philosophical literature. I hope you continue down that old historic road, but don't expect me to be a part of it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

davidm mentioned multiple historic arguments found in philosophical literature related to the freewill/determinism topic. This is called offering up discussion points.

There are no "your definitions" nor an entrenched way of thinking on display here, except by YOU.

You really have no idea how to have a serious or scholarly discussion, peacegirl. I have told you from day one that these types of forums are not the place for you unless you are willing and able to handle criticisms and address objections.

It's not just about handling criticism; it's about having to accept the criticism even if it doesn't apply. This is not science. This is coersion.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

davidm mentioned multiple historic arguments found in philosophical literature related to the freewill/determinism topic. This is called offering up discussion points.

There are no "your definitions" nor an entrenched way of thinking on display here, except by YOU.

You really have no idea how to have a serious or scholarly discussion, peacegirl. I have told you from day one that these types of forums are not the place for you unless you are willing and able to handle criticisms and address objections.

Probably the most distinctive characteristic of Lessans' writing and peacegirl's evangelism of it is the complete ignorance about the diversity of ideas out there, especially in philosophy. The world is clearly delineated into only two categories; Lessans' ideas and all other ideas, all other ideas being irrelevant and incorrect by definition. There is no regard whatsoever for the profusion of writings on every topic, from the question of free will to human behavior and intrinsic nature to the origins and organization of the universe, and so on.

Of course, why should there be when Lessans so clearly got it right? What else would you need to know? This is also why Lessans (and hence peacegirl) think that expounding on things like the odds of the universe existing is so profound and convincing, because to them these are truly novel ideas that no one ever thought of before, or if they did they obviously didn't fully understand them because they don't agree 100% with Lessans. He and his daughter/disciple are truly lone voices of reason crying out in the wilderness, while the rest of the world wallows in willful blindness and ignorance. Obviously.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right. I should have known that I was a peon next to all of you scholarly people. Lessans was wrong, and I should have realized this. Thank you for your criticism and objections LadyShea. You are the epitome of someone who is in the know.

Persecution complex and lashing out.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your response only makes me know that I cannot continue on. I'm glad you were honest about your trust in the historic arguments found in philosophical literature. I hope you continue down that old historic road, but don't expect me to be a part of it.

Please note, I said NOTHING about personally trusting historic arguments or definitions. Why did you read that into my words, peacegirl?

This is the kind of thing I have been trying to tell you. You read things that aren't there because you have been raised to believe that all objections to Lessans work are based on persecution of Lessans himself and/or groupthink and/or adherence to authorities.

ETA: In fact, I have discussed my personal views, and none of them are represented in the historical philosophical discussions that I am aware of. So, peacegirl, you don't give a shit about anyone else's views enough to even read them, I am thinking, yet you think everyone should change their views to match yours based on zero evidence.

And really you think you're the victim here?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This discussion is getting sicker and sicker.

GETTING ? ? ? ? ?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I purposely posted the last excerpt to see if anyone even understood what Lessans wrote. Obviously, you either didn't read it or you didn't understand it. Can you explain why, according to Lessans, man does not have free will, and why even though we don't have we will, we get to make choices? And can you explain what he means by "I did it of my own free will" even though man's will is not free, and why this is not a contradiction?

Can you?

(Rhetorical question. We all know you can't, and that you understand his words less than anyone else here.)

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And really you think you're the victim here?

Of course she does, My only real question is how long till her next post or next thread, If it's on another forum would someone let me know so I can at least go and watch the train wreck. Wonder if any other forum would last as long?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Of course she does, My only real question is how long till her next post or next thread, If it's on another forum would someone let me know so I can at least go and watch the train wreck. Wonder if any other forum would last as long?

I believe we went about 10 months at IIDB.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Can you?

(Rhetorical question. We all know you can't, and that you understand his words less than anyone else here.)

Answer the question Spacemonkey, or butt out.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I believe we went about 10 months at IIDB.

I never saw someone who had no interest in this discovery take so much time following me around online. And pealllleeeaaassseee don't give me the lame excuse that you're protecting everyone from lies. That's a bunch of nonsense.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Persecution complex and lashing out.

It's an easy cop out to label someone. Can't you do better than this?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Answer the question Spacemonkey, or butt out.

You first, Peacegirl. Why should anyone else meet a challenge you can't meet yourself?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's an easy cop out to label someone. Can't you do better than this?

Can't you do better than calling us all closed minded, entrenched groupthinkers?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what I've been doing...

Utterly ridiculous. It's the exact opposite of what you've been doing.