Author Topic: On Free Will  (Read 4074 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

April 13, 2007, 01:45:00 PM
Reply #15

freefallingdot

  • A Veritas Regular

  • Offline
  • **

  • 98
  • Karma:
    0
  • Personal Text
    The Knight of Swords
    • View Profile
Yes, people who do the things in your example have some minor control, as has been said already.  But I think the main problem lies in our different definitions of free will.  The ability to make choices, of course, belongs to everyone.  But I define free will as something more than that.  The free means free of influence from forces other than our own.  So by your definition, the definition most people have, free will is had by every conscious individual.  By mine, it severely limits the field.  In essence, it breaks down to different definitions of freedom.  The false kind.  Or the other.  But, who can truly know the definition of free as they are bound by their physical vessels limited vantage?  And, yes, debates are always enjoyable.
Boldly, I bow to the banished, bend knee to the broken, and break bread with the bereaved.  Behold the breath-taking beauty of brutality, of quick and permanent change, breaking the lines built to seperate polarities.  Brashly blending that which can't be bent.

April 13, 2007, 09:02:36 PM
Reply #16

Oriens Lvx Lucis

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 766
  • Karma:
    -1
    • View Profile
The FBI are forced to do no such thing.  Even when a person has a gun to your head and is commanding you, you can still disobey via immediate free will.  There is no such thing as forcing, only influencing.  Even magic cannot fully force a person, for it would require a skilled magician to take over the body of another person to force them to action, and this is still not forcing them to do anything, as the action is independent of the will of the victim.

The FBI are influenced to force the criminal by the manner of their occupation.  But an agent may still refuse to chase the criminal and be fired.  If an agent were to stop for a moment and look at the situation objectively, the choice of his own actions would be completely in his own will.  In the same way, a person being forced to action with the threat of death is only being influenced.  In fact, fear plays a very large part of the apparent "forcing" of an individual to do something (fear of the agent to lose his job, fear of a helpless victim to lose his/her life, etc.).

My original point was that long-term free will, such as the case Prophecy once provided, does not exist in a non-adept.  It is an illusion.  The adept is literally a "Master of Life" (as different occult schools term it) with any change in nature being fully under his command (as adepthood is a rank giving mastery over the physical plane).

Namaste.

April 13, 2007, 09:57:09 PM
Reply #17

Steve

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3685
  • Karma:
    139
    • View Profile
lol "This is irrational. A logical person would never make the choice to not eat if he would not like to feel hungry and irrational people are irrelevant with free will." That's a logical fallacy; to say that someone's choice to not eat is irrelevant when it contradicts your views on the matter is hardly fair ;) In fact, it's the very proof that is undeniable about free will that a human can intentionally make a choice which is stupid, harmful, irrational, illogical, etc and go through with it just because they can.

And Oriens: I have no idea what reference to Prophecy you're making, but I'm guessing that you're confusing "free will" with "control over one's own life" or "self determination" or some such (and if you're quoting Prophecy correctly, then perhaps Prophecy made the mistake). The two are related, and therein may be where the confusion lies.

~Steve

      Then the angel who talked with me returned and wakened me, as a man is wakened from his sleep. He asked me, "What do you see?"
      I answered, "I see a solid gold lampstand with a bowl at the top and seven lights on it, with seven channels to the lights. Also there are two olive trees by it, one on the right of the bowl and the other on its left."
      I asked the angel who talked with me, "What are these, my lord?"
      He answered, "Do you not know what these are?"
      "No, my lord," I replied.
      So he said to me, "This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel: 'Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,' says the LORD Almighty.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2007, 10:18:37 PM by Steve »
Mastery does not occur when you've performed a feat once or twice. Instead, it comes after years of training, when you realize that you no longer notice when you're performing a feat which used to require so much effort. Even walking takes years of training for a human: why not everything else?

April 14, 2007, 04:33:50 AM
Reply #18

Julianus

  • Veritas Furniture

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 313
  • Karma:
    1
    • View Profile
Quote
long-term free will, such as the case Prophecy once provided, does not exist in a non-adept.  It is an illusion.

Probably but, as I said before, this illusion is the reality of the non-adept: You can probably say that in the actual, true, reality the non-adept does not possess free will. This however would be wrong as this reality in which the person of our example lives, is the true reality for him, the one in which he lives. Saying that he does not have free will because he cannot control death - according to the occultist - would mean a different reality for him and that would simply be another reality, not his, therefore, he would not be affected by it.

Quote
lol "This is irrational. A logical person would never make the choice to not eat if he would not like to feel hungry and irrational people are irrelevant with free will." That's a logical fallacy; to say that someone's choice to not eat is irrelevant when it contradicts your views on the matter is hardly fair Wink In fact, it's the very proof that is undeniable about free will that a human can intentionally make a choice which is stupid, harmful, irrational, illogical, etc and go through with it just because they can.

Yes, humans can make choices which are wrong for them but when they do them, they will also have to face the consequences. If someone, like an irrational person, makes a wrong choice he will have no choice but to suffer the consequences of his action.

I did not contradict myself at all: When I said that anyone has free will, I meant every human, or Anthropos (which is derived from Ano (=above) and throskein (=to look)). And, over the centuries, if you read definitions made by philosophers on Man, you will see that they include the world "logic" therein. Therefore what I said on free is only applied to Man (i.e., one who has logic). And from my perspective - as well as others' -, I consider anyone who does not think rationally and does not possess logic to be an animal as he does not fit the definition given to Man.

However, I support both views - as I have clearly stated in the essay: that Man has free will and that Man does not have free will at all. I am just defending the first case as I see most are against it and I would do the same with the second just to prove that they are both valid as those two are just different perspectives of the same thing. The one is simply looking it from the right and the other from the left. Both of them look different sides of that topic but they undeniably look at the same topic.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2007, 04:40:17 AM by Julianus »
A thorough familiarity with the occult faculties of everything existing in nature, visible as well as invisible; their mutual relations, attractions, repulsions; the cause of these; in other words a profound and exhaustive knowledge of natural law this was and is the basis of magic.
- Blavatsky

April 14, 2007, 06:15:00 PM
Reply #19

Oriens Lvx Lucis

  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 766
  • Karma:
    -1
    • View Profile
Steve: No, it was correct.  It is a form of advanced free will extended over a long period of time instead of a short term choice.