Can morals be objective?

[ashdod_mogger]

God makes objectivity, God made logic
He is the beginning of all
Don't forget that
He's greater than cosmos, he by definition made it

If god made logic that means he can break logic, cuz at one point logic didn’t exist. Ask him to make a square circle, can he do it?

If logic requires God, then logic must have preceded God. Why?
Step 1: What does it mean to be subject to logic?

If we say that God is subject to logic, it means that:
He has no ability to act contrary to logical principles
He cannot cause something to both be and not be at the same time and in the same sense
That is, logic limits what he can do

Step 2: When is something considered subject?

The concept of subjection implies:
An external law that requires me to act in a certain way
That is, there is a principle or force independent of me that dictates limits to me
If God did not create logic, and he cannot change it, then there is something here that is independent of him

Step 3: If logic is independent of God, then did it precede him?

Here comes the critical moment: Does independence imply precedence?
Let's examine this:

p1: If x is not a consequence of y, and y is subject to x, then x is independent of y

p2: If x is independent of y and y is subject to x, then x is ontologically prior to y

p3: Logic is not a consequence of God

p4: God is subject to logic

c: Therefore logic is ontologically prior to God

Step 4: Why is this necessarily so?

Because if you accept the definition of God as an omnipotent and omniscient being, independent of everything,
then anything that he did not create, does not control, or cannot change is necessarily higher than or ontologically prior to him

That is, if:
1. Logic is not a consequence of God
2. God is subject to it
3. And it is not independent of him
Then it limits him and therefore precedes him in an essential sense

 

[tomahawk]

If logic requires God, then logic must have preceded God. Why?
Step 1: What does it mean to be subject to logic?

If we say that God is subject to logic, it means that:
He has no ability to act contrary to logical principles
He cannot cause something to both be and not be at the same time and in the same sense
That is, logic limits what he can do

He can make something out of nothing. That's illogical. He is above logic.

Step 2: When is something considered subject?

The concept of subjection implies:
An external law that requires me to act in a certain way
That is, there is a principle or force independent of me that dictates limits to me
If God did not create logic, and he cannot change it, then there is something here that is independent of him

He can, if he wills, but as a transcendent being that is of all knowledge, why would he have not made a perfect system first?

Step 3: If logic is independent of God, then did it precede him?

Here comes the critical moment: Does independence imply precedence?
Let's examine this:

p1: If x is not a consequence of y, and y is subject to x, then x is independent of y

p2: If x is independent of y and y is subject to x, then x is ontologically prior to y

p3: Logic is not a consequence of God

p4: God is subject to logic

c: Therefore logic is ontologically prior to God

Void because prev points false

Step 4: Why is this necessarily so?

Because if you accept the definition of God as an omnipotent and omniscient being, independent of everything,
then anything that he did not create, does not control, or cannot change is necessarily higher than or ontologically prior to him

That is, if:
1. Logic is not a consequence of God
2. God is subject to it
3. And it is not independent of him
Then it limits him and therefore precedes him in an essential sense

 

[ashdod_mogger]

He can make something out of nothing. That's illogical. He is above logic.He can, if he wills, but as a transcendent being that is of all knowledge, why would he have not made a perfect system first?Void because prev points false

How do you justify the claim that he can, in fact, cause concradiction?

It should not be seen as an essential requirement for his perfect " transadental " existence?

 

[tomahawk]

How do you justify the claim that he can, in fact, cause concradiction?

It should not be seen as an essential requirement for his perfect " transadental " existence?

I see no point in debating about God. No point. If he is the first cause, he caused all, the law and the matter
There's no point in trying to prove anything if he is greater than logic. And if he's lesser than anything, he isn't God. Which he is

 

[ashdod_mogger]

I see no point in debating about God. No point. If he is the first cause, he caused all, the law and the matter
There's no point in trying to prove anything if he is greater than logic. And if he's lesser than anything, he isn't God. Which he is

I haven't lost my faith in God, i'm just trying to eliminate any ontological arguments for his existence. God plays crucial rule Within human reasoning (he is the holy grail for casualty & morals)
No pt. In arguing, i see

 

[tomahawk]

I haven't lost my faith in God, i'm just trying to eliminate any ontological arguments for his existence. God plays crucial pt. Within human reasoning (he is the holy grail for casualty & morals)

I agree eith the faith part, but you just can't prove his existence. Only faith is left. Only blind belief, just like the curve bell meme

 

[ashdod_mogger]

I agree eith the faith part, but you just can't prove his existence. Only faith is left. Only blind belief, just like the curve bell meme

Finally got reminded about this verse in like.. ages, very much related

“דֶּרֶךְ שֶׁקֶר הָסֵר מִמֶּנִּי, וְתוֹרָתְךָ חָנֵּנִי” (תהילים קי״ט, כ״ט)

Psalm 119:29
Keep me from deceitful ways; be gracious to me and teach me your law.

 

[Prøphet]

No

 

[iblamefranklin]

Title

no of course not, people find what they think is moral because of what they have experienced, seen, and heard.

at some point in the future tons of things we do today will be profoundly immoral and so on

 

[Incelforeever]

If logic requires God, then logic must have preceded God. Why?
Step 1: What does it mean to be subject to logic?

If we say that God is subject to logic, it means that:
He has no ability to act contrary to logical principles
He cannot cause something to both be and not be at the same time and in the same sense
That is, logic limits what he can do

Step 2: When is something considered subject?

The concept of subjection implies:
An external law that requires me to act in a certain way
That is, there is a principle or force independent of me that dictates limits to me
If God did not create logic, and he cannot change it, then there is something here that is independent of him

Step 3: If logic is independent of God, then did it precede him?

Here comes the critical moment: Does independence imply precedence?
Let's examine this:

p1: If x is not a consequence of y, and y is subject to x, then x is independent of y

p2: If x is independent of y and y is subject to x, then x is ontologically prior to y

p3: Logic is not a consequence of God

p4: God is subject to logic

c: Therefore logic is ontologically prior to God

Step 4: Why is this necessarily so?

Because if you accept the definition of God as an omnipotent and omniscient being, independent of everything,
then anything that he did not create, does not control, or cannot change is necessarily higher than or ontologically prior to him

That is, if:
1. Logic is not a consequence of God
2. God is subject to it
3. And it is not independent of him
Then it limits him and therefore precedes him in an essential sense

And what point are u making?

 

[ashdod_mogger]

And what point are u making?

As you're able to see, there isn't philosophical but physiologist view about God in this case (the answers that were made by the last one)

AND for your question, the metaphyics methods in general are quite impossible without God's word as of 21s century like i said in former threads. So is ethics (the only excuse atheist could make now is something irrelevant like muh nietzsche, well is do seem to go for this cope often) .


Furthermore, It depends on what you understand by the concept of God. If we understand God as a certain moral entity, in the sense of “I have set before you the blessing and the curse” (Deuteronomy 30:19), as thinkers such as Kant (the idea that mediates between the moral synthetic-a priori and the world of experience), Fichte (the moral order of the world [compare also Guide for the Perplexed, Part I, ch. 29, and Sefer Yetzirah, ch. 3]), Schelling (absolute freedom), Kierkegaard (a bulwark against nihilism), Cohen (an idea for preserving the physical world), and many others understood it—then no, it is not possible for God to create a world with free will without evil (and incidentally, according to Sartre, it is not possible for such a God to exist alongside free will at all).
For this kind of “theistic” divinity (in the broadest sense of the word) was created in the first place for the distinction between good and evil, in the sense of “and you shall be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5), which arises from the existence of such a God. If a God of this type could create a world without evil, then it would not be God (and in the first place, the omnipotence attributed to Him was added for a moral need).
On the other hand, if we understand God as an entity with only metaphysical/pragmatic status, in the sense of “the Lord makes heaven and earth” (Psalms 124:8, and also 121:2), as held by Plato (a creator demiurge), Maimonides (the doctrine of negative attributes), Berkeley (the sustainer of the world through perception), Hegel (the becoming spirit, historical pantheism), and many others—then such a distant God has no connection to the moral domain, and we can conceive, or at least conceive the possibility of, a world in which free will exists alongside the absence of evil under the rule of such a divinity (whether through a psychologistic classification of logical thought, or through metaphysical consequentialism [cf. Berakhot 60b], etc.).
@PrinceLuenLeoncur

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

As you're able to see, there isn't philosophical but physiologist view about God in this case (the answers that were made by the last one)

AND for your question, the metaphyics methods in general are quite impossible without God's word as of 21s century like i said in former threads. So is ethics (the only excuse atheist could make now is something irrelevant like muh nietzsche, well is do seem to go for this cope often) .


Furthermore, It depends on what you understand by the concept of God. If we understand God as a certain moral entity, in the sense of “I have set before you the blessing and the curse” (Deuteronomy 30:19), as thinkers such as Kant (the idea that mediates between the moral synthetic-a priori and the world of experience), Fichte (the moral order of the world [compare also Guide for the Perplexed, Part I, ch. 29, and Sefer Yetzirah, ch. 3]), Schelling (absolute freedom), Kierkegaard (a bulwark against nihilism), Cohen (an idea for preserving the physical world), and many others understood it—then no, it is not possible for God to create a world with free will without evil (and incidentally, according to Sartre, it is not possible for such a God to exist alongside free will at all).
For this kind of “theistic” divinity (in the broadest sense of the word) was created in the first place for the distinction between good and evil, in the sense of “and you shall be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5), which arises from the existence of such a God. If a God of this type could create a world without evil, then it would not be God (and in the first place, the omnipotence attributed to Him was added for a moral need).
On the other hand, if we understand God as an entity with only metaphysical/pragmatic status, in the sense of “the Lord makes heaven and earth” (Psalms 124:8, and also 121:2), as held by Plato (a creator demiurge), Maimonides (the doctrine of negative attributes), Berkeley (the sustainer of the world through perception), Hegel (the becoming spirit, historical pantheism), and many others—then such a distant God has no connection to the moral domain, and we can conceive, or at least conceive the possibility of, a world in which free will exists alongside the absence of evil under the rule of such a divinity (whether through a psychologistic classification of logical thought, or through metaphysical consequentialism [cf. Berakhot 60b], etc.).
@PrinceLuenLeoncur

If no gods then no

 

[jaaba]

European Excellence had some interesting ideas on this in his manifesto

 

[TheGreatWhite Cope]

From a nature based world view, the only thing close to being deemed morally wrong is incest between close family members, otherwise everything else is fair game

 

[ashdod_mogger]

https://looksmax.org/threads/does-heaven-exist.1956829/

shameless plug

 

[Incelforeever]

As you're able to see, there isn't philosophical but physiologist view about God in this case (the answers that were made by the last one)

AND for your question, the metaphyics methods in general are quite impossible without God's word as of 21s century like i said in former threads. So is ethics (the only excuse atheist could make now is something irrelevant like muh nietzsche, well is do seem to go for this cope often) .


Furthermore, It depends on what you understand by the concept of God. If we understand God as a certain moral entity, in the sense of “I have set before you the blessing and the curse” (Deuteronomy 30:19), as thinkers such as Kant (the idea that mediates between the moral synthetic-a priori and the world of experience), Fichte (the moral order of the world [compare also Guide for the Perplexed, Part I, ch. 29, and Sefer Yetzirah, ch. 3]), Schelling (absolute freedom), Kierkegaard (a bulwark against nihilism), Cohen (an idea for preserving the physical world), and many others understood it—then no, it is not possible for God to create a world with free will without evil (and incidentally, according to Sartre, it is not possible for such a God to exist alongside free will at all).
For this kind of “theistic” divinity (in the broadest sense of the word) was created in the first place for the distinction between good and evil, in the sense of “and you shall be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5), which arises from the existence of such a God. If a God of this type could create a world without evil, then it would not be God (and in the first place, the omnipotence attributed to Him was added for a moral need).
On the other hand, if we understand God as an entity with only metaphysical/pragmatic status, in the sense of “the Lord makes heaven and earth” (Psalms 124:8, and also 121:2), as held by Plato (a creator demiurge), Maimonides (the doctrine of negative attributes), Berkeley (the sustainer of the world through perception), Hegel (the becoming spirit, historical pantheism), and many others—then such a distant God has no connection to the moral domain, and we can conceive, or at least conceive the possibility of, a world in which free will exists alongside the absence of evil under the rule of such a divinity (whether through a psychologistic classification of logical thought, or through metaphysical consequentialism [cf. Berakhot 60b], etc.).
@PrinceLuenLeoncur

"“and you shall be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5), which arises from the existence of such a God. If a God of this type could create a world without evil, then it would not be God"

Why wouldnt it be God? Are u saying god cant make a world without good and evil because the knowladge of good and evil is within him as a moral entitiy?


"it is not possible for God to create a world with free will without evil (and incidentally, according to Sartre, it is not possible for such a God to exist alongside free will at all)."

I think free will stops way before that, omnipotenc and omniscient God already takes free will out of the equation

 

[ashdod_mogger]

"“and you shall be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5), which arises from the existence of such a God. If a God of this type could create a world without evil, then it would not be God"

Why wouldnt it be God? Are u saying god cant make a world without good and evil because the knowladge of good and evil is within him as a moral entitiy?

" and you shall be like God, knowing good and evil " ;
It rather be seen a basic logical axiom right here - if all-knowing God exist, it's required for that reason that he is aware of Good and Evil (each side of same coin), if there is no Good nor Evil, thus that isn't a God.
Like some ole wise man said - we live in mog or be mogged world, it should be treated relative to situation. each case is unique.

"it is not possible for God to create a world with free will without evil (and incidentally, according to Sartre, it is not possible for such a God to exist alongside free will at all)."

I think free will stops way before that, omnipotenc and omniscient God already takes free will out of the equation

from psychologist point of view it can mush together (though not quite coherently)

 

[ashdod_mogger]

I have some good counter argument
leave a reply once i get the free time, i will try and provide an elaborate answer ( eventho i can use an ai tool already, it wills till take some time for me to digestand grasp that much info )

 

[ashdod_mogger]

r
btw entertaining you Alvin Plantinga
the greatest Christian apologtican/theologican/philosopher of our times
Got reminded me of him

 

[ashdod_mogger]

Newcomb's problem
The question is about the logical contradiction.
This is a well-known problem that even Maimonides / Rambam left in a paradox.
It is called the problem of foreknowledge and free will, or by the familiar name: knowledge and choice.
This can be presented through the Newcomb paradox.

the counter argument:
He is omniscient and omnipotent as long as it does not contain a contradiction, because then it is not omniscient - it does not exist in any possible world. (non-existent choice, which you haven't made yet are not to be known, therefore it leaves him all-knowing.)

furthermore, It doesn't make sense to say otherwise, i assume (directly) that free will is synthetic-apriori a d requires metaphysics which automatically gets to God=free will, which even strengthening my equation. (metaphysics and god go hand by hand as it's being proposed in @PrinceLuenLeoncur previous comments. I believe both in God and free will to some degree (eventho it requires clarification basically as coherentism/soft determinism, same shut).
Anyway, What I said doesn't contradict itself.
People simply don't distinguish between omnipotent in terms of potential, and able in terms of logically possible.
God cannot do what is not logically possible, and that includes knowing something that I haven't yet chosen to do.

 

[Incelforeever]

God cannot do what is not logically possible, and that includes knowing something that I haven't yet chosen to do.

Its not just the knowing aspect that takes free will out of the equation, its the creator aspect

 

[ashdod_mogger]

Its not just the knowing aspect that takes free will out of the equation, its the creator aspect

Post in thread 'I dont have to explain myself anymore. Whenever someone asks me why im a 27 yr old virgin now...' https://looksmax.org/threads/i-dont...m-a-27-yr-old-virgin-now.850352/post-13040363

 

[ashdod_mogger]

It was in a debate about whether determinism contradicts Judaism or not.
btw I found that

דטרמיניזם סותר את היהדות?

דטרמיניזם סותר את היהדות?

stips.co.il

anon:
Free choice is based on the assumption that man is a responsible creature, capable of obeying or disobeying God. Man's actions that stem from his will are his own, and therefore he must judge them: "I have set life and death before you, the blessing and the curse, and you must choose life" (Deuteronomy 30:19).

The principle of free choice is considered a central principle in Judaism, and is also central to the idea of repentance, and in the educational preaching of the prophets of Israel: man chooses as he wishes to do evil or good, he can turn away from his evil deeds, free himself from his past, his customs and habits, and change completely. Man is responsible for his actions.

The Sages confirmed the concept of free will in the Bible: "Everything is in the hands of Heaven except the fear of Heaven" (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Berakhot, page 33, 15b) and also: "Everything is foreseen, and permission [for man to act according to his will] is given" (Mishnah, Pirkei Avot, Chapter 3, Mishnah 15).

The Rambam formulated this fundamental principle in the Mishnah Torah: "But we know without a doubt that man's actions are in man's hands, and God, the Holy One, does not pull him or decree for him to do so, and for this reason it is said in prophecy that man is judged for his actions according to his actions: whether good or bad!" (Hilchot Teshuvah, Chapter 5, Halacha 5)

 

[ashdod_mogger]

I will explain again, slowly but surely. I would be happy for you to read it twice. Do you know what the metaphysical implications of determinism are? Determinism entails two things (which are relevant to our discussion): 1. A priori nature of the subject, 2. A priori nature of the subject's titles. In fact, these are the two things that define the subject in the deterministic world. The concept of the subject "Napoleon" includes within it the title: "born in 1769," the title: "exiled to Elba in 1814," the title: "short stature," and an infinite number of other titles. One of Leibniz's innovations was that when God brings to mind the concept of Napoleon, he knows all of its titles, and this is because they are a priori inherent in the concept, and the determinism that bends the subject to determinism is this a priori inherent nature of the titles. But these titles only fill the mold that is the a priori subject itself (the Cartesian in its most essential sense, which is dragged by determinism), like water poured into a jug and taking on its shape. Free will is not part of the titles of the subject, it is part of the mold of the subject itself (as Sartre has already proven). But since free will contradicts the titles of the subject, it is forced to necessarily dissolve from its will (and there is no contradiction in this sentence) in order for the subject to be able to emerge from the a priori power into action, and to become an existence. And who is it that frees the subject from this contradiction between itself and its titles? The will that chooses not to be and the God who puts this will into action. "Everything is in the hands of heaven, except the fear of heaven," and those who hold this view add that you have given the only thing in your hand to heaven, which is the fear of heaven, and therefore it is in your hand. A view like this stands proudly in the face of classical determinism, even hard determinism. This is because determinism and free will are on two different levels, the first in a priori terms and the second in the a priori Soviet itself. These are, of course, two different things.

definitely reasonable response to the problem me

 

[ashdod_mogger]

golden apple (orange, the GOAT of section philosophy / the mador):


It's not that complicated to understand, I really didn't see any point in going into detail. Determinism aligns with Judaism at the point of free choice, the Jewish person chooses a priori to give up his free will for God, to be an object in front of God as part of the world. When a person trusts himself in God, he reduces his being a subject to the object, and stands as a passive person in front of God (not that I agree with that).
AND Chooses *a priori* to give up his free will. I did not claim that one day the Jew will say "Today I will choose that I will not be able to choose," that is absurd in the empty sense of the word. The choice not to choose precedes the existence of man, he first chooses not to choose and only then is he a man.



if you want, so i can share the rest of what he wrote.( he said a lot, like book paragraphs, that is a lot to uncover)

 

[ashdod_mogger]

Newcomb's problem
The question is about the logical contradiction.
This is a well-known problem that even Maimonides left in a paradox.
It is called the problem of foreknowledge and free will, or by the familiar name: knowledge and choice.
This can be presented through the Newcomb paradox.

the counter argument:
He is omniscient and omnipotent as long as it does not contain a contradiction, because then it is not omniscient - it does not exist in any possible world. (non-existent choice, which you haven't made yet are not to be known, therefore it leaves him all-knowing.)

furthermore, It doesn't make sense to say otherwise, i assume (directly) that free will is synthetic-apriori a d requires metaphysics which automatically gets to God=free will, which even strengthening my equation. (metaphysics and god go hand by hand as it's being proposed in @PrinceLuenLeoncur previous comments. I believe both in God and free will to some degree (eventho it requires clarification basically as coherentism/soft determinism, same shut).
Anyway, What I said doesn't contradict itself.
People simply don't distinguish between omnipotent in terms of potential, and able in terms of logically possible.
God cannot do what is not logically possible, and that includes knowing something that I haven't yet chosen to do.

i meant to compatibilism by saying "soft determinism" whoops

 

[Mess]

It's all contigent on whether you believe in a God. For objective morality to exist, there must be an unbiased rule-giver, and humans are naturally self-interested (thus subjective), so the logical law-giver is God. Unless there's some argument for objectivity that doesn't require a God, or I've just grossly oversimplified the justification.

 

[Incelforeever]

I will explain again, slowly but surely. I would be happy for you to read it twice. Do you know what the metaphysical implications of determinism are? Determinism entails two things (which are relevant to our discussion): 1. A priori nature of the subject, 2. A priori nature of the subject's titles. In fact, these are the two things that define the subject in the deterministic world. The concept of the subject "Napoleon" includes within it the title: "born in 1769," the title: "exiled to Elba in 1814," the title: "short stature," and an infinite number of other titles. One of Leibniz's innovations was that when God brings to mind the concept of Napoleon, he knows all of its titles, and this is because they are a priori inherent in the concept, and the determinism that bends the subject to determinism is this a priori inherent nature of the titles. But these titles only fill the mold that is the a priori subject itself (the Cartesian in its most essential sense, which is dragged by determinism), like water poured into a jug and taking on its shape. Free will is not part of the titles of the subject, it is part of the mold of the subject itself (as Sartre has already proven). But since free will contradicts the titles of the subject, it is forced to necessarily dissolve from its will (and there is no contradiction in this sentence) in order for the subject to be able to emerge from the a priori power into action, and to become an existence. And who is it that frees the subject from this contradiction between itself and its titles? The will that chooses not to be and the God who puts this will into action. "Everything is in the hands of heaven, except the fear of heaven," and those who hold this view add that you have given the only thing in your hand to heaven, which is the fear of heaven, and therefore it is in your hand. A view like this stands proudly in the face of classical determinism, even hard determinism. This is because determinism and free will are on two different levels, the first in a priori terms and the second in the a priori Soviet itself. These are, of course, two different things.

definitely reasonable response to the problem me

but if all ur titles are already determined, than the mold (ur free will) is forced to move in a way that reaches the predetermined title, thus making the mold determined itself.

its like saying the river has free will because it chooses to flow into the ocean, when it was already determined it would become the ocean

 

[Incelforeever]

golden apple (orange, the GOAT of section philosophy / the mador):


It's not that complicated to understand, I really didn't see any point in going into detail. Determinism aligns with Judaism at the point of free choice, the Jewish person chooses a priori to give up his free will for God, to be an object in front of God as part of the world. When a person trusts himself in God, he reduces his being a subject to the object, and stands as a passive person in front of God (not that I agree with that).
AND Chooses *a priori* to give up his free will. I did not claim that one day the Jew will say "Today I will choose that I will not be able to choose," that is absurd in the empty sense of the word. The choice not to choose precedes the existence of man, he first chooses not to choose and only then is he a man.



if you want, so i can share the rest of what he wrote.( he said a lot, like book paragraphs, that is a lot to uncover)

I dont care about judaism and added concepts and framework of god created by other religions, i only use the bible description of god for this convo.

 

[ashdod_mogger]

but if all ur titles are already determined, than the mold (ur free will) is forced to move in a way that reaches the predetermined title, thus making the mold determined itself.

its like saying the river has free will because it chooses to flow into the ocean, when it was already determined it would become the ocean

I understand that explanations from contemporary philosophy won’t work here on the site.

So, fine — we’ll go back to more “primitive” syntheses (Kant’s one): determinism (even hard determinism) applies to the world of phenomena, while free will exists in the noumenon, the world as it is in itself. Thus, the human being is, on the one hand, subject to a lawful system of causes and effects, and on the other hand possesses, as a hidden cause, free will.

 

[CantStopTheMog]

Title

Yes they can be

 

[GoodLittleFoidBoy]

Title

morality is aesthetic, everyone cry’s at a dog or cat dying but walks past the dying spider, i would care for the spider

 

[ashdod_mogger]

I dont care about judaism and added concepts and framework of god created by other religions, i only use the bible description of god for this convo.

Will most likely work better in a way of deduction rather than general speaking:

1. There is determinism, that is: the totality of things is predetermined. (Evidence: given).
2. Determinism requires a subject that exists from the beginning (a priori). (Evidence: since the subject is in the totality of predetermined things).
3. Determinism requires that the attributes of a concept are included in it from the beginning. (Evidence: since the concept is part of the totality of things, and the totality of things of the concept is predetermined).
4. A subject is a concept. (Evidence: from the definition of the concept a concept).
5. Intermediate conclusion: the subject contains its attributes from the beginning. (Evidence: based on 3 and 4).
6. By its very existence, the subject has free will. (From its being not an object. Since the evidence for the freedom of the subject from its definition is too long, I will refer to the book in which it is presented in its entirety, and it is Sartre's Being and Nothingness).
7. Free will contradicts the inclusion of the subject's attributes in the subject from the beginning. (Evidence: the subject's attributes force the subject to act x, when freedom of will requires the ability to choose between x, y..n).
8. Therefore (based on 5 and 6): either the subject's attributes fade, or free will.
9. The subject's attributes cannot fade (based on 3 and 4), therefore: free will can fade after it was (the will not to be, the choice not to choose).
10. It follows that: free will fades by itself and/or by a force external to it, it follows that: free will exists in the deterministic world but does not coincide with the world because it fades a priori.

I have elaborated as much as I could. So far it's to nowhere but reducito ad absurdum

 

[Incelforeever]

morality is aesthetic, everyone cry’s at a dog or cat dying but walks past the dying spider, i would care for the spider

good man

 

[GoodLittleFoidBoy]

good man

while the dogs get stroked and loved i am the spider that hides in the corner

 

[Incelforeever]

I understand that explanations from contemporary philosophy won’t work here on the site.

So, fine — we’ll go back to more “primitive” syntheses (Kant’s one): determinism (even hard determinism) applies to the world of phenomena, while free will exists in the noumenon, the world as it is in itself. Thus, the human being is, on the one hand, subject to a lawful system of causes and effects, and on the other hand possesses, as a hidden cause, free will.

so u are saying that hard determinism exists in the physical world while free will exist as a possiblity of choosing differently in a different universe or realm?

 

[ashdod_mogger]

so u are saying that hard determinism exists in the physical world while free will exist as a possiblity of choosing differently in a different universe or realm?

not what do you mean by "choosing differently in a different universe or realm"; though it contains what he's going to choose without affecting the choice (synthetic-apriori)
good argument which i found for that, as in what i said before, in it's core meaning, concludes that: freedom exists only temporarily and does not fully coincide with the deterministic world. thus get along with hard determinism
am i clear enough? it's a lot of words for simple concept

 

[Incelforeever]

not what do you mean by "choosing differently in a different universe or realm"; though it contains what he's going to choose without affecting the choice (synthetic-apriori)
am i clear enough?

Not really ur not clear at all. It doesnt just contain what he is going to choose, the path to reach the point where a person chooses the determined choice also must be determined otherwise theoretically the person could stray away and never end up reaching the point where he makes the choice but that contradicts gods omniscient ability.

 

[ashdod_mogger]

Not really ur not clear at all. It doesnt just contain what he is going to choose, the path to reach the point where a person chooses the determined choice also must be determined otherwise theoretically the person could stray away and never end up reaching the point where he makes the choice but that contradicts gods omniscient ability.

”A subject is anything that is conscious„ —ludwig wittgenstein.

The subject, subject to the predeterminations of determinism, is also subject to the titles inherent in it synthetic a priori nature, that are identical with determinism. There is nothing incomprehensible here.

Highly hope that was an helpful and clear one

if you have any counters, you are more than welcome to share them, i might aswell learn some new things

 

[ashdod_mogger]

Then again, it has nothing to do with determinism (otherwise you'll have to justify the claim that principle of sufficient reason can't come in the first place with free will, utter nonsense ). Determinism was already defined by me earlier as the totality of things fixed in advance (synthetic a priori). When I say that the existence of the subject is fixed in advance, and you respond that it does not have to exist in a deterministic world, that is simply repeating the point I already addressed. If the subject is fixed in advance within the deterministic system, then it is necessary. In a deterministic system, everything that is possible is necessary, by definition. If my existence can be, and it contains no contradiction, then my existence is necessary by virtue of being fixed (since in determinism there are no pure possibilities).

Regarding the definition of the subject: true, I didn't previously provide one, for the simple reason that every definition traps us in the illusion of language — something Ludwig Wittgenstein pointed out in his later philosophy. But I will now define it in a way that can be challenged, if only so that I do not have to lay out the main principles of Wittgenstein’s later thought: a subject is anything that is conscious.

 

[ashdod_mogger]

i would utilize an ai slop if you don't mind it, though it's for the sake if the argument,
The model of the a priori subject empty of content, its free will as a part of it, and the attributes that fill it, is taken directly from contemporary philosophy; and when I saw that the idea was less understood, I turned to Kant’s solution. This was written explicitly (“I understand that explanations from contemporary philosophy won’t work here on the site… let us return to more primitive syntheses”).

I tried, unlike my usual way of responding here, to present a view from contemporary philosophy rather than from philosophies that preceded the twentieth century.

In any case, there is the world of phenomena — things as they appear to us — in which the deterministic principle governs; and beyond it there is the world as it is in itself, things as they truly are, in which we are permitted to assume free will, since the synthetic a priori categories that impose determinism upon the world (causality, unity, possibility, necessity) are presumably not present in the world of things as they really are, precisely because they are categories of pure reason

secondly, all metaphysics entity stems from the fact that there is someTHING (let's say Logos) which is existing synthetic a prior, then it isn't unreasonable to assume that there can be free will simultaneously to determinism. .
the thing is: such as in the Dasein concept man (subject) is not disconnected from the environment, but is rooted in it and operates within it. (phenological method of infamous former member of the nazi party which i won't go mk into more details than that about, beware of his philosophy and writing whoops then again i forgor the name ) , AND actually didn't write that I was changing arguments.

 

[Incelforeever]

”A subject is anything that is conscious„ —ludwig wittgenstein.

The subject, subject to the predeterminations of determinism, is also subject to the titles inherent in it synthetic a priori nature, that are identical with determinism. There is nothing incomprehensible here.

Highly hope that was an helpful and clear one

if you have any counters, you are more than welcome to share them, i might aswell learn some new things

makes sense. free will is just a determined concept in a predetermined world. My defintion of free will, which is the possible ability to choose differentily cant logically exist with an omniscient and omnipotent being. meaning that if the biblical god is real, every action, every thought is determined

 

[brodenwides]

Title

Morality is entirely subjective our entire understanding of right and wrong is based upon an agreement of a group of people but morality itself doesn't exist it's simply a concept and the only valid argument for the existence or morality is religion.

 

[Incelforeever]

Morality is entirely subjective our entire understanding of right and wrong is based upon an agreement of a group of people but morality itself doesn't exist it's simply a concept and the only valid argument for the existence or morality is religion.

does math exist?

 

[weg]

Title

nah i feel like everything but rape and other crimes along the lines of sexual assault. are subjective. Theft can be justified, murder could, robbery, arson, and a lot of other things.

 

[Incelforeever]

nah i feel like everything but rape and other crimes along the lines of sexual assault. are subjective. Theft can be justified, murder could, robbery, arson, and a lot of other things.

justified is subjective aswell

 

[ashdod_mogger]

does math exist?

No. I am fictionalist/Aristotelian.

 

[weg]

*is subjective, just reread my sentence and found my grammar mistake. Anyways, i see ur point there. People are against murder whatsoever because it's a human life, but I honestly think some people just have to die. The morality of sexual crimes is objective though, anybody who really disagrees is just mentally ill or appeal to nature fallacy.

justified is subjective aswell

 

[Incelforeever]

No. I am fictionalist/Aristotelian.

which means what?

 

[Incelforeever]

The morality of sexual crimes is objective though, anybody who really disagrees is just mentally ill or appeal to nature fallacy.

ironic, u just appealed to nature here