Free Will

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Very well I will check out that link and at the sametime I will brush up on existentialism as it has been awhile since I have read about the subject although I have a assorted collection of Kierkegaard in my own personal library.

Also I have a question for you while I am thinking about it.........

Is it impossible to believe that existance and essence comes together simaltaneously?

For being-in-itself, not for being-for-itself. Since we are a combination it is an impossiblity for the human being to have essence simply in existing.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Your parents deliberately condemned you to exist. Do you lash out at them in the same way?

Give it up. You would decry god whether he gave you free will, or made all of your actions predetermined. You just want to decry god for no particular reason.

In all retrospects, if you actually read my argument i am not lashing out at god, dolt. I am in actuality defending my actions, and trying to understand his point of view, so maybe you should read the argument. Im merely lashing out at the moral decree's that he is wishing to explain. Since you know i have to even type this useless rebuke to your misunderstanding and self-deceptive understanding. If you had read of course, you wouldnt of even considered to type your statement. Since in all considerations, you have no clue what existentialism and what message i am implying and defending. Read my arguments and posts on what i philosophy i am implying, and maybe you will understand what you just typed made you stupendous in your acusation. Since you have no understanding of what i am rebuking, or more so what i base myself upon you might want to read the argument in its entirely, as i have said before so as you gain a condition where you are actually capable of making claims as a shadow lashing out from the depths of shade.

 

[Aradia]

In all retrospects, if you actually read my argument i am not lashing out at god, dolt. I am in actuality defending my actions, and trying to understand his point of view, so maybe you should read the argument. Im merely lashing out at the moral decree's that he is wishing to explain. Since you know i have to even type this useless rebuke to your misunderstanding and self-deceptive understanding. If you had read of course, you wouldnt of even considered to type your statement. Since in all considerations, you have no clue what existentialism and what message i am implying and defending. Read my arguments and posts on what i philosophy i am implying, and maybe you will understand what you just typed made you stupendous in your acusation. Since you have no understanding of what i am rebuking, or more so what i base myself upon you might want to read the argument in its entirely, as i have said before so as you gain a condition where you are actually capable of making claims as a shadow lashing out from the depths of shade.

Brilliant retort. You entirely missed the point. I've read each and every post in this thread, even those with such atrocious grammar and spelling that I wasn't entirely certain what the point of such actually was. Frankly, it's mind-numbing drivel. Please stay in school.

 

[ManOfTheAmish]

For being-in-itself, not for being-for-itself. Since we are a combination it is an impossiblity for the human being to have essence simply in existing.

For being-in-itself, not for being-for-itself.

Can you help me understand the difference?

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Brilliant retort. You entirely missed the point. I've read each and every post in this thread, even those with such atrocious grammar and spelling that I wasn't entirely certain what the point of such actually was. Frankly, it's mind-numbing drivel. Please stay in school.

Did you just praise me then beat my head into dirt? Or were you just being a sod and sarcastic? Im doing my best, but i hope you understand, atleast what i am implying. Unless you understand what i mean, the vocabulary that is used is very distant from the usual definitions you will find in a dictionary or learn in school. Each definition, such as abandonment(sp?), god is dead, and so on do not in actuality mean their implications. They are rhetorical, and imply many different concepts, which it is my fault for not expressing to you. My grammer is horrible, and im still working on it, along with appropriate marks for punctuation

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Can you help me understand the difference?

Yes, heres a summary.


The being of objects, or better known as the en-soi of Sartre is the entirety of what makes up the existence of the “beings” of the object. It is the main field that the “objects” of the universe exist within….such as a rock, cauliflower, cat, or/and dog, etc. It is the en-soi that creates the separation of the object being of the universe, and the non-objective being of the existent. The being of the object is also known as the being-in-itself(which is what en-soi means). The being’s name alone describes the purpose of its being. It does not fight to exist. A rock does not have to fight with nature to exist as a rock because it is apart of nature and it will remain a rock(even if it is weathered into mere molecules it will remain a rock). A cat or dog does not fight with anything because it does not know what to fight for, the instincts that it exists as a base upon to keep it totally and utterly preoccupied with existing as a living entity is the only pursuit it wishes to contrive to itself. It does not attempt to question and fight existence because its entire purpose is to exist all in-itself. We can say then the rock, cat, and all en-soi have complete purpose or essence….better yet we can say the rock and the cat have essence in merely existing. They exist, that is it. They do not question, existence because they must then also be “aware” of their existence. They are not aware or at least realizing the contingency of their existence because they only exist, they exist to suit themselves because they have absolute purpose…which is to live, and to exist. They have the full-ness of existing completely as physical entities. What do I wish to imply when I say this?
The pour-soi is the negation of the being-in-itself or the en-soi or simply known as the non-conscious being. We then classify our being into two beings, better known as the Dasien of Heidegger better known as the combination of being and nothingness of Sartre. The solid being of the non-conscious being such as a rock, cauliflower, or any non-conscious animal is the en-soi(as stated before). The pour-soi which is thus a negation of the being of the en-soi has no such solidified and controlled existence so thus it is a being that is a non-being. The main conception of what makes us human is our ability to rationalize, this can be said that we are “conscious” or conscious beings, more so one in the same. Consciousness which is better known as the pour-soi what makes us a dualism that allows us into perceptibility and of the contingency of our life upon ourselves. It is this realization of the contingency, and of the perceptibility of the contingency that makes us conscious creatures, and thus human creatures. I am not a rock, which has full purpose just existing, or a cat which has enjoyment simply carrying out its required habits to stay alive. I am a being-for-itself or entirely awed by my own being. The consciousness is the catalyst that allows us to exist as a dualism, and as a human all-together. No dog, no rock, no cauliflower has the ability to question, or realize its existence.
If for example I was an army ant which is a en-soi I would not think about existing….when an army ant classifies itself into a living bridge so as its fellow colonists may travel across leaves and brush it does not question itself. It enacts without knowing why it enacts. If this ant were to contain the being of non-being of the consciousness inside its objective being of its entire self it would question the purpose and use of what it is doing. “Why am I, a animate creature, committing myself to a seemingly inanimate action?”(if it could conceive words of course). Thus the consciousness questions the action of existing.
It is also the consciousness that allows us to recognize the absurdity of life based upon the perception of the contingency of our existence upon ourself. We can say then it is the consciousness that makes us totally incanted by nature. We cannot exist as a co-existent with nature because we as conscious beings will question the persona of our existence. We do not simply carry out the needs of our self but also of the wants and inessentials of our self (sex for pleasure, cars, houses) and all human creations that are not needed for the vitality of our life. We do not have the full-ness of purpose because the consciousness is like an open shell. With the realization it permits, and the perception of our existence being contingent on ourselves we can thus say we are incapable of achieving the purpose of the en-soi. Being and nothingness are the two beings that exist…the being which is the being-in-itself and the nothingness which is the being-for-itself are negatits of each other. The being which holds complete solid perception of itself existing completely as itself, and the being that negates the existence of the first that exists for-itself. The consciousness has no such rock solid existence such as the non-conscious objective being. Never the less we are a combination…if we were to remove the non-being of our consciousness from the being of our object(our mind and body) we would become just like a cat or dog.
This leads so on into the creation of free-will based upon the nothingness of the consciousness and so on but that totally defeats to concept of what your implying and that I wish to solidify as a stupendous and mediocre argument.
We can say then what makes us human or at least the primary concession that makes us human is the conscious being of our self. The mind is in all examples a non-conscious being. It does not exist as a non-thing such as the consciousness and thus classifies itself into the object being of the non-conscious beings. We are different from animals, and intimate objects because we are aware, aware of the possibilities that rely upon our choices….aware that our existence is made purely by us. I did not choose myself, but I choose what I do with myself. This stated I did not choose my existence but never the less I choose what I do with myself…or the essence to my life. Existence precedes and commands essence, I did not choose to exist, but my existence allows myself to make something purposeful to myself for myself, I am my own man, in all retrospect’s.

 

[Aradia]

Did you just praise me then beat my head into dirt? Or were you just being a sod and sarcastic? Im doing my best, but i hope you understand, atleast what i am implying. Unless you understand what i mean, the vocabulary that is used is very distant from the usual definitions you will find in a dictionary or learn in school. Each definition, such as abandonment(sp?), god is dead, and so on do not in actuality mean their implications. They are rhetorical, and imply many different concepts, which it is my fault for not expressing to you. My grammer is horrible, and im still working on it, along with appropriate marks for punctuation

I was, in fact, being a sod and sarcastic (as far as the brilliant retort part went). I've been reading, writing, and debating philosophy and theology since before you were born. I know the vocabulary. I know the concepts.

I've been following your arguments, and what you intend to convey through them, but some have been better than others. I'd hoped my comment would've made you, perhaps, stop and think a moment instead of lashing out about how I'd completely missed the point. After your lashing out, I was worried I'd seriously overestimated your intelligence. From previous posts in other threads, you seemed to convey yourself well, and had some good ideas to share, which is why I responded. I hope that's the case. We need more bright folks here.

I know the conversation with ManOfTheAmish has been progressing at a break-neck speed, but let me rewind a bit to the specific point I was addressing....

You asked the question: "How can free will be created when that free will has been created by something other then ourself?"

Then there was a lot of back and forth about ManOfTheAmish saying how it doesn't matter whether/that it was given to us by god, and you saying that it can't be free will if we didn't create it ourselves. That leads to the post to which I directly responded.

Free will is the idea that we may freely choose what we think and/or do. It has no bearing on how our will becomes free. Free will is not "the ability to choose between free will or predestination". It is "the ability to choose our will".

Just as your parents gave you life, but it's still your life. (Now do you see the connection?)

And if you want to learn grammar, learn foreign languages. That's how I had to learn about proper english grammar.

 

[phsyxx]

Cairaii,


I think you're wrong about knowing the outcome is the same as "determining" the outcome.

And unfortunately you're wrong "determining" the outcome because you know about it.

The outcome is determined, whether or not you know about it.
You know the outcome, because the outcome is determined - it does not mean that knowing the outcome causes it to occur - which is where I think you're getting confused.


if God knows the outcome of something - it doesn't mean he causes it so happen - there are a series of causes which make me pick up a water bottle and drink from it, the main one being that I am thirsty and that I need to rehydrate myself. That would be the cause - not God knowing it was going to happen.

 

[elman]

And unfortunately you're wrong "determining" the outcome because you know about it.

The outcome is determined, whether or not you know about it.
You know the outcome, because the outcome is determined - it does not mean that knowing the outcome causes it to occur - which is where I think you're getting confused.


if God knows the outcome of something - it doesn't mean he causes it so happen - there are a series of causes which make me pick up a water bottle and drink from it, the main one being that I am thirsty and that I need to rehydrate myself. That would be the cause - not God knowing it was going to happen.

Yes. Good post. And I can effect the future by not taking a drink even though I am thirsty.

 

[phsyxx]

Yes. Good post. And I can effect the future by not taking a drink even though I am thirsty.

But the outcome is still determined.
You have to serve your organism.
Going to the toilet is not a matter of free will - you will go to the toilet at some point.

You must drink at some point - otherwise you will die of dehydration.

You may believe that you affect the outcome - but this is only when you consciously act over a moment to defy a thoery or statement -
but over the length of time - you will eventually conform to what your genetics and your environmental stimuli dictate.

 

[elman]

But the outcome is still determined.
You have to serve your organism.
Going to the toilet is not a matter of free will - you will go to the toilet at some point.

You must drink at some point - otherwise you will die of dehydration.

You may believe that you affect the outcome - but this is only when you consciously act over a moment to defy a thoery or statement -
but over the length of time - you will eventually conform to what your genetics and your environmental stimuli dictate.

I am one of the determining factors. No I am not just the playing out of environmetnal and genetice stimuli. That is your faith and not mine. I can see myself making decisons all the time that are not forced on me by genetics or environment. There are somethings I cannot control. I have to drink and eat and go to the tolet. There are somethings I can control, as in when I drink and eat and go to the tolet. I control if I am caring and loving and if I am uncaring and unloving.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

I was, in fact, being a sod and sarcastic (as far as the brilliant retort part went). I've been reading, writing, and debating philosophy and theology since before you were born. I know the vocabulary. I know the concepts.

I've been following your arguments, and what you intend to convey through them, but some have been better than others. I'd hoped my comment would've made you, perhaps, stop and think a moment instead of lashing out about how I'd completely missed the point. After your lashing out, I was worried I'd seriously overestimated your intelligence. From previous posts in other threads, you seemed to convey yourself well, and had some good ideas to share, which is why I responded. I hope that's the case. We need more bright folks here.

I know the conversation with ManOfTheAmish has been progressing at a break-neck speed, but let me rewind a bit to the specific point I was addressing....

You asked the question: "How can free will be created when that free will has been created by something other then ourself?"

Then there was a lot of back and forth about ManOfTheAmish saying how it doesn't matter whether/that it was given to us by god, and you saying that it can't be free will if we didn't create it ourselves. That leads to the post to which I directly responded.

Free will is the idea that we may freely choose what we think and/or do. It has no bearing on how our will becomes free. Free will is not "the ability to choose between free will or predestination". It is "the ability to choose our will".

Just as your parents gave you life, but it's still your life. (Now do you see the connection?)

And if you want to learn grammar, learn foreign languages. That's how I had to learn about proper english grammar.

If you mean it in that case, i agree that my parents are partially responsible. But thats as far as it goes. Hopefully it doesnt appear to you that i in actuality pursue to execute a rebuke to my parents over my birth. It is the same for god, i cannot in actuality be "mad" because theres nothing i can do about it. Im not mad, just realizing. I see what you wish to convey, and though you may find myself labelling myself under the existential movement(that is long past dead may i add) it is not certain if i associate myself entirely.

Unless ive been totally contradicting myself about free-will that is what i wish to say. Exactly as you portrayed it. I do find it though, since we are condemned to be free, we cannot exactly be mad about it. I cant be mad at anything for being born into this earth, only happiness for the possiblity to choose. My denial of god is based upon the fact i dont wish to be angry maybe? At something that condemned me to exist. Theres more to it then that, but i find this rebuke a possiblity. That is what i gained from your retort.

I hopefully wish that neither of you find it such a complimentary thought that i am wishing to "attack" in any way the basis of religion. I just find that since im born, and theres nothing i can do about it, and that i am existing with my own free will to choose my purpose to life with nothing other then myself holding me back, i find god or religion in general irrelevent. Im trying to portray this sense to my rival, but it seems hes approaching the matter to a purely theological standpoint, with the assistence of logical explanation to back up his theological composition. I base my atheism upon the concept that god is dead for a fall-back, as a resort for forgiveness for my bad choices. I have taken full responsiblity for my actions, and though i may consider bad-faith existent in petty arguments such as this. I do find it monumentous of a realization that i am alone in a godless world. It is not depressing as many portray existentialism, and post-modernism to be. Many fail to see through the sad vocabulary we use and delve into the optomism(sp?) of its message. I find it incredible relieving that i am alone, with my destiny totally layed out before me with no one other then myself, the only proprietor to myself in life, able to choose my actions to make that destiny or essence.

I do represent though, i do associate myself with the notion, free-will was not "given" but is an after affect of the "condemnation of freedom" that was created when we were born. This condemnation can be associated with my parents, for an atheistic standpoint, and a religious standpoint that god(s) condemned us.

Does this make a little more sense of my perception to you?

Im in German 2, so much more intricate then english >.>.

 

[Aradia]

If you mean it in that case, i agree that my parents are partially responsible. But thats as far as it goes. Hopefully it doesnt appear to you that i in actuality pursue to execute a rebuke to my parents over my birth. It is the same for god, i cannot in actuality be "mad" because theres nothing i can do about it. Im not mad, just realizing. I see what you wish to convey, and though you may find myself labelling myself under the existential movement(that is long past dead may i add) it is not certain if i associate myself entirely.

I'd counted on your not rebuking your parents over your birth. That's why I brought them up.

My denial of god is based upon the fact i dont wish to be angry maybe? At something that condemned me to exist. Theres more to it then that, but i find this rebuke a possiblity. That is what i gained from your retort.

Certainly a possibility. But I think there's more to it than that, also, and the degree to which one denies the existence of god says a great many things about oneself.

I hopefully wish that neither of you find it such a complimentary thought that i am wishing to "attack" in any way the basis of religion. I just find that since im born, and theres nothing i can do about it, and that i am existing with my own free will to choose my purpose to life with nothing other then myself holding me back, i find god or religion in general irrelevent. Im trying to portray this sense to my rival, but it seems hes approaching the matter to a purely theological standpoint, with the assistence of logical explanation to back up his theological composition.

Ahh -- now why might it be that he's approaching it from a theological point of view, while you are trying to convey that god and religion are irrelevant to you? Bit of a trick question, I must say. More on this below.

I base my atheism upon the concept that god is dead for a fall-back, as a resort for forgiveness for my bad choices. I have taken full responsiblity for my actions, and though i may consider bad-faith existent in petty arguments such as this. I do find it monumentous of a realization that i am alone in a godless world. It is not depressing as many portray existentialism, and post-modernism to be. Many fail to see through the sad vocabulary we use and delve into the optomism(sp?) of its message. I find it incredible relieving that i am alone, with my destiny totally layed out before me with no one other then myself, the only proprietor to myself in life, able to choose my actions to make that destiny or essence.

A lot of people find buddhism to be rather depressing, too. I feel your pain.

I do represent though, i do associate myself with the notion, free-will was not "given" but is an after affect of the "condemnation of freedom" that was created when we were born. This condemnation can be associated with my parents, for an atheistic standpoint, and a religious standpoint that god(s) condemned us.

Hard to say. From a religious standpoint, I suppose god could've made us not have free will, being pretty much able to do anything he wants and all. So in that regard, he exercised his own free will by choosing to give us free will, instead of giving us a predestined life. Hard to say. From an atheistic point of view, that doesn't really work, though. We'd simply be condemned by nature.

Does this make a little more sense of my perception to you?

Indeed. Now, if I may ask one question... if you find god and religion to be irrelevant to you, why are you here on this website?

Im in German 2, so much more intricate then english >.>.

Sweet. German was my first second language. I've pretty much forgotten it all, though. =)

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

I'd counted on your not rebuking your parents over your birth. That's why I brought them up.

Certainly a possibility. But I think there's more to it than that, also, and the degree to which one denies the existence of god says a great many things about oneself.

Ahh -- now why might it be that he's approaching it from a theological point of view, while you are trying to convey that god and religion are irrelevant to you? Bit of a trick question, I must say. More on this below.

A lot of people find buddhism to be rather depressing, too. I feel your pain.

Hard to say. From a religious standpoint, I suppose god could've made us not have free will, being pretty much able to do anything he wants and all. So in that regard, he exercised his own free will by choosing to give us free will, instead of giving us a predestined life. Hard to say. From an atheistic point of view, that doesn't really work, though. We'd simply be condemned by nature.

Indeed. Now, if I may ask one question... if you find god and religion to be irrelevant to you, why are you here on this website?



Sweet. German was my first second language. I've pretty much forgotten it all, though. =)

Because i find the conversations interesting, i dont challenge god, i find most of my discussion through philosophical arguments. I find that other atheists who waste their notions attacking god to be wasting their energy on such a costly hypothesis to try and disprove. I like the ethics and morality issues, though lately they havent been mainly concerned with ethics and morality, merely just the opinions of those judging the threads.

Also, what have you gained knowledge of me, since you say the concept of the denial of god by an individual says much about that individual? What have you gained from me?

And what do you mean my atheistic concept is based upon a condemnation of nature upon us? Since we are in a sense apart of nature? I guess i could say that, i was condemned to exist by existence itself. My freedom is what i do with whats been done to me. Do you associate yourself with the seperation of human beings, that we have free-will and that other animals do not since they are not in fact realizing their freedom?

How many languages do you know?

 

[ManOfTheAmish]

Yes, heres a summary.


The being of objects, or better known as the en-soi of Sartre is the entirety of what makes up the existence of the “beings” of the object. It is the main field that the “objects” of the universe exist within….such as a rock, cauliflower, cat, or/and dog, etc. It is the en-soi that creates the separation of the object being of the universe, and the non-objective being of the existent. The being of the object is also known as the being-in-itself(which is what en-soi means). The being’s name alone describes the purpose of its being. It does not fight to exist. A rock does not have to fight with nature to exist as a rock because it is apart of nature and it will remain a rock(even if it is weathered into mere molecules it will remain a rock). A cat or dog does not fight with anything because it does not know what to fight for, the instincts that it exists as a base upon to keep it totally and utterly preoccupied with existing as a living entity is the only pursuit it wishes to contrive to itself. It does not attempt to question and fight existence because its entire purpose is to exist all in-itself. We can say then the rock, cat, and all en-soi have complete purpose or essence….better yet we can say the rock and the cat have essence in merely existing. They exist, that is it. They do not question, existence because they must then also be “aware” of their existence. They are not aware or at least realizing the contingency of their existence because they only exist, they exist to suit themselves because they have absolute purpose…which is to live, and to exist. They have the full-ness of existing completely as physical entities. What do I wish to imply when I say this?
The pour-soi is the negation of the being-in-itself or the en-soi or simply known as the non-conscious being. We then classify our being into two beings, better known as the Dasien of Heidegger better known as the combination of being and nothingness of Sartre. The solid being of the non-conscious being such as a rock, cauliflower, or any non-conscious animal is the en-soi(as stated before). The pour-soi which is thus a negation of the being of the en-soi has no such solidified and controlled existence so thus it is a being that is a non-being. The main conception of what makes us human is our ability to rationalize, this can be said that we are “conscious” or conscious beings, more so one in the same. Consciousness which is better known as the pour-soi what makes us a dualism that allows us into perceptibility and of the contingency of our life upon ourselves. It is this realization of the contingency, and of the perceptibility of the contingency that makes us conscious creatures, and thus human creatures. I am not a rock, which has full purpose just existing, or a cat which has enjoyment simply carrying out its required habits to stay alive. I am a being-for-itself or entirely awed by my own being. The consciousness is the catalyst that allows us to exist as a dualism, and as a human all-together. No dog, no rock, no cauliflower has the ability to question, or realize its existence.
If for example I was an army ant which is a en-soi I would not think about existing….when an army ant classifies itself into a living bridge so as its fellow colonists may travel across leaves and brush it does not question itself. It enacts without knowing why it enacts. If this ant were to contain the being of non-being of the consciousness inside its objective being of its entire self it would question the purpose and use of what it is doing. “Why am I, a animate creature, committing myself to a seemingly inanimate action?”(if it could conceive words of course). Thus the consciousness questions the action of existing.
It is also the consciousness that allows us to recognize the absurdity of life based upon the perception of the contingency of our existence upon ourself. We can say then it is the consciousness that makes us totally incanted by nature. We cannot exist as a co-existent with nature because we as conscious beings will question the persona of our existence. We do not simply carry out the needs of our self but also of the wants and inessentials of our self (sex for pleasure, cars, houses) and all human creations that are not needed for the vitality of our life. We do not have the full-ness of purpose because the consciousness is like an open shell. With the realization it permits, and the perception of our existence being contingent on ourselves we can thus say we are incapable of achieving the purpose of the en-soi. Being and nothingness are the two beings that exist…the being which is the being-in-itself and the nothingness which is the being-for-itself are negatits of each other. The being which holds complete solid perception of itself existing completely as itself, and the being that negates the existence of the first that exists for-itself. The consciousness has no such rock solid existence such as the non-conscious objective being. Never the less we are a combination…if we were to remove the non-being of our consciousness from the being of our object(our mind and body) we would become just like a cat or dog.
This leads so on into the creation of free-will based upon the nothingness of the consciousness and so on but that totally defeats to concept of what your implying and that I wish to solidify as a stupendous and mediocre argument.
We can say then what makes us human or at least the primary concession that makes us human is the conscious being of our self. The mind is in all examples a non-conscious being. It does not exist as a non-thing such as the consciousness and thus classifies itself into the object being of the non-conscious beings. We are different from animals, and intimate objects because we are aware, aware of the possibilities that rely upon our choices….aware that our existence is made purely by us. I did not choose myself, but I choose what I do with myself. This stated I did not choose my existence but never the less I choose what I do with myself…or the essence to my life. Existence precedes and commands essence, I did not choose to exist, but my existence allows myself to make something purposeful to myself for myself, I am my own man, in all retrospect’s.

I understand what you are saying and I will say that human beings are the anomaly of existance when one studies other beings of the earth yet ironically man was not so different in his first beginnings from other creatures,infact man was once a creature who had no higher context of awareness or consciousness in that he once was a creature like that of all other creatures pursuing things that were only momentary in his day to day life.

You will find that the infliction man suffers is one that is a self infliction and all the suffering man perpetuates is from the concept of "I".

 

[phsyxx]

Are you aware of religious forms of beliefs centered around philosophical transcendentalism?




There are religious forms of existentialism as well.

Existentialism was never meant to be utilize as a tool against all human beliefs and it certainly wasn't meant to destroy religion as deeming itself a better alternative.

I find people who use such forms in the name of existentialism to be rather unnecessarily extreme.




To me freedom and freewill are one.






Spiritual transcendentalism and existentialism.





What do you mean?

To me freedom and freewill are one

.


yeah?
WEll, I have the will to fly - but I don't have the freedom to do so, because of the limitations the law of gravity lays upon me.

 

[phsyxx]

I am one of the determining factors. No I am not just the playing out of environmetnal and genetice stimuli. That is your faith and not mine. I can see myself making decisons all the time that are not forced on me by genetics or environment. There are somethings I cannot control. I have to drink and eat and go to the tolet. There are somethings I can control, as in when I drink and eat and go to the tolet. I control if I am caring and loving and if I am uncaring and unloving.

Elman, I would sincerely like to ask you a question - perhaps I should start a new thread for it, perhaps not.

You quite clearly speak English, do you not?
What country did you grow up in?

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

I understand what you are saying and I will say that human beings are the anomaly of existance when one studies other beings of the earth yet ironically man was not so different in his first beginnings from other creatures,infact man was once a creature who had no higher context of awareness or consciousness in that he once was a creature like that of all other creatures pursuing things that were only momentary in his day to day life.

You will find that the infliction man suffers is one that is a self infliction and all the suffering man perpetuates is from the concept of "I".

I did not choose to have the "I" of the self, though through cogito ergo sum i am conscious, but it is not a self-inflicted situation. If you wish to consume the fact that suffering is souly upon the fact that the "I" of the self is the proprietor of the self, you are sorely mistaken. It is in fact, that our suffering is the same as any other creature, the only difference of that suffering is that we think of the suffering do to the "I" of the self, and pursue ways as to extract that suffering away. The "I" of the self is the entire reason why are are capable of ensuing our happiness, whether it be sex for the pleasure, or throwing the winning pitch in a baseball state championship it is all the same, a purely human capability.

 

[phsyxx]

But forknowledge of a choice does not negate choice and therefore does not negate free will. Thus free will and omniscience are not mutually exclusive concepts.

Elman, I think what you're doing here is merging two concepts.
One of which is the world from the noumenal view - God's view, if you like.
He sees the future, past and present all together. That means that the script of the world is already written TO HIM. Meaning, effectively, that you are only performing this script as you go along.

However, you are not God. You experience the world from the phenomenal view - the individual, unaware of the future, and unable to see the past. (you can only remember it)
Now, to you and those around you - who cannot predict nor know the future or your actions - you are free.


Essentially, what you are saying is, "Even though God knows everything I will ever do, I am still unaware of it - therefore I am free."

But, you must remember, although the fact that God knows what you will do, it doesn't affect your life.

And, equally, although you don't know what you will do, it doesn't mean that your "free-will" is not any more than an illusion.

 

[Aradia]

Because i find the conversations interesting, i dont challenge god, i find most of my discussion through philosophical arguments.

Then religion is quite relevant to your quest for interesting conversation.

Also, what have you gained knowledge of me, since you say the concept of the denial of god by an individual says much about that individual? What have you gained from me?

From what I've seen, you seem a bit like I was many years ago. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not. Determined in some beliefs, but still curious and open. It's the degree and manner of denial that betrays oneself. Look at some of the more vitriolic atheists' conversations, and look at some of the more moderate atheists' conversations. Look for the motives behind their arguments. =)

And what do you mean my atheistic concept is based upon a condemnation of nature upon us? Since we are in a sense apart of nature? I guess i could say that, i was condemned to exist by existence itself. My freedom is what i do with whats been done to me. Do you associate yourself with the seperation of human beings, that we have free-will and that other animals do not since they are not in fact realizing their freedom?

Spot on. If there is no god, and nature is the only driving "force", then nature hath condemned us to existence. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that can readily be supported is that we have the illusion of free will, caused by brain function. If certain animals have the requisite brain function, they would also have the illusion of free will, but it seems to require higher brain function than other animals have.

How many languages do you know?

Define "know". I know a bit of french, and I've been trying to learn a bit of pali (a dead language).