Thursday, February 10, 2011

Human Beings With All of their Differences and Inequalities of Nature (Part 2)

As we said in the first part of this essay people are funny creatures. They can be categorized into generalized groups with the same attributes and then re-categorized into sub groups until we get a category of one individual person whose attributes have no equal. And while we declared that there is no absolute extreme nor an absolute center we can imagine that there is one and determine what that person's attributes would be.

If we were to take a person on the absolute left of our illustration we could then see what drives him. Being outer motivated he would believe that he has absolutely no control over his own life. Since he had no control then he would accept absolutely no responsibility for his actions. He would know what he has done because he has the ability to think of what he is doing but he would believe he could not have prevented what he did. He would go through life believing he had only one option of behavior and his proof is the fact of his own behavior. This is the essence of the meaning of determinism.

The idea of good or bad behavior would be irrelevant to this man because to acknowledge that would be to acknowledge the possibility that he had a choice of behavior. He would be perceived as being a man without any emotions or feelings for others or anything not even for himself. And to be consistent he would believe this is true for everyone as well as everything. The idea of free will would be non-existent in the mind of this person. He would be a person without regret for anything he did. Seeking forgiveness would not occur to a person such as this for that in itself would require that he had a choice as would accepting praise.

This would be a person who would attribute his every behavior to the laws of physics in some manner or another. Life would have no meaning to this person other than the fact that it is a part of the nature of this existence. Since life would have no meaning the concept of liberty or the pursuit of happiness would be meaningless concepts to this person also.

The laws of the state would be meaningless to this person. By the nature of his existence, as believed, he will either abide by them or he won't because he has no choice. Any benefits or consequence he may get out of it is only as it should be. His fate is determined already. He is only experiencing what he was fated for him by existing. This person would only see the laws of the state as being necessary until science has discovered the laws of the behavior of man. Once discovered the state would cease to exist for it would not serve any purpose anymore.

Inequality of persons would also be meaningless because he would believe that all are equally bound by this same idea and that no one had a choice of who they may be in this existence. Since the idea of consent would also need to recognize the concept of choice then it also would have no meaning. The idea of force would be the only concept he would recognize as existing thus justifying its use. Its justification would come from defining it along the lines of being a scientific term of being nothing else other than a physical influence on behavior. And with this definition declares the righteousness of the principle of the ends justifying the means.

Even the idea of the existence of a God would be meaningless to this person. For to recognize His existence would also mean he'd have to recognize the existence of free will at that level also and declare that a life form with free will was the ultimate cause of all things even his behavior. And once this possibility is accepted then it could be declared that this person no longer holds to an absolute position to the left. He would hold to a position of a lesser degree of absoluteness.

This might be declared as one version of the meaning of perfection. It would be an existence where anything and everything would just be accepted as a part of the natural way of life. If it be the natural way of life then it is a life determined thus incapable of change. Man would only be declared as a witness to what life is as it should be. And it is only fate that determined that he be a witness to life and be emotionless about what he witnessed, a life without purpose or potential, a life without any meaning or opportunity. He would be witness to a life without value either to himself or to others. To demand that he be anything other than this would be demanding that he be a hypocrite to his beliefs.

Now this evaluation can be applied to all of the left each to a lesser degree of absoluteness than another or a greater degree of absoluteness than another as one finds himself on the spectrum of the curve. For as one sees himself so does he expect others to be also and any variance would be a contradiction of belief. And by doing so abides by the principle of treating others as he himself would like to be treated.

If there be a change of belief it would be a change that places them further to the left than where they be now. The only influence for this new change would be the new discoveries of science in regards to the causes of human behavior.

In closing, the left consists of those whose beliefs are consistent to the concept of determinism to a greater degree of porportionality. And government is but a tool to be used as the means to bring a society closer to the perfect existence as determined never to need change. And they see this as being inevitable as science learns more thus will be the catalyst of this inevitability.


BB-Idaho said...

Given the discrete spectrum of human perception you describe,
help me place this individual on the curve:
"To inquire after the meaning or object of one's own existence or that of all creatures has always seemed absurd from an objective point of view. And yet everybody has certain ideals which determine the direction of his endeavors and judgments. In this sense I have never looked upon ease and happiness as ends in themselves-this ethical basis I call the ideal of a pigsty. The ideals which have lighted my way, and time after time have given me new courage to face life cheerfully, have been Kindness, Beauty and Truth. Without the sense of kinship with men of like mind, without the occupation with the objective world, the eternally unattainable in the field of art and scientific endeavors, life would have seemed to me empty. The trite objects of human efforts-possessions, outward success, luxury-have always seemed to me contemptible."
..where shall we place
Albert Einstein?

The Griper said...

he smiles, that is just it, BB. we can't place specific individual persons on the spectrum where they are. the reason being is that we can't give a absolute scientific measure to each individual as we can groups.

and the reason for it is the fact there are no laws of behavior in social science as there are in hard science.

remember, without the physical laws the conclusion that hard science can come to would be no more absolute than the soft sciences.

in other words the hard sciences can come to conclusions that are 100% but social science cannot.

BB-Idaho said...

Einstein seems one of those we might describe as
falling into the duel theory of determinism &
free will, so I was anticipating perhaps somewhere in the middle of the muddle, so to speak.
Since pure philsophy bounces right off my cerebellum, I will retreat to the words of these
.."With so many ways of talking about this problem, one might expect any debate quickly to become a labyrinth of misunderstandings, semantic tangles and complete communication breakdowns. As the history of philosophy testifies, one would be right. This entry attempts to help the curious student see through some of the confusion by separating the question into different questions, asked at different levels of analysis." That, my cerebellum can absorb! :)

The Griper said...

yes as i was saying in this essay, people do fall short of the absolute extreme which i referred to in my third to last paragraph.
there'd be nobody that fit this description just as there'd be nobody that would fit the description that is in my most recent post.

everyone would be one or the other porportionately by some degree or another depending upon the issue of discussion. the problem being is that there is no way to measure that porportionality yet in specific individuals.

Lista said...

I do have a Longer Response to this, but for now, I just want to say that you use the Word "Fall Short" in your Above Comment, as if an Extreme is Something Worth Striving for, but I do not at all Agree with you, for Extremes are Destructive.

The Griper said...

and one problem with a centalized viewpoint is that our behavior may contradict our beliefs. getting people to compromise does not change their beliefs. it only changes behavior on a temporary basis.

Lista said...

It is not Always Possible to Change People, Griper, and when you Try to, Sometimes you just End Up Causing Pain. It's just Like when we Reach a Point in which we have to Agree to Disagree. Well, when we Reach this Point with someone who Shares something with us, such as the American Government, sometimes there is a Need for a Compromise, in Order to Keep the Peace.

Ok, Enough of that. Now for what I Wrote Earlier about the Post...

In Christianity, we have an Idea Known as Predestination (also Known as Calvinism) and that is that God Predestines Everything and since God Predestines Everything, we Essentially have no Choice but to do Exactly what we were Predestined to Do.

Armenianism is the Opposite Point of View and also Exists within Christianity. Armenians Believe in Free Choice, as Well as Responsibility. Calvinists say that this is a Doctrine of Works, rather than Grace.

"He would be perceived as being a man without any emotions or feelings for others or anything, not even for himself."

That is the Absolute Determinist, who you say is also a Man without Regret.

"Since life would have no meaning, the concept of liberty or the pursuit of happiness would be a meaningless concepts to this person also."

Actually, some People don't Strive for Liberty, or Actually for Success, because they Feel that it is Unattainable to them. This is because a Person can Indeed Choose a Behavior, yet he or she can not Choose, or Control the Outcome, yet if there is no Way to Control the Outcome of One's Effort, what is the Incentive to Choose to do the Behavior?

"This person would only see the laws of the state as being necessary until science has discovered the laws of the behavior of man. Once discovered the state would cease to exist for it would not serve any purpose anymore."

That Pair of Sentences doesn't Make Sense. You Appear to be Assuming that if we Could just Understand what the Laws of Man are, then the Decisions of Man could be Controlled, yet in Order for Man to be Controlled, Someone would have to do the Controlling and this can not Happen Unless the One Who Controls has the Power of Choice, in Order to Make the Decision of How to Control. In Other Words, if Everything is Determined, then Even the Controller would not have Free Will, so How Can Anyone Apply "the Laws of the Behavior of Man" in Order to Control his Behavior?

She Chuckles as she Realizes that she has Just Discovered the main Flaw in the Science of Behaviorism, as well as the Reason Why Such can Never Fully Work.

Lista said...

I Wonder if I should Pause Between the Two Halves of what I Wrote Earlier and Respond again to your Comment Above...

"getting people to compromise does not change their beliefs. it only changes behavior on a temporary basis."

When it Comes to Politics, Griper, the Changing of People's Behaviors is not what we are Striving for, but Instead it is the Changing of Government. Government is not the Same as a Person, Griper. It is just a System Put in Place by People, but it does not in and of itself have Opinions and View Points. Instead, it is a Reflection of all of the Different View Points of Everyone that Participates in the Process.

The Behavior of Government, therefore, can not Contradict the Beliefs of Government, because Government is not a Person, but a inanimate System and it has no Beliefs.

Lista said...

You Lost me in your Paragraph about Force, Griper, yet I will Add One thought Anyway. There is Force and there is Influence and then there is Pressured Influence. Influence is just Moderate, Low Pressure Persuasion. Force is when there is no Other Option but to Obey. Pressured Influence is when the Only Other Options are all Negative and the Extent of the Negativity of the Alternatives is Equal to the Extent of Pressure.

"a life determined thus incapable of change.......a life without purpose or potential, a life without any meaning or opportunity........a life without value either to himself or to others."

You are Making me Feel Sad, Griper, for what you are Describing is Empty and Meaningless.

"For as one sees himself, so does he expect others to be also and any variance would be a contradiction of belief."

Now, this Statement I don't Agree with because I Believe that One Person's Choices can be more Limited than another's and because of this, we do not Have to View All People in the Same Way as we View Ourselves and, In Fact, Shouldn't.

I don't Understand Everything that you Said, Griper, but you Appear to be Talking about the Science of Behaviorism, which is all about Learning the Causes of Behavior, so that it can be Controlled and Once this is Learned, the Controlling of Behavior will Eventually be Turned Over to the Government. Yet Remember you are Talking about the Farthest Extreme on the Left and this Time have Readily Admitted it.

Now for the Comments... Though you had Good Things to say in Your Comment, Griper, In my Opinion, you are Avoiding BB's Question. Another Way to Ask it would be to Ask Which of the Groups should we Place Einstein in?

I Agree with BB's Answer to his Own Question and also with those he Quoted.

The Griper said...

i'll let BB explain the laws of physics to you.

Lista said...

Physics has nothing to do with Decisions, Griper. Physics has to do with inanimate Objects that have no Thought Processes and that is why Human Behavior Defies the Logic of Physics. I don't Think that it Takes a Rocket Scientist (As she Smiles and Glances at BB) to Figure that One Out.

Don't you see. Physics is about Cause and Effect. Human Behavior is about Cause/Thought Process/Effect, or you could Even Add One More Factor and Describe it as Cause/Emotion/Thought Process/Effect. And then we Could Debate over the Actual Cause and Claim that the Cause is Emotion or Thought, rather then the Initial Cause that Started the Whole Process, yet all this would be is Semantics, while Passing the the Buck of Responsibility to someone Else.

In Actuality, though, the Entire Process is the Cause and no Part of it should be Removed from the Cause and Effect Equation.

Lista said...

The More I Think about this, Griper, the More Complicated the Cause and Effect Equation Gets, for it Could be Described like this... Cause/Initial Though Process/Emotional Response/Deeper Thought Process/Decision/Effect. No Matter how you Describe it, though, the Entire Process is the Cause and the Very First Cause that Came from the Outside of the Person Can not be Removed from the Equation. Once Again, that would be Passing the Buck and Avoiding Responsibility for Ones Behavior.

The Griper said...

the laws of physics can be applicable to any object, lista, animate or inanimate

Lista said...

That is a Matter of Opinion and it is a Determinist Opinion, because if Choice is Caused, then it is not Really Choice, at Least not in the sense of an Extreme. If Choice is not Caused, or if it is a Cause that is not Caused or Influenced by Anything, well, that just doesn't Make any Sense and Even Sounds Rather Lonely.

If Choice is the Initial Cause of Everything, and is not Caused or Influenced by Anything, then Choice Takes the Place of God and he who Chooses and Can not Be Caused, Controlled or Influenced by any Outside Sources, is All Powerful, or Omnipotent. So he who Believes in Choice Only and in nothing Else is Highly Arrogant and has an Ego Problem that Surpasses that of all Others.

Determinism is Humble, for it Admits that we can both Effect Each Other and Need Each Other. An Excessive Belief in Free Choice, though, Unaffected by the Choices of Others, is the Epitome of Arrogance and Egotism.

The Griper said...

never said that choice was caused, lista. and before talking about choice, read part 3. that is where i talk of it. this post only deals with determinism

Lista said...

I did Read Part 3, Griper, and these Two Posts are Related because they are about Opposite Extremes, but if you would Like, I'll give you my Response to Part 3, Hopefully Tomorrow.

For this Post, I just want to say that if Everything is Determined (the Theme of this Post), then Everything is Caused and that is why I said that.

The Griper said...

if you read them both, lista, then you'd realize that under the circumstances of this post free will could not exist therefore could not be caused in regards to persons.

Lista said...

Let me see if I can Repeat my Point in a Way that you can Understand.

The Reason Why there is no Choice is because Everything is Determined and Caused. If Everything is Determined and there is no Choice, then there would be no Point in Science "Discovering the Laws of the Behavior of Man", because No One would be Able to Use those Laws in Order to Influence or Control anyone, because even the One who Desired to Use these Laws to Influence and Control, would not have any Choice about how they would Influence and Apply these "Laws of the Behavior of Man", so Even Acquiring such Knowledge would be Meaningless.

What can I say, Except that Extremes are Empty and Meaningless, as well as Destructive? This is True, However, of Any Extreme, not just this one.

The Griper said...

he just smiles,,except for the last paragraph what you say has a lot of truth, a whole lot of truth, probably more than you realize at the moment. congratulations, lista.

Lista said...

What I am Saying in my Last Paragraph can be Illustrated like this...

Having Absolutely No Control Over One's Own Life is Meaningless and Empty. This is the Emptiness of Extreme Determinism. Having Absolutely no Influence on Others is also Empty, cause it is Lonely. This is the Emptiness of Extreme Unchanged and Uninfluenced Free Will. Thus, Both are Empty.

If a Control Freak Succeeds at Taking Away from another Both the Right for that Person to have Control over her Own Life and also her Hope of Ever Influencing the Control Freak, then the Submissive that this is Done to has Absolutely Nothing, Life will have no Meaning for her and she Might as Well not Exist at all.

The Griper said...

you are applying lack of control to only one party. under the circumstance i described no one has control. there would be no person as you defined as a control freak

Lista said...

It is not Right for you, Griper, to Deprive me of the Privilege of Talking about both Extremes at Once. It is just as I just Got Finished Telling you Beneath the Next Post Up, "you have Admitted that this is Only Imagined and not Reality that we are Talking about."

Somewhere along the Line, Griper, we Need to Make a Transition from Talking about Fantasy and Return to Discussions about Reality and the Reality is that Those who Believe in Free Will both Judge and Take Advantage of those whose Lives are more Determined due to either Genetic or Previous Environmental Limitations.

Anyone who Believes that Free Choice is an Absolute and that there is no Limit to it is Living in a Fantasy World and Anyone who Believes that Determinism is Absolute and we have No Choice at all is Living in a Fantasy World. At some Point, Griper, we are going to Need to Talk about Reality, rather than Fantasy and I am not going to Allow you to Use the "Keep on the Topic" Clause in Order to Prevent me from Returning to a Discussion about Reality, rather than Fantasy.


Words of Wisdom of my visitors

Grab This Widget

Gas Buddy

Search for gas prices by US Zip Code


Design by Amanda @ Blogger Buster