Free Will

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Free Will

#21  Postby Nocterro » Mar 18, 2010 4:35 pm

Audley Strange wrote:
Nocterro wrote:Are you now going to claim that "unicorn" cannot be defined?

Why is it the case that something must exist to be defined? Surely we can define all kinds of non-existent things, given that the definition does not include "...and exists".


You can define whatever you want real or otherwise if you are so inclined. Shit go nuts, make mouth noises until something sounds good and then define it and tell people that it means something if you want. You asked me how I was defining it. I don't think it exists so I'm not going to waste time trying to. You want the definition, make one up or rely on your precious dictionaries. I don't have to.


Well, if you do not either 1) explain why the concept of evil is contradictory (like a square circle), or 2) define evil; then you are begging the question against the existence of evil.

Furthermore, would you say that all things which can be defined, exist?
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -Siddhārtha Gautama
User avatar
Nocterro
 
Posts: 322
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Free Will

#22  Postby Audley Strange » Mar 18, 2010 4:53 pm

Black36 wrote:Audley,

Does good exist?


No. Well... As a word yes. But besides that, no.

Nocterro wrote:
Well, if you do not either 1) explain why the concept of evil is contradictory (like a square circle), or 2) define evil; then you are begging the question against the existence of evil.

Furthermore, would you say that all things which can be defined, exist?


Or... I can consider it non existent and thus pointless to discuss because to do so is to argue about definitions of things that don't need defined because they don't exist.

Is it not simple?

Let me give you an example. "Freeble" is the description of anothers judgement on a behaviour of another based upon the moral code of the former which the latter knows nothing about and has not considered when conducting behaviour.

Does freeble exist?
Audley Strange
 
Posts: 1185

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#23  Postby Nocterro » Mar 18, 2010 5:02 pm

Audley Strange wrote:Or... I can consider it non existent and thus pointless to discuss because to do so is to argue about definitions of things that don't need defined because they don't exist.

Is it not simple?

Let me give you an example. "Freeble" is the description of anothers judgement on a behaviour of another based upon the moral code of the former which the latter knows nothing about and has not considered when conducting behaviour.

Does freeble exist?


How do you know whether X exists, if you don't know what X is?

Assuming your definition is coherent, then yes, at the least the concept of freeble exists.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -Siddhārtha Gautama
User avatar
Nocterro
 
Posts: 322
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#24  Postby Audley Strange » Mar 18, 2010 5:07 pm

Nocterro wrote:
Audley Strange wrote:Or... I can consider it non existent and thus pointless to discuss because to do so is to argue about definitions of things that don't need defined because they don't exist.

Is it not simple?

Let me give you an example. "Freeble" is the description of anothers judgement on a behaviour of another based upon the moral code of the former which the latter knows nothing about and has not considered when conducting behaviour.

Does freeble exist?


How do you know whether X exists, if you don't know what X is?

Assuming your definition is coherent, then yes, at the least the concept of freeble exists.


Because I know what X is "claimed" to be and finding no evidence of it other than as a word and self referential concept treat it as meaningless and since it has no analogue withing reality consider it non-existent.

So are you saying any concept we choose to create which are not borne out by anything other than our choice to consider them real should be considered real?
Audley Strange
 
Posts: 1185

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#25  Postby Nocterro » Mar 18, 2010 5:10 pm

Audley Strange wrote:
Nocterro wrote:
Audley Strange wrote:Or... I can consider it non existent and thus pointless to discuss because to do so is to argue about definitions of things that don't need defined because they don't exist.

Is it not simple?

Let me give you an example. "Freeble" is the description of anothers judgement on a behaviour of another based upon the moral code of the former which the latter knows nothing about and has not considered when conducting behaviour.

Does freeble exist?


How do you know whether X exists, if you don't know what X is?

Assuming your definition is coherent, then yes, at the least the concept of freeble exists.


So are you saying any concept we choose to create which are not borne out by anything other than our choice to consider them real should be considered real?


Erm..yes. Concepts exist. If you deny that, then explain how I can conceive/have a mental image of a unicorn.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -Siddhārtha Gautama
User avatar
Nocterro
 
Posts: 322
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#26  Postby Nocterro » Mar 18, 2010 5:12 pm

Audley Strange wrote:Because I know what X is "claimed" to be and finding no evidence of it other than as a word and self referential concept treat it as meaningless and since it has no analogue withing reality consider it non-existent.


Exactly! I'm not saying that everything with a definition exists in reality. I'm saying that we can define things that do not exist in reality.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -Siddhārtha Gautama
User avatar
Nocterro
 
Posts: 322
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#27  Postby Audley Strange » Mar 18, 2010 5:16 pm

Nocterro wrote:
Audley Strange wrote:Because I know what X is "claimed" to be and finding no evidence of it other than as a word and self referential concept treat it as meaningless and since it has no analogue withing reality consider it non-existent.


Exactly! I'm not saying that everything with a definition exists in reality. I'm saying that we can define things that do not exist in reality.


I don't disagree, however without something real to refer to such concepts are meaningless and non-existant. Thus evil is non-existent. Since it is non-existent it is pointless to discuss. Unless you want to but it'll be pretty much meaningless.
Audley Strange
 
Posts: 1185

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Free Will

#28  Postby Nocterro » Mar 18, 2010 5:19 pm

Audley Strange wrote:
Nocterro wrote:
Audley Strange wrote:Because I know what X is "claimed" to be and finding no evidence of it other than as a word and self referential concept treat it as meaningless and since it has no analogue withing reality consider it non-existent.


Exactly! I'm not saying that everything with a definition exists in reality. I'm saying that we can define things that do not exist in reality.


I don't disagree, however without something real to refer to such concepts are meaningless and non-existant. Thus evil is non-existent. Since it is non-existent it is pointless to discuss. Unless you want to but it'll be pretty much meaningless.


That's fine. My contention was with your statement "I'm not, it doesn't exist thus it can't be defined.".

Now you say you do not disagree with "Exactly! I'm not saying that everything with a definition exists in reality. I'm saying that we can define things that do not exist in reality."

Do you retract your original statement?
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -Siddhārtha Gautama
User avatar
Nocterro
 
Posts: 322
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#29  Postby Audley Strange » Mar 18, 2010 5:28 pm

Nocterro wrote:
Audley Strange wrote:
Nocterro wrote:
Audley Strange wrote:Because I know what X is "claimed" to be and finding no evidence of it other than as a word and self referential concept treat it as meaningless and since it has no analogue withing reality consider it non-existent.


Exactly! I'm not saying that everything with a definition exists in reality. I'm saying that we can define things that do not exist in reality.


I don't disagree, however without something real to refer to such concepts are meaningless and non-existant. Thus evil is non-existent. Since it is non-existent it is pointless to discuss. Unless you want to but it'll be pretty much meaningless.


That's fine. My contention was with your statement "I'm not, it doesn't exist thus it can't be defined.".

Now you say you do not disagree with "Exactly! I'm not saying that everything with a definition exists in reality. I'm saying that we can define things that do not exist in reality."

Do you retract your original statement?


No, though I see why you think I should. However evil is a meaningless concept since it does not refer something real. Since definition is a meaning and since I say that evil has none it cannot adequately be defined.

I will grant you that you can say anything you want about it and that if you choose to consider that description a definition then so be it, but it would be inaccurate.
Audley Strange
 
Posts: 1185

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#30  Postby Nocterro » Mar 18, 2010 5:36 pm

Your position, based on your previous statements, seems to be that we both can and cannot define things which do not exist in reality. o_O

You're going to have to retract something.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -Siddhārtha Gautama
User avatar
Nocterro
 
Posts: 322
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#31  Postby Audley Strange » Mar 18, 2010 5:39 pm

Nocterro wrote:Your position, based on your previous statements, seems to be that we both can and cannot define things which do not exist in reality. o_O

You're going to have to retract something.


My finger. :grin:

Okay let me try again. We can only define things which have meaning. Definition is meaning. That is NOT the same as having a description of something. We can say what we want about what we want and we can claim that we are defining them as concepts. However a definition of something meaningless is itself meaningless and thus is no definition at all even though we can consider it defined.

Got me?
Audley Strange
 
Posts: 1185

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#32  Postby Nocterro » Mar 18, 2010 5:43 pm

Audley Strange wrote:
Nocterro wrote:Your position, based on your previous statements, seems to be that we both can and cannot define things which do not exist in reality. o_O

You're going to have to retract something.


My finger. :grin:

Okay let me try again. We can only define things which have meaning. Definition is meaning. That is NOT the same as having a description of something. We can say what we want about what we want and we can claim that we are defining them as concepts. However a definition of something meaningless is itself meaningless and thus is no definition at all even though we can consider it defined.

Got me?


Are you saying that all definitions carry with them an implicit "...and exists in reality"?
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -Siddhārtha Gautama
User avatar
Nocterro
 
Posts: 322
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#33  Postby Black36 » Mar 18, 2010 5:48 pm

Audley Strange wrote:
Black36 wrote:Audley,

Does good exist?


No. Well... As a word yes. But besides that, no.


Really? In your view, one's willful behavior could not be deemed either good or bad?

Curious:

Is your view based on experience or philosophy?
Black36
 
Posts: 6

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#34  Postby Audley Strange » Mar 18, 2010 5:52 pm

Nocterro wrote:
Audley Strange wrote:
Nocterro wrote:Your position, based on your previous statements, seems to be that we both can and cannot define things which do not exist in reality. o_O

You're going to have to retract something.


My finger. :grin:

Okay let me try again. We can only define things which have meaning. Definition is meaning. That is NOT the same as having a description of something. We can say what we want about what we want and we can claim that we are defining them as concepts. However a definition of something meaningless is itself meaningless and thus is no definition at all even though we can consider it defined.

Got me?


Are you saying that all definitions carry with them an implicit "...and exists in reality"?


I'm saying that to define something that doesn't have any analogue in reality is no definition at all, though many may claim it so.
Black36 wrote:
Audley Strange wrote:
Black36 wrote:Audley,

Does good exist?


No. Well... As a word yes. But besides that, no.


Really? In your view, one's willful behavior could not be deemed either good or bad?

Curious:

Is your view based on experience or philosophy?



Yes really. Oh sure, it could be deemed (as in to have an opinion or to make a judgement call) good or bad, but that does not make it so.

Both.
Audley Strange
 
Posts: 1185

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#35  Postby shh » Mar 18, 2010 5:55 pm

Black36 wrote:
Really? In your view, one's willful behavior could not be deemed either good or bad?

Curious:

Is your view based on experience or philosophy?

There's a massive difference between the evaluations "good and bad" and the evaluations "Good and Evil".
I'd say you can place things on a scale of good and bad with some utility, but not Good and Evil.
wiki wrote: despite the fact that chocolate is not a fruit[citation needed]
User avatar
shh
 
Posts: 1523

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Free Will

#36  Postby Audley Strange » Mar 18, 2010 6:00 pm

BTW in case anyone thinks I've derailed this thread, I would say my argument about evil also extends to Free Will, God, the question of why we are here etc. They are all interesting, but utterly meaningless circular and self referring discussions.
Audley Strange
 
Posts: 1185

Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#37  Postby Black36 » Mar 18, 2010 6:04 pm

I'm sure your viewpoint would change if I could prove God's existence to you, no?
Black36
 
Posts: 6

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#38  Postby Black36 » Mar 18, 2010 6:08 pm

shh wrote:
Black36 wrote:
Really? In your view, one's willful behavior could not be deemed either good or bad?

Curious:

Is your view based on experience or philosophy?

There's a massive difference between the evaluations "good and bad" and the evaluations "Good and Evil".
I'd say you can place things on a scale of good and bad with some utility, but not Good and Evil.

So, your answer is philosophy?
Black36
 
Posts: 6

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#39  Postby Ilovelucy » Mar 18, 2010 6:12 pm

It was a really silly idea mentioning the problem of evil in the OP of a topic about free will. It's like starting a thread in politics called "Stock Market Crash"and saying "I want to know what you guys think of the collapse of the stock market, especially with regard to finding an amicable solution to the Isreal/Palestine conflict."
User avatar
Ilovelucy
 
Name: Not Lucy
Posts: 623
Age: 43
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Free Will

#40  Postby Audley Strange » Mar 18, 2010 6:13 pm

Black36 wrote:I'm sure your viewpoint would change if I could prove God's existence to you, no?


Tell you what. If you can even give me a description, let alone a definition of God that isn't unreal meaningless nonsense I'll be impressed. So let's not fly a plane before we can crawl eh?
Audley Strange
 
Posts: 1185

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 6 guests