optimistic and a realist Mal. Maybe the free will element concerns
keeping oneself in ignorance, trusting to fate and taking what comes?
Some people can only live day to day and hope things will change
around them.
On Jan 10, 11:15 pm, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe not. Breaking a routine at this stage might cause so much more damage
> to oneself than it does good that it should be held up as without
> alternative.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Perhaps, gabby. But at this point in my life, for me, there is no
> > other choice. So is it really a choice?
>
> > On Jan 9, 6:14 pm, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Oh Molly, I believe you are more than the box you come in, too! I
> > > believe you choose to want to feel lovely at each moment, feeling
> > > alive!
>
> > > On Jan 9, 11:34 am, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > We know by recognizing his potentiality and helping him to do the
> > > > same. Sometimes, given the box it comes in, this takes an
> > > > extraordinary amount of love and care. At some point, choice, like
> > > > goals and purpose and all the rest, just fall away. And here we are.
> > > > Relating to those we love. Feeling the life we've been given. Ten
> > > > years ago I would not have imagined myself as I am today. I am here
> > > > because somewhere along the line I discovered that the best I can "do"
> > > > is express myself with love in each moment, and recognize the same in
> > > > others, whatever the circumstance. Given that, life unfolds.
>
> > > > On Jan 9, 3:42 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Some of this take on epistemology can be gleaned by observing what's
> > > > > around us. Teenagers are a minefield of such information. My
> > > > > grandson (14) is currently making excuses for not having enough baths
> > > > > and showers along the lines of 'it's my body'. Empirically he
> > stinks.
> > > > > He's barely noticed how much work gets done around him. He can't
> > keep
> > > > > his PC free of viruses or use his laptop with enough care not to
> > break
> > > > > the charger lead (etc.). It has barely dawned on him that I was once
> > > > > his age and that he has never been my age. He's a good enough lad
> > and
> > > > > this is all that really matters to me. He was like an Irishman put
> > in
> > > > > a barrel and told to piss in the corner the other day (add Pole,
> > > > > Belgian etc. to xenophobic choice). I gave him a power lead straight
> > > > > from the box and he spent the time trying to fit it to the socket
> > with
> > > > > the insulation packaging left on. I guess he won't next time, though
> > > > > I proved a slower learner on some such stuff. It would be easy
> > enough
> > > > > to leave him alone to "develop" into a useless, smelly nitwit. The
> > > > > idea is we don't. How do we know?
>
> > > > > On Jan 7, 10:34 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I agree with RP that we are looking at complex relations. Lots has
> > > > > > been said on Mal's thought - this is a standard\ example:
>
> > > > > > "The Darwinian revolution of the nineteenth century suggested an
> > > > > > alternative approach first explored by Dewey and the pragmatists.
> > > > > > Human beings, as the products of evolutionary development, are
> > natural
> > > > > > beings. Their capacities for knowledge and belief are also the
> > > > > > products of a natural evolutionary development. As such, there is
> > some
> > > > > > reason to suspect that knowing, as a natural activity, could and
> > > > > > should be treated and analyzed along lines compatible with its
> > status,
> > > > > > i. e., by the methods of natural science. On this view, there is no
> > > > > > sharp division of labor between science and epistemology. In
> > > > > > particular, the results of particular sciences such as evolutionary
> > > > > > biology and psychology are not ruled a priori irrelevant to the
> > > > > > solution of epistemological problems. Such approaches, in general,
> > are
> > > > > > called naturalistic epistemologies, whether they are directly
> > > > > > motivated by evolutionary considerations or not. Those which are
> > > > > > directly motivated by evolutionary considerations and which argue
> > that
> > > > > > the growth of knowledge follows the pattern of evolution in biology
> > > > > > are called "evolutionary epistemologies."
>
> > > > > > Evolutionary epistemology is the attempt to address questions in
> > the
> > > > > > theory of knowledge from an evolutionary point of view.
> > Evolutionary
> > > > > > epistemology involves, in part, deploying models and metaphors
> > drawn
> > > > > > from evolutionary biology in the attempt to characterize and
> > resolve
> > > > > > issues arising in epistemology and conceptual change. As
> > disciplines
> > > > > > co-evolve, models are traded back and forth. Thus, evolutionary
> > > > > > epistemology also involves attempts to understand how biological
> > > > > > evolution proceeds by interpreting it through models drawn from our
> > > > > > understanding of conceptual change and the development of theories.
> > > > > > The term "evolutionary epistemology" was coined by Donald Campbell
> > > > > > (1974)."
>
> > > > > > I don't agree, incidentally that we need to 'apply science
> > methods' to
> > > > > > look into this and feel this is far too restrictive.
>
> > > > > > On Jan 7, 8:52 pm, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Here is a thought.
>
> > > > > > > If rational thinking has resulted from the sucessful evolutionary
> > > > > > > developement of the biological brain then that is all it is.
> > Certainly
> > > > > > > rational thoght would not have developed in (SAY) a fungus in a
> > cave
> > > > > > > for it would have no survival advantage. So freewill is nothing
> > more
> > > > > > > than an apt evolutionary development.
>
> > > > > > > On Jan 7, 9:03 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > those are just excuses, yes my back ground and experiences
> > are what I use
> > > > > > > > for making decision --- that does not bind me, i still have
> > the choice to
> > > > > > > > respond as i like
> > > > > > > > Allan
>
> > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 3:33 AM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > We are bound by very subtle ties and our ostensible freedom
> > is wrapped
> > > > > > > > > in bondage. If we lock up criminals we are bound and if we
> > don't we
> > > > > > > > > are still bound. Nature, within our will and that without,
> > binds us.
>
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 5:01 AM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Secular myths abound - largely because most of us are
> > early-tuned to
> > > > > > > > > > religious ones. I suspect that the idea of social science
> > is one of
> > > > > > > > > > them. Peter Winch wrote a small book on the topic in 1960
> > - I'd guess
> > > > > > > > > > he was one of Wittgenstein's students. We mythologise
> > many secular
> > > > > > > > > > elements of society - democracy is one, leadership
> > another. Science
> > > > > > > > > > becomes one in those thinking it can answer all questions
> > or (as in
> > > > > > > > > > Dawkins) is the only important focus. If we have no free
> > will we
> > > > > > > > > > should stop locking up criminals. The question on free
> > will is what
> > > > > > > > > > life would entail without it and consequent
> > responsibilities denied.
> > > > > > > > > > Even Nietzsche insisted having seen the chaos we should
> > make oursleves
> > > > > > > > > > works of art.
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Jan 6, 5:17 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> I totally agree with you Molly
> > > > > > > > > >> On Jan 6, 2012 12:15 PM, "Molly" <mollyb...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > >> > There is more to life than the realm of cause and
> > effect. Many of us
> > > > > > > > > >> > just prefer it there.
>
> > > > > > > > > >> > On Jan 5, 5:27 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > Free will is a reality.. the problem comes once you
> > made your
> > > > > > > > > choice and
> > > > > > > > > >> > > the effects of the choice ,, these results appear
> > that you have no
> > > > > > > > > >> > > choice,, you just mad it earlier.
> > > > > > > > > >> > > Allan
>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:33 PM, malcymo <
> > malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Humanity has always, for some reason, felt the need
> > to support his
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > world view with a series of myths commonly termed
> > beliefs in
> > > > > > > > > order to,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > in some way, justify its behaviour. We must not,
> > however, believe
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > these myths are always spiritual or mystical in
> > nature. Many are
> > > > > > > > > not.
>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > The legitimacy of a myth depends on many features.
> > Umberto Eco in
> > > > > > > > > his
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > excellent tome 'Foucault's Pendulum' quietly draws
> > our attention
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > the requirements needed for the creation of a
> > robust myth and
> > > > > > > > > there is
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > no doubt that within most religious and
> > philosophical beliefs the
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > required elements are found.
>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Secular myths, however, are somewhat harder to pin
> > down. This may
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > because they are founded little more than
> > intuition. They are
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > therefore difficult to identify as myths in the
> > first place. Also,
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > such myths can often serve a very useful purpose.
>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Let us take as an example the idea of freewill. The
> > idea is so
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > embedded in our psych that most of us believe it to
> > be a reality.
> > > > > > > > > Even
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > so, an in depth study soon reveals the fragility of
> > the idea. So
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > fragile is it that philosophers have argued over
> > the question of
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > determinism v free will for generations; time which
> > could have
> > > > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > more usefully employed on other ventures. Indeed
> > some eminent
> > > > > > > > > >> > > > philosophers believe
>
> ...
>
> read more »
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário