Let's list as many assertions that presently appear agreeable to us as we possibly can -- without pointless, arbitrary limitations in the form of "top 10" stipulations, et al. -- and then discuss their merits with one another. Everyone who sees himself as possessing a coherent perspective of the world around him should just start making short, poignant assertions in number format (1., 2....) somewhere so that we can get a more direct view of his current philosophy.
I've already done something similar (excepting the enumeration of the list, but this was months ago) here. I think, however, that everyone should do this so that we can better understand where we're all coming from. So, whether it's as a comment on this blog entry, a blog post of your own, a YouTube video, a book chapter, or something else, take some time out of your day once in a while to work on a list of assertions and ideas; it'll help all of us to make sense of the world.
1. Do not impose harm.
ReplyDelete2. Do not attack free will.
3. Do not lie to other people.
Hey Francois! Why do you think "do not attack free will" is a useful assertion? Whatever you happen to mean by "free will" either exists or doesn't exist, and whether anyone attacks it or not does not change the reality out there.
ReplyDelete"Hey Francois! Why do you think "do not attack free will" is a useful assertion? Whatever you happen to mean by "free will" either exists or doesn't exist, and whether anyone attacks it or not does not change the reality out there."
ReplyDeleteYour face exists, and punching it will not change its reality, so is it okay if I punch your face?
No, that would make me suffer.
ReplyDelete"Do not attack free will" sounds to me like establishing an axiom that should not be questioned, investigated or criticized. What is the point of this? Saying the sky is green does not make the sky green, and saying the sky is blue does not make it any more blue. This is not a way to get at truth. If you are after something more important than truth, how can you know that faith in free will is the best way to get it?
Please elaborate if I'm getting you wrong.
"No, that would make me suffer."
ReplyDeletePrecisely.
""Do not attack free will" sounds to me like establishing an axiom that should not be questioned, investigated or criticized."
You are free to criticize whoever and whatever you want, but you have to provide counter-arguments. If you think it is okay to attack free will, then tell us in what situations and why you think this is valid.
I feel like I am missing something. Would free will suffer if I were to attack it? Less ambiguously: would the notion of free will suffer if I were to argue that it is false? Surely the answer to this must be "no"?
ReplyDeleteI can appreciate that arguing that the notion of free will is false can cause suffering in sentient beings who desire it to be true. But if it is false, it is likely that more suffering can be prevented by recognizing this than by believing the falsehood.
"Surely" this is a loaded question, as no concept can "suffer," no matter whether it's valid or not. So what's your point? My point is that PEOPLE suffer.
ReplyDeletePeople also suffer when you attack religion. Does "do not attack religion" also belong on your list of mandates, or is there some way in which religion is relevantly different from free will?
ReplyDeletePS: I am not attacking you. My less ambiguous rephrasing was intended to show how I interpreted your use of the terms "free will" and "attack", so that if I was wrong (which seemed increasingly likely), you could point out the differences in our interpretations. The "surely" question was not rhetorical; it was another potential point of disagreement between us that I wanted to make explicit. Please try to read my comments more charitably.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I lost my patience in the comment before this one. I hope you can ignore the snark and focus on the content.
"People also suffer when you attack religion. Does "do not attack religion" also belong on your list of mandates"
ReplyDeleteThat would be a direct contradiction with the principle of not attacking free will, so no. Attacking religion is an act of social self-defense (I would make an exception for Buddhism, which does not seem much concerned with attacking free will, as long as it doesn't have political power).
"The "surely" question was not rhetorical"
Ah. Then my answer is no, the notion of free will would not suffer. Please continue.