Why is personal freedom worth more than perfect peace to God?

[blase6]

Neither. It is conscious.

Repeating a statement doesn’t make it any easier to understand.

 

[Triflelfirt]

“Why is personal freedom worth more than perfect peace to God?”

And how would there be “perfect peace” without free will? Seems to me pretty evident that true peace is achieved by cooperation and will, and not mere programming. If you “program” every human being to be “peaceful” then they’re not really being “peaceful”, they’re just doing what they were programmed for; it would be amoral. If everybody was “programmed” to fight wars or “do evil” then would everyone be “doing evil”? Again, everyone would simply be doing what they were programmed to, without any choices; it’s simply indifferent and amoral.

To be “peaceful” is to make a choice to refrain from doing wrong things and unnecessary evil.

It seems evident that without free will we really wouldn’t have “perfect peace” nor anything of the sort.

 

[davidv]

Define freedom taking in mind that: That which is not predetermined is probabilistic.

This shows no circularity. It also is a logical fallacy of a false dichotomy. Predetermined and probabilistic are not the only choices. Self directed is a third.

The Church writes the following with regard to free will.

1704 The human person participates in the light and power of the divine Spirit. By his reason, he is capable of understanding the order of things established by the Creator. By free will, he is capable of directing himself toward his true good. He finds his perfection "in seeking and loving what is true and good."7

From this one can see the free will is defined as the capability to be self directing.

 

[blase6]

“Why is personal freedom worth more than perfect peace to God?”

And how would there be “perfect peace” without free will? Seems to me pretty evident that true peace is achieved by cooperation and will, and not mere programming. If you “program” every human being to be “peaceful” then they’re not really being “peaceful”, they’re just doing what they were programmed for; it would be amoral. If everybody was “programmed” to fight wars or “do evil” then would everyone be “doing evil”? Again, everyone would simply be doing what they were programmed to, without any choices; it’s simply indifferent and amoral.

To be “peaceful” is to make a choice to refrain from doing wrong things and unnecessary evil.

It seems evident that without free will we really wouldn’t have “perfect peace” nor anything of the sort.

My idea of peace is an end of suffering.

 

[blase6]

This shows no circularity. It also is a logical fallacy of a false dichotomy. Predetermined and probabilistic are not the only choices. Self directed is a third.

The Church writes the following with regard to free will.
From this one can see the free will is defined as the capability to be self directing.

The problem is that the “self” is moved by so many other factors, at what point is it the “self” which determines the action? A self-directed probability is still chance.

 

[davidv]

The problem is that the “self” is moved by so many other factors, at what point is it the “self” which determines the action?

Please provide evidence of this. So far all I have seen is a number of question begging responses invented with the assumption that there is no free will.

A self-directed probability is still chance.

If this is true, you should be able to show a valid logical argument as demonstration of it truthfulness. So far, none has been provided.

 

[blase6]

Please provide evidence of this. So far all I have seen is a number of question begging responses invented with the assumption that there is no free will.

No action is logically possible without a motive. The motives that arise in a given instance determine which choices you will have to act on. And then there are tons of other factors that arise which motivate you to move towards a particular motive. Free will may be possible but it is not necessary to explain any human choice.

If this is true, you should be able to show a valid logical argument as demonstration of it truthfulness. So far, none has been provided.

I defined “chance” as “not determined”, right? Chance is the best way to understand indeterminate actions. Determinism vs. indeterminism then comes down to X vs. not X, for which one option must be logically correct.

 

[davidv]

No action is logically possible without a motive.

This is an unproven assumption.

The motives that arise in a given instance determine which choices you will have to act on. And then there are tons of other factors that arise which motivate you to move towards a particular motive. Free will may be possible but it is not necessary to explain any human choice.

You have not demonstrated that motives determine every action. If some motives are ignored in deciding on an action, then motives are not the cause of the action.

I defined “chance” as “not determined”, right?

In that case, chance includes self determination.

Chance is the best way to understand indeterminate actions.

So you say. I don’t agree because you are purposely not considering self determination.

Determinism vs. indeterminism then comes down to X vs. not X, for which one option must be logically correct.

And based on the above that is a false dichotomy fallacy. Conclusions based on this cannot be assumed to be true.

 

[blase6]

This is an unproven assumption.

Well clearly then, you don’t understand my point. So you are wasting my time. Every point I made is at least mostly logical. If you can’t see that you misunderstand or go by a different definition of “motive”.

 

[davidv]

Well clearly then, you don’t understand my point. So you are wasting my time. Every point I made is at least mostly logical. If you can’t see that you misunderstand or go by a different definition of “motive”.

I believe I do understand your point. I just believe it is wrong. As shown in the above posts, they have been far from logical.

 

[blase6]

I believe I do understand your point. I just believe it is wrong. As shown in the above posts, they have been far from logical.

Just see my new topic.

 

[PseuTonym]

I defined “chance” as “not determined”, right? Chance is the best way to understand indeterminate actions.

You cannot define the word “chance” to mean whatever you want it to mean, unless you are ready, willing, and able to ignore all pre-existing meanings and connotations of the word “chance.”

You could just as easily use some other word (or some phrase) instead of the word “chance.” For example, you could use the word “habit” or the word “unknowns” instead of the word “chance.” However, with those choices, you hint at different points of view.

If you stipulate that we are to use the word “chance” to be nothing but an abbreviation for the phrase “not determined”, then it is not a way to understand anything. Literally, what you have said is that “not determined” is the best way to understand indeterminate actions.

That is like saying that “rightness” means “the quality of being right.” I could agree with that without knowing whether you are talking about right as in correct versus incorrect, or right as in right versus left, or right as in perpendicular versus some other angle. There is no explanation there whatsoever. It is simply a matter of manipulating the root of a word and affixes indicating a part of speech such as noun or adjective.

Given the nonsense word “wug” naming an unknown object, you can form the plural “wugs” and pronounce it with a “z” sound at the end. Others who are familiar with the English language will also pronounce the “s” as a “z” sound. This harmony of people using the same spelling and pronouncing the same sound does not indicate any mutual understanding. It is a nonsense word. It conveys no meaning. It seems that you are giving yourself the impression of saying something when you are actually saying nothing.

 

[blase6]

You cannot define the word “chance” to mean whatever you want it to mean, unless you are ready, willing, and able to ignore all pre-existing meanings and connotations of the word “chance.”

You could just as easily use some other word (or some phrase) instead of the word “chance.” For example, you could use the word “habit” or the word “unknowns” instead of the word “chance.” However, with those choices, you hint at different points of view.

If you stipulate that we are to use the word “chance” to be nothing but an abbreviation for the phrase “not determined”, then it is not a way to understand anything. Literally, what you have said is that “not determined” is the best way to understand indeterminate actions.

That is like saying that “rightness” means “the quality of being right.” I could agree with that without knowing whether you are talking about right as in correct versus incorrect, or right as in right versus left, or right as in perpendicular versus some other angle. There is no explanation there whatsoever. It is simply a matter of manipulating the root of a word and affixes indicating a part of speech such as noun or adjective.

Given the nonsense word “wug” naming an unknown object, you can form the plural “wugs” and pronounce it with a “z” sound at the end. Others who are familiar with the English language will also pronounce the “s” as a “z” sound. This harmony of people using the same spelling and pronouncing the same sound does not indicate any mutual understanding. It is a nonsense word. It conveys no meaning. It seems that you are giving yourself the impression of saying something when you are actually saying nothing.

I think of “self-determinism” as being some kind of situation where people randomly choose between motives, which could be “weighted” due to predisposition. Even if “I” am the one choosing it is still random. Freedom doesn’t sound any different from a “random number generator”.

 

[PseuTonym]

some kind of situation where people randomly choose between motives

I don’t know what you mean by that. There is always some distinction between what one has resolved to achieve and what one is motivated to do.

Suppose that you have resolved to achieve some goal. You have not necessarily thought of any sub-goals, and until you think of a sub-goal, what can you do?

You need some kind of plan. A plan includes sub-goals, and connects the goal with sub-goals. Maybe it does not matter what plan you develop. Maybe your goal is simply something that it is impossible to achieve. Or maybe it does matter what plan you develop.

In any case, there is a difference between how much time, effort, and other resources (indications of how resolute you are) that you devote to achieving the goal, and your actual level of motivation at any given time.

 

[blase6]

I don’t know what you mean by that. There is always some distinction between what one has resolved to achieve and what one is motivated to do.

Suppose that you have resolved to achieve some goal. You have not necessarily thought of any sub-goals, and until you think of a sub-goal, what can you do?

You need some kind of plan. A plan includes sub-goals, and connects the goal with sub-goals. Maybe it does not matter what plan you develop. Maybe your goal is simply something that it is impossible to achieve. Or maybe it does matter what plan you develop.

In any case, there is a difference between how much time, effort, and other resources (indications of how resolute you are) that you devote to achieving the goal, and your actual level of motivation at any given time.

I understand all that, but at some point if freedom is real, then it means that there is always the chance the person will act against their plan.

 

[PseuTonym]

I understand all that, but at some point if freedom is real, then it means that there is always the chance the person will act against their plan.

Of course. That could be merely improvising a change of plans. It is also possible for a person to change goals, such as a loyal officer who has been fighting against mutiny on a ship to join the mutineers. And somebody who was a mutineer could defend the captain, and fight against other mutineers.

 

[blase6]

Of course. That could be merely improvising a change of plans. It is also possible for a person to change goals, such as a loyal officer who has been fighting against mutiny on a ship to join the mutineers. And somebody who was a mutineer could defend the captain, and fight against other mutineers.

You still have to show how finding a goal and making a plan for it requires free will.

 

[PseuTonym]

You still have to show how finding a goal and making a plan for it requires free will.

No, I have free will. I don’t have to show that. What can you offer to demonstrate to me first that is easier to demonstrate?

 

[blase6]

No, I have free will. I don’t have to show that. What can you offer to demonstrate to me first that is easier to demonstrate?

My view of the world indicates that free will is not necessary to explain human choices. I may believe that people have it, but that doesn’t change the fact that I can’t know if my decisions are really free or not.

 

[davidv]

I understand all that, but at some point if freedom is real, then it means that there is always the chance the person will act against their plan.

What if it is God’s plan they are acting against?