Post: #1

Hey guys,

I'm 4/5ths of the way through Spinoza's Ethics*, and for those of who've read it, you'll know I just finished the portion where he denounces the notion of freewill.

Now, I first heard of determinism when I was 16, and could see how it could function, but I didn't really internalize it due to me feeling that you could rule your thoughts and feelings and could choose how to react to your environment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Spinoza says that you have zero, absolutely no control over who you are and your reactions.

This got me thinking:

is freewill real? or are we nothing but all the outcomes of our environments and passions?

------
*I'm going to make a separate thread when I finish the book and analyze it myself.

Post: #2

Spinoza's views are interesting, although he was considered heretical by the Amsterdam Rabbinate (the synagogue he was excommunicated from is still there, for the record).

Freewill does exist. Maimonides, another great Jewish philosopher, claimed that freewill exists because God has given people the capacity to do both good and evil. In summary, we decide our own courses, and there are punishments and rewards for doing so.

For example, all of us have made the choice to learn game, except maybe the one or two naturals on this board. The punishment of learning game is that you lose your idealism when it comes to love and relationships. The reward is that you attract more women, and often find higher quality women to devote your attention to.

Take a look at this article: http://www.aish.com/sp/f/48965061.html

Post: #3

related: /thread-37444.html

I agree with Schopenhauer:

"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."

Post: #4

I don't think it is one or another, but a ratio, which can be tweaked. People who lack state control and psychological dominance, are significantly affected by their environment and are slaves to their surroundings. Whereas a person who realizes that he is not his thoughts or emotions, and that he can control them and they do not define him, has tremendously bigger ratio of free will. When shit happens, he may not necessarily be able to force him to feel a certain way but he can control how he feels about the way he is feeling. In addition, he has power over how he interprets the events and in which kind of situations or environment he puts himself in, and what kind of people he interacts with.

This is what I want to believe and has been my experience related to the subject. I don't think we ever find the Truth about this, but I rather live this way than believe in 100% determinism. Most likely the way you think becomes the reality. And if you are wrong about the determinism thing, you have ruined your life for no purpose.

Related to this, I once thought how my past is completely dominating my decisions and as a result my future. Even when I want to shake my life, "cut the past" and go live in a completely different place which has no relation to me, the decision to move is still affected my past. So, I was thinking of creating a completely random coordinator generator, playing it once and then moving to a town of 50k+ people closest to the coordinates. It is still affected my past because I decided to create the generator and I carry my experiences in my body, but I have completely randomized my future environment which has most likely the biggest influence on me. Or, I just accept that the journey I am on, is my own, and let's see where my faith will get me.

Post: #5

No we have no free will. We are mindless zombies.

Post: #6

What does it matter?

Would you feel bad if you didn't have it? Why?

Post: #7

(07-17-2014 10:06 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  Spinoza's views are interesting, although he was considered heretical by the Amsterdam Rabbinate (the synagogue he was excommunicated from is still there, for the record).

Freewill does exist. Maimonides, another great Jewish philosopher, claimed that freewill exists because God has given people the capacity to do both good and evil. In summary, we decide our own courses, and there are punishments and rewards for doing so.

Sorry y'all, but I am running a high fever so if I make absolutely no sense, please give me the weekend to clarify.

Now, In Spinoza's Ethics, he says good and evil does not exist and it's a matter of perception:

"For many things are argued in this way: if all things have followed from the necessity of God's most perfect nature, why are there so many imperfections in nature? Why are things corrupt to the point where they stink? so ugly they produce nausea? why is there confusion, evil, and sin? As I have just said, those who argue in this way are easily answered. For the perfection of things is to be judged solely from their nature and power; things are not more or less perfect because they please or offend men's senses, or because they are of use to, or are incompatible with, human nature." - Spinoza

With that out of the way, you cannot commit good and evil in Spinoza's eyes. And I agree. You can view this empirically: what is good, or evil, in one culture, but be the opposite in another. Further, most of morality is based on what "feels good," or "bad" (this isn't Spinoza's view as far as I know, this is mine).

He says our minds are simply an extension of God insofar as God is the mind. In Spinoza's view, everything carries a certain essence of God, so everything is united and holistic. To balance this, God is also secular in the specific objects of what the object is. Your mind is not an exception to this. It is simply an extension of God. Your idea of who you are, the "ego," if you will, is also, simply an extension of God insofar as he is you.

So, all your actions, are in the end, decided by God.

Note: this God is wholly impersonal, and isn't to be confused with the Christian or Judaic deity.

Lastly, his view on time ties very closely to that of Parmenides:

It was not once nor will it (some day) be,
since it is it is now, all together,
single, and continuous.

For what birth will you seek for Being?
How and from where (could it) have grown?
I will not permit you to say or think that Being
came-into-being from non-Being,
for it is impossible to say or think that Being is not.

For what necessity would have stirred Being
to grow later or earlier, if it began out of nothing?

Thus, Being must either be completely or not at all.

- On Nature, trans. by Ryan Smith.

in other words: everything has happened by once, linear time is an illusion, etc.

This is also called block time, which Einstein (CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG) used as a basis for Relativity.

Sorry if that makes no sense.

Post: #8

I have not read Spinoza, but have read and studied various philosophers and have a background in psychology. According to the scientific materialist model generally accepted in academia and held as dogma in clinical psychology, there is no free will.

It seems to me that the strategies of game are predicated on women lacking free will. They can't help but be attracted to pre-selected, alpha types etc... Think of the 'attraction switches' as they've been called.

But, game also makes me a believer in free will, at least for humans because we are spiritual beings, not merely biological organisms. In what other species on earth or in the universe, can an organism change its destiny from being a beta, sexual outcast to becoming a pre-selected alpha? We all changed our destinies dramatically, some more than others. Our genes did not change. Sure, the environment changed, but because we CHOSE different environments that would help lead to the changes we willed.

So, in point, I think all people have free will to some degree. Generally women have less of it than men. And, to make a major faux pas in formal logic I'll conflate two different meanings of the same word: the more determined you are, the less determined your fate will be.

Post: #9

(07-18-2014 01:35 PM)Moto Wrote:  But, game also makes me a believer in free will, at least for humans because we are spiritual beings, not merely biological organisms. In what other species on earth or in the universe, can an organism change it's destiny from being a beta, sexual outcast to becoming a pre-selected alpha? We all changed our destinies dramatically, some more than others. The genes did not change. Sure, the environment changed, but because we CHOSE different environments that would help lead to the changes we willed.

Food for thought:

It was your destiny to learn game and evade being "beta." Game is a tool to fix a problem.

Can't laid + game = can get laid.

Post: #10

(07-18-2014 11:22 AM)Bad-Habit Wrote:  What does it matter?

Would you feel bad if you didn't have it? Why?

Good question. I just want to figure out more about the universe. That's really it. The initial shock of this idea is waning.

Post: #11

(07-18-2014 01:40 PM)theoogabear Wrote:  

(07-18-2014 01:35 PM)Moto Wrote:  But, game also makes me a believer in free will, at least for humans because we are spiritual beings, not merely biological organisms. In what other species on earth or in the universe, can an organism change it's destiny from being a beta, sexual outcast to becoming a pre-selected alpha? We all changed our destinies dramatically, some more than others. The genes did not change. Sure, the environment changed, but because we CHOSE different environments that would help lead to the changes we willed.

Food for thought:

It was your destiny to learn game and evade being "beta." Game is a tool to fix a problem.

Can't laid + game = can get laid.

The grind of learning game takes tremendous will-power, closely linked to free will. I think there is some free-will in play every time one overcomes approach anxiety and approaches, especially in awkward situations.

Continuing to approach, despite countless rejections- whether polite or harsh- flies in the face of the tribal evolutionary programming to avoid rejection.

To consider the opposite side, I must concede that approaching and meeting girls became like a drug to me. I do not game enough lately to consider myself hooked on this drug like I was back in my heydays, but at some point learning game did become self-perpetuating and therefore somewhat determined.

I cannot think of an biological evolutionary principle for getting addicted to this drug, except that all poisons and toxins can be addictive. The very chemical my brain releases to make me avoid rejection for my own self-preservation might be the chemical that I became addicted to in approaching lots of women.

Post: #12

(07-18-2014 02:16 PM)Moto Wrote:  

(07-18-2014 01:40 PM)theoogabear Wrote:  

(07-18-2014 01:35 PM)Moto Wrote:  But, game also makes me a believer in free will, at least for humans because we are spiritual beings, not merely biological organisms. In what other species on earth or in the universe, can an organism change it's destiny from being a beta, sexual outcast to becoming a pre-selected alpha? We all changed our destinies dramatically, some more than others. The genes did not change. Sure, the environment changed, but because we CHOSE different environments that would help lead to the changes we willed.

Food for thought:

It was your destiny to learn game and evade being "beta." Game is a tool to fix a problem.

Can't laid + game = can get laid.

The grind of learning game takes tremendous will-power, closely linked to free will. I think there is some free-will in play every time one overcomes approach anxiety and approaches, especially in awkward situations.

Continuing to approach, despite countless rejections- whether polite or harsh- flies in the face of the tribal evolutionary programming to avoid rejection.

To consider the opposite side, I must concede that approaching and meeting girls became like a drug to me. I do not game enough lately to consider myself hooked on this drug like I was back in my heydays, but at some point learning game did become self-perpetuating and therefore somewhat determined.

I cannot think of an biological evolutionary principle for getting addicted to this drug, except that all poisons and toxins can be addictive. The very chemical my brain releases to make me avoid rejection for my own self-preservation might be the chemical that I became addicted to in approaching lots of women.

Will-power =/= freewill, though.

It could be argued, and I am arguing, that everything about you and your life is predetermined before you're even born. The fact that you HAVE the will-power to learn game in the first place says something about the lack of freewill. You didn't decide to be "born" with the will power to persevere through failure, which is really all learning game, or life in general, is. This is not only seen due to just endless chain reaction, but how could you come to exist if you never did before? You didn't come from nothing.

Post: #13

You are completely right oogabear, that's what I think about life, too. It is a big chain reaction. I had arguments with people about it and this observation kind of insulted them on the deepest level. They felt all their achievements had been taken away from them and that those were now the achievements of the abstract object of destiny. They felt powerless and said they wouldn't want to live if this was the case.

I wondered why they felt like that because it doesn't change anything. The plot of movies is determined, too but people still watch them in excitement because they don't know what will happen next.

Like I said I don't think it makes a difference. If you have free will or just the illusion of it, you can still choose. It's not that you accept the idea of not having free will and suddenly your consciousness isn't there anymore.

Post: #14

No matter what circumstances you may face, there will always be a choice.

You have a choice.

Take everyone's example about red-pill.

You chose not to follow the rules of what society expects men to behave. Therefor you chose to look at life in a different perspective.

Freewill is just that....having the uninhibited choice to a thought, an action, a way of life.

Hope I make sense...been up late watching Oceans 11.

Post: #15

(07-18-2014 06:10 PM)theoogabear Wrote:  Will-power =/= freewill, though.

It could be argued, and I am arguing, that everything about you and your life is predetermined before you're even born. The fact that you HAVE the will-power to learn game in the first place says something about the lack of freewill. You didn't decide to be "born" with the will power to persevere through failure, which is really all learning game, or life in general, is. This is not only seen due to just endless chain reaction, but how could you come to exist if you never did before? You didn't come from nothing.

Hi oogabear,
could you please recommend me a book which discusses/approaches the topic of predetermined life? That would be really cool!
Thanks!

Post: #16

(07-19-2014 03:05 AM)Bad-Habit Wrote:  You are completely right oogabear, that's what I think about life, too. It is a big chain reaction. I had arguments with people about it and this observation kind of insulted them on the deepest level. They felt all their achievements had been taken away from them and that those were now the achievements of the abstract object of destiny. They felt powerless and said they wouldn't want to live if this was the case.

I wondered why they felt like that because it doesn't change anything. The plot of movies is determined, too but people still watch them in excitement because they don't know what will happen next.

Like I said I don't think it makes a difference. If you have free will or just the illusion of it, you can still choose. It's not that you accept the idea of not having free will and suddenly your consciousness isn't there anymore.

I think it does not make a difference but I am not shure. This topic reminds me of religios people versus atheists. Do atheist live different than religios people? We probably have to say yes on the micro level. But on the macro level it might not make a difference. We all die in the end doesn´t matter if we were right or wrong. In the end everything is same.

Some psychological effects might be:

You can relax more easily because nothing counts because it´s determined. Though for the non determinists it´s actually the same as everybody has to die but maybe he may have some hope and wants to struggle more. But he may also think why do I even care life is shit isn´t it, why struggle for some hope?
But then a determinist has to fill his time with something and he may be successful because he is doing what he likes and not what his responsibility is.

Anyway you can think about these stuff all day but looks like there is no answer.

Maybe one important point is that a determinist guy may have fewer problems with committing suicide as nothing counts. But on the other hand he may not want to commit suicide because he feels quite free because he has no real obligations.

Post: #17

My biggest problem with determinism is that it is an easy way to cop out from personal responsibility. Losers and average people have an arguable philosophy to protect themselves from their failures of life. With free will, the successful people have an arguable philosophy to take pride and fulfillment from their success of life. In general, losers tend to be deterministic and/or victims of life, while successful people captains of their soul and creators of their own destiny -- coincidence?

Post: #18

(07-19-2014 07:14 AM)strengthstudent Wrote:  My biggest problem with determinism is that it is an easy way to cop out from personal responsibility. Losers and average people have an arguable philosophy to protect themselves from their failures of life. With free will, the successful people have an arguable philosophy to take pride and fulfillment from their success of life. In general, losers tend to be deterministic and/or victims of life, while successful people captains of their soul and creators of their own destiny -- coincidence?

There might be some truth in it but think of a guy who gets billions of dollar from his father. If that guy talks about being the creator if his destiny it becomes ridiculous.

And for the self made guys they would be nowhere without luck. One car crash one knife in his heart from a jelaous guy or a random criminial or a rape accusation would show how fast one becomes a "loser".

Anyway the word "loser" in this context is cultural. Every word we use is a construct. We don´t know reality. And in the end of day we are all losers because we will die. Or living is for losers because it´s a game you can never win. Maybe it´s better to live fast and die young.

To become rich or "successful" you have to work like crazy and risk a lot. So even if you become "successful" you might have lost a lot on the way to get it. You may become a sociopath in the process as you have to fight constantly.

I won´t even start with the hedonic adaptation which shows that one can never win the game of life. We are not constructed to be happy people that´s why we can not reach the aim. You may become a winner but not happy. Someone said that we are all clowns. At least that´s what I think.

And it´s not always easy to accept that life has no meaning which mostly is the case with the determinist belief. It´s not that easy to live a life without meaning.

You are always on the edge and look in to the abyss.

Post: #19

(07-18-2014 11:25 AM)theoogabear Wrote:  Now, In Spinoza's Ethics, he says good and evil does not exist and it's a matter of perception:

"For many things are argued in this way: if all things have followed from the necessity of God's most perfect nature, why are there so many imperfections in nature? Why are things corrupt to the point where they stink? so ugly they produce nausea? why is there confusion, evil, and sin? As I have just said, those who argue in this way are easily answered. For the perfection of things is to be judged solely from their nature and power; things are not more or less perfect because they please or offend men's senses, or because they are of use to, or are incompatible with, human nature." - Spinoza

With that out of the way, you cannot commit good and evil in Spinoza's eyes. And I agree. You can view this empirically: what is good, or evil, in one culture, but be the opposite in another. Further, most of morality is based on what "feels good," or "bad" (this isn't Spinoza's view as far as I know, this is mine).

He says our minds are simply an extension of God insofar as God is the mind. In Spinoza's view, everything carries a certain essence of God, so everything is united and holistic. To balance this, God is also secular in the specific objects of what the object is. Your mind is not an exception to this. It is simply an extension of God. Your idea of who you are, the "ego," if you will, is also, simply an extension of God insofar as he is you.

So, all your actions, are in the end, decided by God.

Note: this God is wholly impersonal, and isn't to be confused with the Christian or Judaic deity.

Good and evil are totally relative terms. As Nietzsche says in Beyond Good and Evil, life itself is will to power. Good and evil are, therefore, relative terms. That's something our politicians ought to learn themselves.

Spinoza is correct in his assessment of what good and evil are and what people judge to be ethical or unethical. All of these things are relative, hence the term moral relativism. I would contend, however, that freewill does exist. If you read the Jewish scholarship that Spinoza seems to draw from, he's agreeing with the concept that God created man in His own image, at least in a bit of a roundabout way. However, the belief that God is connected to everything doesn't really make sense, and you can make a very good argument for why freewill exists. Personally, I strongly doubt that a supernatural force that created the universe really wants to control every single human being. To me, that's a violation of Occam's Razor.

Yeah, Spinoza's conception of God was closer to pantheism than anything else. This is clearly different from what Descartes, Maimonides, and Nahmanides thought. This is part of why Spinoza was excommunicated from the Jewish community in Amsterdam. The other part of this is that he denied the divine origin of the Torah, instead claiming that it was a compilation of historical texts over time.

Post: #20

(07-19-2014 03:00 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

(07-18-2014 11:25 AM)theoogabear Wrote:  Now, In Spinoza's Ethics, he says good and evil does not exist and it's a matter of perception:

"For many things are argued in this way: if all things have followed from the necessity of God's most perfect nature, why are there so many imperfections in nature? Why are things corrupt to the point where they stink? so ugly they produce nausea? why is there confusion, evil, and sin? As I have just said, those who argue in this way are easily answered. For the perfection of things is to be judged solely from their nature and power; things are not more or less perfect because they please or offend men's senses, or because they are of use to, or are incompatible with, human nature." - Spinoza

With that out of the way, you cannot commit good and evil in Spinoza's eyes. And I agree. You can view this empirically: what is good, or evil, in one culture, but be the opposite in another. Further, most of morality is based on what "feels good," or "bad" (this isn't Spinoza's view as far as I know, this is mine).

He says our minds are simply an extension of God insofar as God is the mind. In Spinoza's view, everything carries a certain essence of God, so everything is united and holistic. To balance this, God is also secular in the specific objects of what the object is. Your mind is not an exception to this. It is simply an extension of God. Your idea of who you are, the "ego," if you will, is also, simply an extension of God insofar as he is you.

So, all your actions, are in the end, decided by God.

Note: this God is wholly impersonal, and isn't to be confused with the Christian or Judaic deity.

Good and evil are totally relative terms. As Nietzsche says in Beyond Good and Evil, life itself is will to power. Good and evil are, therefore, relative terms. That's something our politicians ought to learn themselves.

Spinoza is correct in his assessment of what good and evil are and what people judge to be ethical or unethical. All of these things are relative, hence the term moral relativism. I would contend, however, that freewill does exist. If you read the Jewish scholarship that Spinoza seems to draw from, he's agreeing with the concept that God created man in His own image, at least in a bit of a roundabout way. However, the belief that God is connected to everything doesn't really make sense, and you can make a very good argument for why freewill exists. Personally, I strongly doubt that a supernatural force that created the universe really wants to control every single human being. To me, that's a violation of Occam's Razor.

Yeah, Spinoza's conception of God was closer to pantheism than anything else. This is clearly different from what Descartes, Maimonides, and Nahmanides thought. This is part of why Spinoza was excommunicated from the Jewish community in Amsterdam. The other part of this is that he denied the divine origin of the Torah, instead claiming that it was a compilation of historical texts over time.

In Book II of his Ethics he says explicitly that humans are not exclusively created by God's image in the sense that being a Human is all that God is. He says multiple times in his propositions in Book I and some in Book II that God is holistic and is connected to everything and everything is in his image and he is all there is forever, amen.

Ref:
ID1
IP30
IIP7S1
IIP10
IIP45

^^^all from his work Ethics.

And to those worried about what the lack of freewill might entail to their psyche, Spinoza offers this:

Post: #21

Buy a book on free will and determinism. I mean a legit philosophy book.

Most philosophers in academia are compatibilists.

Post: #22

Post: #23

(07-20-2014 12:22 PM)TheKantian Wrote:  Buy a book on free will and determinism. I mean a legit philosophy book.

Most philosophers in academia are compatibilists.

Ethics is one of those.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_(boo..._influence

Post: #24

The very idea of "free will" is a contradiction of terms. Something cannot be free and "willed" at the same time.

Post: #25

This thread made me thinking again. Just read Matter and Memory by Henri Bergson.

I actually like the idea of "free won't" now.

Quote:The thing is, once we have a conscious awareness of our off-task behavior, just as Libet's participants did in his experiments, we can consciously choose to veto our procrastinatory delay. For example, when I realize that I have the urge to click on the link to Facebook or to pick up the television remote, I can veto that action. I can stay focused on the task at hand, even when I have unconscious activation of other, off-task behaviors.

Yes, the situation is much more complex than Libet's experiments. In fact, this is part of the discussion about what we can conclude from Libet's work, and other research like it. Our goal pursuit is not the same as simple flex behaviors in the context of an experiment.

However, the notion of seeing conscious choice work as a veto may be exactly what we need to focus on in order to stop engaging in nonconsciously initiated actions that are undermining our lives. We can veto our habitual actions if we make the intention to. We have free choice to invoke this "free won't!"

Free won't. What won't you choose to do today?

- Psychology Today