Are free-will and self-control mutually incompatible?

[i-am-your-idea]

explain please

 

[bodach]

percieved nothingness

What does this mean.

 

[Cheesypoof]

It would seem as if freewill and self-control are commonly conflated and believed to be one and the same thing, but isnt freedom actually an abscence of any control? When you control something, it ceases to be free, and becomes controlled, so is the will free, or a slave of the self?

They are perfectly compatabile.

 

[i-am-your-idea]

What does this mean.

i've read about the zen idea of 'the great void', and thats fed into my concept of Nothing. the great void isnt empty.

 

[bodach]

i've read about the zen idea of 'the great void', and thats fed into my concept of Nothing. the great void isnt empty.

You still don't give your definition of the word 'nothing'

 

[i-am-your-idea]

''The darkness was deathly absolute.
I could not distinguish one shape or object. I could not see my own body. I could not get any sense of anything *out there*. I was in a great black vacuum.
I was reduced to pure concept. My flesh had dissolved; my form had dissipated. I floated in space. Liberated of my corporeal being, but without dispensation to go anywhere else. I was adrift in the void. Somewhere across the fine line seperating nightmare from reality.
I stood. But I could not move. My arms and legs felt paralyzed. I was at the bottom of the sea, the pressure dense, crushing, inexorable. Dead silence strained against my eardrums. The darkness was without reprieve. No mental adjustment could make it less absolute. It was impenetrable- black painted over black painted over black.''

 

[bodach]

''The darkness was deathly absolute.
I could not distinguish one shape or object. I could not see my own body. I could not get any sense of anything *out there*. I was in a great black vacuum.
I was reduced to pure concept. My flesh had dissolved; my form had dissipated. I floated in space. Liberated of my corporeal being, but without dispensation to go anywhere else. I was adrift in the void. Somewhere across the fine line seperating nightmare from reality.
I stood. But I could not move. My arms and legs felt paralyzed. I was at the bottom of the sea, the pressure dense, crushing, inexorable. Dead silence strained against my eardrums. The darkness was without reprieve. No mental adjustment could make it less absolute. It was impenetrable- black painted over black painted over black.''

 

[max_freakout]

''The darkness was deathly absolute.
I could not distinguish one shape or object. I could not see my own body. I could not get any sense of anything *out there*. I was in a great black vacuum.
I was reduced to pure concept. My flesh had dissolved; my form had dissipated. I floated in space. Liberated of my corporeal being, but without dispensation to go anywhere else. I was adrift in the void. Somewhere across the fine line seperating nightmare from reality.
I stood. But I could not move. My arms and legs felt paralyzed. I was at the bottom of the sea, the pressure dense, crushing, inexorable. Dead silence strained against my eardrums. The darkness was without reprieve. No mental adjustment could make it less absolute. It was impenetrable- black painted over black painted over black.''

WOW!!!!!

That sounds familiar

 

[max_freakout]

i've read about the zen idea of 'the great void', and thats fed into my concept of Nothing. the great void isnt empty.

it's full of emptiness

 

[max_freakout]

They are perfectly compatabile.

How come?

Free = UNcontrolled

 

[El Jefe]

but the person exercising the control is the same person exercising free will. You're creating a split that isn't there. are you REALLY this fucking dense?

 

[The Groke]

I was reduced to pure concept. My flesh had dissolved; my form had dissipated. I floated in space. Liberated of my corporeal being,

My arms and legs felt paralyzed.

 

[max_freakout]

but the person exercising the control is the same person exercising free will.

this is a logical contradiction


being free = being uncontrolled

therefore, if a persn excersises control over their will, then how can their will said to be free? How can it be free if it is controlled?

 

[El Jefe]

Oh fuck the fuck off, you raving tit

 

[butchersapron]

It would seem as if freewill and self-control are commonly conflated and believed to be one and the same thing, but isnt freedom actually an abscence of any control? When you control something, it ceases to be free, and becomes controlled, so is the will free, or a slave of the self?

Don't be so daft. If the individual originates the self-control it's perfectly compatible with free will. In fact it can be argued it is exactly free-will - if that's the sort of word game that passes for philosophy with you anyway...

 

[butchersapron]

this is a logical contradiction


being free = being uncontrolled

That's the full sense of 'free' is it?

 

[bodach]

Buy one get one free

 

[max_freakout]

That's the full sense of 'free' is it?

it is the specific, narrow sense i am using for the purpose of this argument


there isnt another sense of free which contradicts what i am saying though, it's just that this version is the most obviously relevant version

Being uncontrolled and unrestrained is being free

Being controlled/restrained removes freedom

 

[butchersapron]

it is the specific, narrow sense i am using for the purpose of this argument


there isnt another sense of free which contradicts what i am saying though, it's just that this version is the most obviously relevant version

Being uncontrolled and unrestrained is being free

Being controlled/restrained removes freedom

So you've discounted every opinion other than your own from the start via a circular locking out of any potential or possible differences. You offer us a (ridiculous) tautology - and then fail to demonstrate either of the terms of that tautology

 

[max_freakout]

Don't be so daft. If the individual originates the self-control it's perfectly compatible with free will. In fact it can be argued it is exactly free-will - if that's the sort of word game that passes for philosophy with you anyway...

If the individual is the origin of control (over the will), then the will isnt free, because it's freedom is being restrained by the individual

 

[max_freakout]

So you've discounted every opinion other than your own from the start via a circular locking out of any potential or possible differences. You offer us a (ridiculous) tautology - and then fail to demonstrate either of the terms of that tautology

Please explain what you mean by this

I am arguing that free-will and self-control are incompatible

 

[butchersapron]

If the individual is the origin of control (over the will), then the will isnt free, because it's freedom is being restrained by the individual

That's right, because the common usuage of the term 'free will' refers to an autonomous subjetive free floating will, not the potential powers and choices embodied in a really existing individual.

As i said, daft word games maxy. That's all this drivel you're coming out wth is.

 

[butchersapron]

Please explain what you mean by this

I am arguing that free-will and self-control are incompatible

I'm arguing that you saying free-will and self-control are incompatible then repeating it over and over, then arguing that it's true by defintion due to the specific uses of those terms that you choose to employ (which aren't in line with common usage) means that you're not really doing anything beyond repeating a little bit of wordplay over and over.

And, now having read back and seen your inadequate responses to the posts of others, the realisation that this exchange is, on the balance of probabilities, not going to be worth my effort.

 

[max_freakout]

I'm arguing that you saying free-will and self-control are incompatible then repeating it over and over, then arguing that it's true by defintion due to the specific uses of those terms that you choose to employ (which aren't in line with common usage) means that you're not really doing anything beyond repeating a little bit of wordplay over and over.

And, now having read back and seen your inadequate responses to the posts of others, the realisation that this exchange is, on the balance of probabilities, not going to be worth my effort.

There is no alternative use of the words that contradicts what i said

the 'free' in freewill can only mean one thing, free

 

[max_freakout]

That's right, because the common usuage of the term 'free will' refers to an autonomous subjetive free floating will, not the potential powers and choices embodied in a really existing individual.

the common use of the term freewill refers to the freedom of the individual will

 

[dodgepot]

I am arguing that free-will and self-control are incompatible

if someone has free-will they have the free-will to control any choices they make. therefore if a person chooses to implement self-control it shows that they have free-will, because it is having free-will that makes them able to choose self-control.

 

[butchersapron]

the common use of the term freewill refers to the freedom of the individual will

Which is, pretty evidently, exercised by an individual, one single subject -and not, as you seem to imagine consisting of two seperately existing independent components - an 'individual' and a 'will'.

This is your first ridiculous mistake and it's there bang in the middle of the OP. Blah blah blah.

 

[max_freakout]

if someone has free-will they have the free-will to control any choices they make. therefore if a person chooses to implement self-control it shows that they have free-will, because it is having free-will that makes them able to choose self-control.

is a person free to choose not to implement self-control?

 

[El Jefe]

is a person free to choose not to implement self-control?

that would still be self-control, you daft twat. Self-control is a turn of phrase for a kind of thought process. But it's still a thought process, like any other

 

[max_freakout]

Which is, pretty evidently, exercised by an individual, one single subject -and not, as you seem to imagine consisting of two seperately existing independent components - an 'individual' and a 'will'.

This is your first ridiculous mistake and it's there bang in the middle of the OP. Blah blah blah.

the individual excersizes control over the will

the will and the individual are obviously 2 separate things, in the sense that they are 2 distinct concepts with 2 different meanings