what is the difference between free-will and self-control?

[max_freakout]

Someone who drives a car is in effect driving themselves. We wouldn't normally put it that way, but there's nothing paradoxical about it.

the car is being controlled by the driver

the driver is being controlled by himself


the driver possesses free-will, the car doesnt

this is because controlled and controlling are opposites, controlling IS being uncontrolled


self-control is infinitely regressive

 

[butchersapron]

You don't actually know what opposites are do you maxi?

 

[max_freakout]

You don't actually know what opposites are do you maxi?

the slave ands his master are at opposite ends of the power spectrum


being in control, and being controlled, are opposites

 

[Dillinger4]

lulz

 

[butchersapron]

No Max, again, you've missed out on the important point of a very well known philosophical example.

 

[Dillinger4]

Max is making it up again.

 

[max_freakout]

No Max, again, you've missed out on the important point of a very well known philosophical example.

so you are saying that the slave and his master are in no sense in opposite positions from each other?

 

[max_freakout]

governed vs governing

 

[Dillinger4]

so you are saying that the slave and his master are in no sense in opposite positions from each other?

No, he saying you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[butchersapron]

so you are saying that the slave and his master are in no sense in opposite positions from each other?

I'm saying that master and slvae are not adequate synonyms for controlling and controlled, in your usage here anyway. Firstly because the object is different in both examples and secondly, your misjudged attempt to bring Hegel into this means that you've not understood that his idea of a master-slave relation was based on the interpentration of 'apparent' opposites - ontrolled and controlling for example - that pass though a process whereby they become one. Not where they become abosolute logical absolutes - so by bring it in you undermine your own 'case'.

Normal language should tell you this as well.

 

[butchersapron]

governed vs governing

The argument isn't that opposuites don't exist. But that controlled and controlling are not necessarily opposites.

 

[max_freakout]

give me an example of an adequate synonym for controlling and controlled

 

[butchersapron]

No.

 

[max_freakout]

The argument isn't that opposuites don't exist. But that controlled and controlling are not necessarily opposites.

the original point was, you cannot be the slave and the master at the same time, whether you agree that they are in some sense opposites or not, a slave and his master are necessarily distinct entities insofar as they exist for themselves, you can be one or the other, but not both at the same time

just as a car and its driver are 2 distinct things

 

[butchersapron]

Which you characterised as:

"this is because controlled and controlling are opposites"

which is of course not true.

And for the record, slaves also being masters was common thoughout anitquity.

 

[max_freakout]

No.

there's nothing wrong with my one, for the purpose of this thread, slave/master, car/driver or whatever

 

[butchersapron]

Why not your original one?

'controlled and controlling are opposites'

Do you no longer agree with it?

 

[max_freakout]

Which you characterised as:

"this is because controlled and controlling are opposites"

which is of course not true.

being controlled, and being in control, are opposite of each other, they exist on opposite ends of the power-having spectrum

And for the record, slaves also being masters was common thoughout anitquity.

the slaves are not masters of their own masters though are they! That is because this is impossible

 

[max_freakout]

Why not your original one?

'controlled and controlling are opposites'

Do you no longer agree with it?

i was asking you for an appropriate synonym

but you dont really need one, controlled/controlling is fine

 

[butchersapron]

being controlled, and being in control, are opposite of each other, they exist on opposite ends of the power-having spectrum

the slaves are not masters of their own masters though are they! That is because this is impossible

Exactly they are BOTH slaves and masters. (or controlled and controlling if you're still insisting on these being basically the same terms). Something which you insist is imposible. Well done.

 

[max_freakout]

Exactly they are BOTH slaves and masters. (or controlled and controlling if you're still insisting on these being basically the same terms). Something which you insist is imposible. Well done.

they are not slaves and masters of each other (this would be absurd, who would give orders and who would take them?)

for any person, in relation to any other person, can only be a slave or a master at any particular time, you cannot be both

 

[butchersapron]

they are not slaves and masters of each other

for any person, in relation to any other person, can only be a slave or a master at any particular time, you cannot be both

They don't have to be. You've adequately demonstrated that in relation to a socal whole people can be simultaneously controlled and controlling.

 

[max_freakout]

They don't have to be. You've adequately demonstrated that in relation to a socal whole people can be simultaneously controlled and controlling.

in terms of relations between individuals, one individual cannot be both a slave and master to another individual, at any particular time, because of the practical and logical oppositeness of the position of slave, to the position of slavemaster

 

[butchersapron]

I thought you were going to be talking about controlled and controlling? Have you switched back again?

And?

Do you honstly think that master and slave are useful terms for free-will or self-control? Apart from the fact that you're talking about an internal embodied reltionship as if you've established that it's actually between two subjects. You can't just assert that sort of thing you realise?

 

[max_freakout]

the slavemaster makes the decisions, while thes slave must act on those decisions

in this sense, the slavemaster is the controller (of the slave), and the slave is controlled (by the slavemaster), these are opposite ends of the power relation between the 2 individuals

the master is able to act out his will, the slave is unable to act out his will

 

[butchersapron]

And, in what sense, has this anthing to do with your OP?

 

[max_freakout]

And, in what sense, has this anthing to do with your OP?

blueplume said "sometimes i want to control myself but i can't"


and i was pointing to an apparent logical inconsistency in the notion of self-control


does the slave lack self-control, or freewill?


it seems to me the slave lacks the ability to act out free-will, but retains self-control

the master is able to act out free-will, but what is controlling him?

 

[butchersapron]

Again, what has this got to do with free-will and self control?

 

[i-am-your-idea]

http://www.leonardcohenfiles.com/slaves1.jpg

 

[fractionMan]

omg wft lol etc.

*bangs head on desk*