Friday, February 24, 2006
Let's Get Blogging
Now that we all have our midterm essays in (actually mine's not quite in yet), let's start some more discussion in here! Spread some of your love and increase your individual stature!Here's something I think about a lot: Can we have free will AND have an omnipotent God? The idea is that God already knows what is going to happen, but lets us play it out anyway -- like watching a DVD of a movie you've already memorized. Are we just predictable amusement for some higher power? I believe all our authors believe in God, but also in free will. What problems does this cause for you?
If you have lots of spare time like I do (yeah, right!), go and download and read the free eBook of God's Debris. I think the discussion you find there is similar to the one we should be having.
Comments:
<< Home
Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Some good points. I think there are many attempts to restrict us from our free will, but the bottom line is, we always have the choice whether or not to obey the rules -- and we have to live with the consequences of breaking them.
For instance, it has been ordained by our class's institutional leader, Dr. Ogden, that we post on this blog and I choose to do that. Others may choose not to and they may face consequences.
Even if there is a gun pointed at your head, you can always choose to take the bullet. I think the only limitations to one's will are physical ones -- e.g. if I'm chained to a wall, I don't have free will to walk around, because I can't break chains with my arms. I do have free will to try.
I'm not saying things are fair and wonderful, but I am under the impression that NOTHING is forcing my hands to type these words out. Is it possible that there is a God who has already designed my actions and has given me the illusion of free will? I can't rule out the possiblity.
What about the idea of trickery or deception? Certain institutions try to give us the illusion of limitations to our will. "I can't go out tonight; mom says I'm grounded." Sure you can! You just have to face Mom's wrath. However, if everybody did only things to satisfy their individual desires, we'd have anarchy. Our peaceful society depends on our governing bodies punishing us when we are bad. I think Hobbes and Milton would agree on that.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Some good points. I think there are many attempts to restrict us from our free will, but the bottom line is, we always have the choice whether or not to obey the rules -- and we have to live with the consequences of breaking them.
For instance, it has been ordained by our class's institutional leader, Dr. Ogden, that we post on this blog and I choose to do that. Others may choose not to and they may face consequences.
Even if there is a gun pointed at your head, you can always choose to take the bullet. I think the only limitations to one's will are physical ones -- e.g. if I'm chained to a wall, I don't have free will to walk around, because I can't break chains with my arms. I do have free will to try.
I'm not saying things are fair and wonderful, but I am under the impression that NOTHING is forcing my hands to type these words out. Is it possible that there is a God who has already designed my actions and has given me the illusion of free will? I can't rule out the possiblity.
What about the idea of trickery or deception? Certain institutions try to give us the illusion of limitations to our will. "I can't go out tonight; mom says I'm grounded." Sure you can! You just have to face Mom's wrath. However, if everybody did only things to satisfy their individual desires, we'd have anarchy. Our peaceful society depends on our governing bodies punishing us when we are bad. I think Hobbes and Milton would agree on that.
Steve wrote of the Rush song *Freewill* that "'If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice,'" That's my favourite line from the song."
It is an impressive line, for sure. I just wonder if it is not a petitio principii? "If you choose not to decide ...." seems to simply beg the question of choice.
The writer of the lyrics, Neal Peart, is influenced by the philosphy of Objectivism, and the line in question here is of a similar form to the axiom that form s Objectivism's foundational dogma: "Existence exists."
This is one of two things. It might be empty tautology: a begging of the question of existence. Or, it could be a very sophisticated ontological statement indebted to an axiom offered by Saint Anselm of Canterbury (11th C.) as an ontological proof of the necessary existence of God. (This was, co-incidentally, the same St. Anselm whom I used in my mini-essay on Milton's God on the group blog.)
Put with brutal brevity -- & off the top of my head -- Anselm's ontogical proof is that God is a the highest level of being. God cannot exist only in human imagination, them, because that God would lack existence, which is a necessary qulity of the highest exiting being. Therefore God must exist.
Again, that's just by way of understanding Mr. Peart's use of an existential proof of free will.
It is an impressive line, for sure. I just wonder if it is not a petitio principii? "If you choose not to decide ...." seems to simply beg the question of choice.
The writer of the lyrics, Neal Peart, is influenced by the philosphy of Objectivism, and the line in question here is of a similar form to the axiom that form s Objectivism's foundational dogma: "Existence exists."
This is one of two things. It might be empty tautology: a begging of the question of existence. Or, it could be a very sophisticated ontological statement indebted to an axiom offered by Saint Anselm of Canterbury (11th C.) as an ontological proof of the necessary existence of God. (This was, co-incidentally, the same St. Anselm whom I used in my mini-essay on Milton's God on the group blog.)
Put with brutal brevity -- & off the top of my head -- Anselm's ontogical proof is that God is a the highest level of being. God cannot exist only in human imagination, them, because that God would lack existence, which is a necessary qulity of the highest exiting being. Therefore God must exist.
Again, that's just by way of understanding Mr. Peart's use of an existential proof of free will.
Ahh... I thought you would be commenting on the question, "Does God have free will?" It seem's the "rush" of Neil Peart's lyric has left some "permanent waves". Very well. I cannot deny that the magic music tends to make my morning mood. Enough.
Free Will®, if it exists at all, or rather, if we subscribe to that model, is necessarily all-encompassing. If there are any limitations to free will, then it is not free will. You can limit my physical movement, but you can't stop my will to move.
Now, Peart's statement gives an illustration of this idea. Everything you do is something you must accept accountablility for... as well as everything you didn't do. Maybe this is tautological, but it helps to emphasize the idea of free will as applying to everything (and that includes nothing).
This somehow justifies all my years of inaction so far; inaction articulates free will just as well as action. I have a professor who asserts that people's presence in class IS a sort of participation, even if they remain silent. To quote another lyric from a song by Royksopp
Brave men tell the truth,
A wise man's tools are analogies and puzzles,
A woman holds her tongue,
Knowing silence will speak for her.
More on this later, gotta go to class.
Free Will®, if it exists at all, or rather, if we subscribe to that model, is necessarily all-encompassing. If there are any limitations to free will, then it is not free will. You can limit my physical movement, but you can't stop my will to move.
Now, Peart's statement gives an illustration of this idea. Everything you do is something you must accept accountablility for... as well as everything you didn't do. Maybe this is tautological, but it helps to emphasize the idea of free will as applying to everything (and that includes nothing).
This somehow justifies all my years of inaction so far; inaction articulates free will just as well as action. I have a professor who asserts that people's presence in class IS a sort of participation, even if they remain silent. To quote another lyric from a song by Royksopp
Brave men tell the truth,
A wise man's tools are analogies and puzzles,
A woman holds her tongue,
Knowing silence will speak for her.
More on this later, gotta go to class.
Ok, what does this mean in terms of Milton?
Milton seems to try to endow every character with free will -- although it may be argued that this free will is only an illusion of free will.
Nevertheless, why should we valorize Satan for articulating his free will? I articulate my free will by taking a piss every morning and then deciding not to try to take over the universe (except for that one time, but we'll not get into that).
Peart writes, "I will choose free will", but really, that is the only thing that he cannot choose under his own model.
God is one character who doesn't have a lot of "action" in the narrative -- he just sort of hangs back in his secret God-hideout and lets things play out. I think there's a compelling arguement that he has already done all his work and is basically just watching his experiment, knowing what the outcome will be -- like flipping a two-headed coin.
BUT, we could also say that he's acting by not acting, that is, his non-intervention is as much an affront as Satan's belligerence.
Post a Comment
Milton seems to try to endow every character with free will -- although it may be argued that this free will is only an illusion of free will.
Nevertheless, why should we valorize Satan for articulating his free will? I articulate my free will by taking a piss every morning and then deciding not to try to take over the universe (except for that one time, but we'll not get into that).
Peart writes, "I will choose free will", but really, that is the only thing that he cannot choose under his own model.
God is one character who doesn't have a lot of "action" in the narrative -- he just sort of hangs back in his secret God-hideout and lets things play out. I think there's a compelling arguement that he has already done all his work and is basically just watching his experiment, knowing what the outcome will be -- like flipping a two-headed coin.
BUT, we could also say that he's acting by not acting, that is, his non-intervention is as much an affront as Satan's belligerence.
<< Home
