chrysostom

[chrysostom]

You made the Republican mistake and let someone who had no business steering the ship, who wasn't really concerned with your agenda or welfare, whatever anyone else thought about it, advance her own to disastrous effect.

I see what you did there

 

[annabenedetti]

She makes a hard argument. Even if you say as a creature of reason you're free to reject both, she could counter your inclination is also a product of fashioning. :think:

Yep.

For the record, I disagree. I think one real miracle in being human is that ability to transcend our own explicable natures and make another choice. But it's a darn hard argument to get around.

Being able to transcend our natures and make another choice is still unavoidably a choice that carries the baggage of genetics and environment.

 

[Town Heretic]

Yep.

The closest thing to a secular brand of Calvinism imaginable (that ought to stir feathers).

Being able to transcend our natures and make another choice is still unavoidably a result of genetics and environment.

Rather, it's the best argument against it. A man reared by reprobates who becomes a moral figure among men isn't the product of his nurturing and there's no gene that we know of that establishes character.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Chicken bacon ranch sandwich from 7-11. :chew:
I wonder if Chrys will get a salad?

 

[patrick jane]

Chicken bacon ranch sandwich from 7-11. :chew:
I wonder if Chrys will get a salad?

I feel a Whole Foods day for Chrys

 

[chrysostom]

it is almost noon on the right coast -

so what is for lunch? -

salad from whole foods -

no miracle whip for you today -

just marzetti honey french dressing -

so you do have choices? -

not really, nothing else is that good -

so it was inevitable? -

sometimes I feel like a nail being hammered -

you could be one of the elect -

well I can't explain why I am being hammered

 

[annabenedetti]

The closest thing to a secular brand of Calvinism imaginable (that ought to stir feathers).

Actually, the belief could be held with or without a religious support, but it's not Calvinism I'm talking about. This isn't about whether God already determined your fate, but whether nature and nurture make your decisions for you: that your free will isn't - and can't be - purely free.

Rather, it's the best argument against it. A man reared by reprobates who becomes a moral figure among men isn't the product of his nurturing and there's no gene that we know of that establishes character.

You can't say he's not the product of his environment. Environment (nurture) isn't just the way your parents parented, not at all. There are a myriad of environmental factors to consider: gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, country (geography, language, culture, history, etc.), era, neighborhood, schooling, teachers, peers, popular culture (the books you read, the music you listen to) ... the list is endless.

There's a lot about genetics we don't know, and there's no clear dividing line in the symbiosis of genetics and environment. Character is something which evolves over time as a result of a growing cognitive awareness of a moral code, experience, maturation... your personality will influence the way you approach moral dilemmas, and your personality arrived with you when you were born.

 

[annabenedetti]

sometimes I feel like a nail being hammered -

you could be one of the elect -

well I can't explain why I am being hammered

To a nail, everything looks like a hammer.

 

[theophilus]

HA!!

HA!

(I'm going to have to remember that one...Miracle Whip...sounds like the enforcer in a Pentecostal conference.)

:rotfl:

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I feel a Whole Foods day for Chrys

Yes, that salad was elected and predestined to be eaten by Chrys today.

 

[Town Heretic]

Actually, the belief could be held with or without a religious support, but it's not Calvinism I'm talking about.

Sure. That's why I wrote "a secular brand of Calvinism", but still, depending, a belief in a sort of determined outcome.

This isn't about whether God already determined your fate, but whether nature and nurture make your decisions for you: that your free will isn't - and can't be - purely free.

Supra, plus I'd say you might as well throw nurture out with the bath water given nature would determine how you nurture, as arguably. And there goes free will, again.

You can't say he's not the product of his environment.

Well, I can or I can't, depending on the contextual frame I choose. I'll touch on this more as we move forward.

Environment (nurture) isn't just the way your parents parented, not at all.

Understood (former student of cultural anthropology, to provide some background). We even study that in educational psychology.

There are a myriad of environmental factors to consider: gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, country (geography, language, culture, history, etc.), era, neighborhood, schooling, teachers, peers, popular culture (the books you read, the music you listen to) ... the list is endless.

Agreed. Who we are is a remarkably complicated business. But how we choose to see choice is more an article of faith than science...or as much as.

There's a lot about genetics we don't know, and there's no clear dividing line in the symbiosis of genetics and environment.

Twin studies are interestingly fertile ground. I think there's a confluence of things, but I also find reason to believe that we can transcend the influence of genetics and environment to a real and important degree, and that is seated in our ability to reason and to follow the dictates of reason against even biological imperatives.

Character is something which evolves over time as a result of a growing cognitive awareness of a moral code, experience, maturation... your personality will influence the way you approach moral dilemmas, and your personality arrived with you when you were born.

Yet I've known pessimists who were optimists and hard, angry men who were made gentle.

I think what we might observe in man is, at large, the rule of least resistance with a present exception voiced in a hundred smaller ways, founded in the miracle of our minds and waiting on a larger use.

Lastly, I think I just heard someone with your last name running in the Olympics.

sometimes I feel like a nail being hammered -

Try iced tea instead.

 

[annabenedetti]

And there goes free will, again.

I think an argument could be made for that, yes.

Agreed. Who we are is a remarkably complicated business. But how we choose to see choice is more an article of faith than science...or as much as.

How we choose to see choice is a combination of nature and nurture. I'm not making a religious argument here, but I'd venture to say that for a believer of any faith, that whatever acceptance of grace or similar concept is dependent on the genetic and environment basis for that person's willingness to be open to it.

Twin studies are interestingly fertile ground. I think there's a confluence of things, but I also find reason to believe that we can transcend the influence of genetics and environment to a real and important degree, and that is seated in our ability to reason and to follow the dictates of reason against even biological imperatives.

And yet twin studies are in no way conclusive, and your ability to reason is affected by all the environmental factors I mentioned earlier, coupled with your genetic predisposition.

Yet I've known pessimists who were optimists and hard, angry men who were made gentle.

Life can do that to a person, and it can also accomplish the complete opposite.

I think what we might observe in man is, at large, the rule of least resistance with a present exception voiced in a hundred smaller ways, founded in the miracle of our minds and waiting on a larger use.

I have no idea what you just said. Seriously.

Lastly, I think I just heard someone with your last name running in the Olympics.

Really? I hope he does the name proud. :chuckle:

 

[Town Heretic]

I think an argument could be made for that, yes.

I think you can make it philosophically and religiously too. It's an article of faith.

How we choose to see choice is a combination of nature and nurture.

Or it isn't.

I'm not making a religious argument here,

I really wasn't either, only noting a parallel.

but I'd venture to say that for a believer of any faith, that whatever acceptance of grace or similar concept is dependent on the genetic and environment basis for that person's willingness to be open to it.

I'd say the good news is that it isn't necessarily true, isn't demonstrably more true than views rejecting it and so isn't a contextual foundation we must begin with...or, as I put it at the outset, an article of faith.

And yet twin studies are in no way conclusive, and your ability to reason is affected by all the environmental factors I mentioned earlier, coupled with your genetic predisposition.

They're interesting, but inconclusive, agreed. And the wonderful thing about reason is that it can be checked against influence. Proofs, by way of.

Life can do that to a person, and it can also accomplish the complete opposite.

Or, people can transcend the compulsion of their biology and the expectation of their social order.

I have no idea what you just said. Seriously.

Not a problem. We were speaking of character and choice.

"I think what we might observe in man is, at large, the rule of least resistance"

Or, we may typically follow our physical impulses and cultural signposts because it's easier.

"with a present exception voiced in a hundred smaller ways,"

While noting that we make choices contrary to impulse and expectation in any number of lesser ways, that still find us mostly within the norm.

"founded in the miracle of our minds and waiting on a larger use."

But that we have in those small differences, evidence of a larger capacity, waiting only upon our use. We may reject the rule or comply with it.

Really? I hope he does the name proud. :chuckle:

Like he has a say in it.

 

[annabenedetti]

I think you can make it philosophically and religiously too. It's an article of faith.

I'm not sure we're on the same page. I meant there goes free will as in out the window.

Or it isn't.

I really wasn't either, only noting a parallel.

I'd say the good news is that it isn't necessarily true, isn't demonstrably more true than views rejecting it and so isn't a contextual foundation we must begin with...or, as I put it at the outset, an article of faith.

I could be wrong but it seems to me that your underlying aim here is to bring this around to a theological free will (drifting into uncertain waters here), when theological determinism is God-sourced and philosophical determinism is driven by biology and environment. I didn't mean for this to be an examination of predestination.

Or, people can transcend the compulsion of their biology and the expectation of their social order.

Well, sure. When their genetics intersects with their environment.

Not a problem. We were speaking of character and choice.

"I think what we might observe in man is, at large, the rule of least resistance"

Or, we may typically follow our physical impulses and cultural signposts because it's easier.

"with a present exception voiced in a hundred smaller ways,"

While noting that we make choices contrary to impulse and expectation in any number of lesser ways, that still find us mostly within the norm.

"founded in the miracle of our minds and waiting on a larger use."

But that we have in those small differences, evidence of a larger capacity, waiting only upon our use. We may reject the rule or comply with it.

Individuals are not so much the heroes of their narratives as they are the navigators. IMHO.

Like he has a say in it.

Because all the willed transcendental character in the world won't get a non-athlete across an Olympic finish line.

 

[Town Heretic]

I'm not sure we're on the same page. I meant there goes free will as in out the window.

No, we're on the same page. That's what I was speaking to as well. :thumb: I think some of Skinner's people make the case and you find a version of it in philosophy as well, though the chief proponent escapes me at present.

I could be wrong but it seems to me that your underlying aim here is to bring this around to a theological free will

No, I was only noting that some views on predetermination paralleled both biological and philosophical arguments against free will, depending on the source.

I didn't mean for this to be an examination of predestination.

Me either, beyond the note. I think it's interesting though.

Well, sure. When their genetics intersects with their environment.

I think you're wrong if you're really that locked into a mechanistic world view. I'd say we're greater than either, though influenced by both. Whether or not we take the path of least resistance remains ours, for the most part, in my world view. So I may have the predisposition for alcoholism and my environment may predispose to skepticism, but I can choose to refrain from placing drink in my path and I may choose to follow a different view of ultimate context for decades or for life.

Individuals are not so much the heroes of their narratives as they are the navigators. IMHO.

I don't think of man as particularly heroic. Mostly we're selfish, fearful and under thought. But there are moments when we meet our capacity for more and those moments, bit by bit, elevate and inspire the race.

Because all the willed transcendental character in the world won't get a non-athlete across an Olympic finish line.

But without it the line won't really mean much that matters.

Gentle, amiable difference...in TOL...this place must be really going down the tubes.

 

[chrysostom]

Gentle, amiable difference...in TOL...this place must be really going down the tubes.

I see what you did there
-
I should report this

 

[annabenedetti]

I see what you did there
-
I should report this

Your dashes are slipping.

 

[chrysostom]

Your dashes are slipping.

I am experimenting
-
with dashes
-
format is important

 

[annabenedetti]

No, I was only noting that some views on predetermination paralleled both biological and philosophical arguments against free will, depending on the source.
Me either, beyond the note. I think it's interesting though.

Okay, because that's not where I was going, I had in mind a different kind of determinism.

I think you're wrong if you're really that locked into a mechanistic world view. I'd say we're greater than either, though influenced by both. Whether or not we take the path of least resistance remains ours, for the most part, in my world view. So I may have the predisposition for alcoholism and my environment may predispose to skepticism, but I can choose to refrain from placing drink in my path and I may choose to follow a different view of ultimate context for decades or for life.

Whether or not we take the path of least resistance is our decision, but that decision is much less free that it appears. To what extent is the big question.

Regarding alcoholism: you might have the predisposition biologically, and then you might have been born into a culture and a socioeconomic situation which left you with less ability to reason and will your way through to breaking the addiction. How much of the failure to break the addiction is the fault of those who've been slammed against the wall over and over by things in life over which they have no control, while someone in a better situation stands there with the attitude of "it's simple. Just don't set the drink in front of you." Well, it's not that simple for everyone.

I'm having to come to terms with things in my own life that are forming my destiny against my will. I wanted things to be different than they are right now, and if I had the power, I wouldn't be sitting here where I am typing what I'm typing. But the power rested elsewhere, so now I'm navigating waters that I didn't choose to be sailing.

 

[annabenedetti]

I am experimenting
-
with dashes
-
format is important

I've been noticing.