What do you think happens after death?

[existentialist]

The entry you link to is a series of abstract (and hardly uncontentious) assertions about free will.

Also, are you are aware that this is the basis for the Landmark Forum, a three-day (in my opinion quite nutty) self-help course. The conclusion of the course is that you are completely free to choose to be whoever you want to be. Do you agree with this? If so, who have you chosen to be?

Because someone chooses to adopt ideas from other theories does not immediately make those theories invalid.

You are doing a rather impressive job of conveying being both patronising and ignorant, in the same breath.

 

[Aladdin]

The entry you link to is a series of abstract (and hardly uncontentious) assertions about free will.

Also, are you are aware that this is the basis for the Landmark Forum, a three-day (in my opinion quite nutty) self-help course. The conclusion of the course is that you are completely free to choose to be whoever you want to be. Do you agree with this? If so, who have you chosen to be?

I linked to Routledge.

 

[Carl Steele]

I linked to Routledge.

Yes, you did. Here is a short excerpt from Routledge:

"humans always have the ability to transcend their given situation by taking a stand on their own lives. As ‘transcendence’ we are always taking over our situations and making something of them through our choices. This ability to transcend our facticity means that we have free will. Our choices are free in the sense that (1) no outside factors determine our will, (2) in any particular case we could have acted otherwise than we did, and (3) we are therefore responsible for our choices in a way that justifies moral praise and blame ...

Do you agree with this? If so, do you believe "transcendence" is possible in every situation - for everybody, regardless of social class or where and when they were born?

Because someone chooses to adopt ideas from other theories does not immediately make those theories invalid.

I agree and I didn't say otherwise. Reading the Routledge passage reminded me of The Landmark Forum, that's all.

 

[existentialist]

I agree and I didn't say otherwise. Reading the Routledge passage reminded me of The Landmark Forum, that's all.

I think you were doing - or attempting to imply - rather more than that. You're beginning to look like someone who brought a spoon to a wits' fight. A big wooden one

 

[Aladdin]

Yes, you did. Here is a short excerpt from Routledge:

"humans always have the ability to transcend their given situation by taking a stand on their own lives. As ‘transcendence’ we are always taking over our situations and making something of them through our choices. This ability to transcend our facticity means that we have free will. Our choices are free in the sense that (1) no outside factors determine our will, (2) in any particular case we could have acted otherwise than we did, and (3) we are therefore responsible for our choices in a way that justifies moral praise and blame ...

Do you agree with this? If so, do you believe "transcendence" is possible in every situation - for everybody, regardless of social class or where and when they were born?

Yes. But only because of personal experience. I dont know that everyone would be capable of it and it depends on the situation.

 

[petee]

The entry you link to is a series of abstract (and hardly uncontentious) assertions about free will.

Also, are you are aware that this is the basis for the Landmark Forum, a three-day (in my opinion quite nutty) self-help course. The conclusion of the course is that you are completely free to choose to be whoever you want to be. Do you agree with this? If so, who have you chosen to be?

i had a cousin-in-law who got lost in that for a while.

 

[Carl Steele]

Yes. But only because of personal experience. I dont know that everyone would be capable of it and it depends on the situation.

OK, but the quote says humans always have the ability to transcend their given situation. Seems like you are saying something quite different - sometimes in some circumstances we can transcend our given situation. I don't disagree with this, I just object to the blanket statement.

 

[Carl Steele]

i had a cousin-in-law who got lost in that for a while.

I did the Forum about 20 years ago. I kept bumping into people who told me how wonderful it was and so I took a look. I couldn't say it was the worst three days of my life, it was interesting in a perverse way, but it's selling false hope, and making a lot of cash doing so.

 

[danny la rouge]

The conclusion of the course is that you are completely free to choose to be whoever you want to be. Do you agree with this? If so, who have you chosen to be?

Tonight, Matthew, I am going to be Gladys Knight.

 

[planetgeli]

OK, but the quote says humans always have the ability to transcend their given situation.

It doesn't actually. I think it's badly written, and see how it can be misconstrued, but I don't think he's using 'always' in the literal sense you take it. It's as in "we do this all the time" - doesn't mean 24/7.

And then there's the rules. No outside factors. So what other situations are you thinking of where we don't have a choice/can't transcend the situation?

 

[Aladdin]

OK, but the quote says humans always have the ability to transcend their given situation. Seems like you are saying something quite different - sometimes in some circumstances we can transcend our given situation. I don't disagree with this, I just object to the blanket statement.

You asked me a personal question.
I replied.

 

[Carl Steele]

You asked me a personal question.
I replied.

Indeed Thank you.

It doesn't actually. I think it's badly written, and see how it can be misconstrued, but I don't think he's using 'always' in the literal sense you take it. It's as in "we do this all the time" - doesn't mean 24/7.

And then there's the rules. No outside factors. So what other situations are you thinking of where we don't have a choice/can't transcend the situation? I can think of some btw.

The quote says humans always have the ability to transcend their given situation by taking a stand on their own lives. I don't think this is ambiguous.

There is a big difference between having a choice and being able to transcend a situation. I can choose this or that job and maybe marginally improve my situation but nothing more. I can choose to run away from a hungry bear and still get eaten. Most of the time we have some sort of a choice, but it's normally constrained by circumstances. I can't just choose to be a particle physicist. I have to study for years to do this and while I'm studying I'm not able to pursue my desire to be a concert violinist. And then I get old. My objection to this philosophy (as summarised in the Routledge passage linked to earlier) is its almost complete detachment from most peoples' lives.

 

[planetgeli]

The quote says humans always have the ability to transcend their given situation by taking a stand on their own lives. I don't think this is ambiguous.

Yeah I missed that. Apologies.

 

[Aladdin]

Indeed Thank you.


The quote says humans always have the ability to transcend their given situation by taking a stand on their own lives. I don't think this is ambiguous.

There is a big difference between having a choice and being able to transcend a situation.

Nobody disputes that intellectual ability impacts on choices.

But your response implies that all transcendence is and has to be physical? As in place and status..class...

However...the phrase "take a stand" needs to be seen differently to what you imply.
"One cannot refuse to take a stand. One is either a collaborator or not." Simone Beauvoir.

So taking a stand is a human choice. Not taking a stand is stagnation.

 

[planetgeli]

I

There is a big difference between having a choice and being able to transcend a situation. I can choose this or that job and maybe marginally improve my situation but nothing more. I can choose to run away from a hungry bear and still get eaten. Most of the time we have some sort of a choice, but it's normally constrained by circumstances. I can't just choose to be a particle physicist. I have to study for years to do this and while I'm studying I'm not able to pursue my desire to be a concert violinist. And then I get old. My objection to this philosophy (as summarised in the Routledge passage linked to earlier) is its almost complete detachment from most peoples' lives.

But in your examples you're still missing the 'outside factors' bit. The bear is an outside factor. Time is an outside factor that affects your will to do everything.

 

[Carl Steele]

But in your examples you're still missing the 'outside factors' bit. The bear is an outside factor. Time is an outside factor that affects your will to do everything.

You need to be a little more precise. What is the "outside factors bit"? And how am I missing this? Outside factors just seem to be anything apart from me, including time!!

 

[planetgeli]

You need to be a little more precise. What is the "outside factors bit"? And how am I missing this? Outside factors just seem to be anything apart from me, including time!!

This bit.

Our choices are free in the sense that (1) no outside factors determine our will,

To me that accepts choices aren't free if determined by things we have no control over, like time. Or a bear eating us because it can outrun us. I don't think he's saying anyone can be the top nuclear scientist if they want to be. Outside factors, outside of our desire, get in the way of some things. Like time.

I'd have thought you'd be on stronger ground with something like addiction. Can physical and psychological pressures really be 'outside factors'? I don't think so. But in extreme cases an addict (say of benzos or alcohol) cannot suddenly choose to stop. Because they'd die. And the psychological pressure to keep using must be so intensely strong as it not to make a fair battle, so how much 'free' will is that?

 

[Carl Steele]

To me that accepts choices aren't free if determined by things we have no control over, like time. Or a bear eating us because it can outrun us. I don't think he's saying anyone can be the top nuclear scientist if they want to be. Outside factors, outside of our desire, get in the way of some things. Like time.

I'd have thought you'd be on stronger ground with something like addiction. Can physical and psychological pressures really be 'outside factors'? I don't think so. But in extreme cases an addict (say of benzos or alcohol) cannot suddenly choose to stop. Because they'd die. And the psychological pressure to keep using must be so intensely strong as it not to make a fair battle, so how much 'free' will is that?

Outside factors (as you call them) sometimes help us and oftentimes hinder us. It's no more complicated than that. We never just do what want independent of circumstances. I don't believe in free will (certainly not in the existentialist sense) and it sounds like you don't either.

 

[Doodler]

I'm hoping there's no experience, nothing. The idea of eternal life in some spiritual plane of existence is about as ominous as the thought of physical immortality.

 

[Pickman's model]

All the things you wanted to do happen. To other people who are still alive

 

[existentialist]

I'm hoping there's no experience, nothing. The idea of eternal life in some spiritual plane of existence is about as ominous as the thought of physical immortality.

Yeah, all that stuff falls into the "sounds too good to be true" bracket for me. When I die, and if it turns out that I was wrong all this time, and I am ushered into a land of milk, honey, and whatever the fuck manna is, I'm going to have a few questions to ask the dude in charge. First of which would be "so, if this was where I was going to end up all along, how the fuck did it take you 60+ years to get me here? Is this someone's idea of a fucking JOKE? ".

TBH, I think I'd prefer the demons and pitchforks option, if only for consistency.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Yeah, all that stuff falls into the "sounds too good to be true" bracket for me. When I die, and if it turns out that I was wrong all this time, and I am ushered into a land of milk, honey, and whatever the fuck manna is, I'm going to have a few questions to ask the dude in charge. First of which would be "so, if this was where I was going to end up all along, how the fuck did it take you 60+ years to get me here? Is this someone's idea of a fucking JOKE? ".

TBH, I think I'd prefer the demons and pitchforks option, if only for consistency.

Do they still use pitchforks? Hell is just so old fashioned.

 

[krtek a houby]

Do they still use pitchforks? Hell is just so old fashioned.

Sounds heavenly. Reassuring to see them take a stand on upgrading.

 

[danny la rouge]

pitchforks

Aren’t they toasting forks? I’ve always thought they were toasting forks.

 

[passenger]

I have had a lot of people pass in my life, Mum a brother, etc all I know
is some things happen, call them what you like, ghosts, spiritual, and I will
take solace out of when I pass if that helps.

 

[krtek a houby]

Aren’t they toasting forks? I’ve always thought they were toasting forks.

Or tridents?

 

[BigMoaner]

I lean towards the Buddhist idea of "no births, no deaths", that the absolute, the ground of being, was there from the start and will be there in the end and nothing comes into it and nothing departs it. And you're it and you've been there from the start and you'll be there at the end, although there is no start, and there is no end. Consciousness informing/growing brains, rather than the reverse. Consciousness with no reference to space or time. So therefore no on dies as no one is born.

 

[BigMoaner]

Not just Buddhist, heidegger, schopnheur, etc

 

[BigMoaner]

Being (capital B) proceeding mind and body and certainly any thing like "subjectivity".

 

[8ball]

Consciousness with no reference to space or time.

Maaan.