On 14 Apr 2011, at 22:25, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
This week in Die Zeit there were two papers about love and fidelity.
One more scientific, another more philosophic. In the latter there
is a couple of paragraphs related to Goethe’s “Elective
Affinities” that are 100% in agreement with Rex:
Die Utopie der Liebe
"Fidelity is mere an idea that fails due to the natural laws. The
materialistic calculation that Goethe has reviewed in a sharp game
becomes clear in a remark by the captain, with whom Charlotte felt
reluctant in love: “Think of an A that is intimately connected with
a B, such that one cannot separate them without violence; think of a
C that is connected in a similar way with a D; now bring the two
couples in touch: A goes to D, C goes to B, without that one
can say who first left, who first joined the other.“
"So it happens. And is it not devilish near to a common way of
thinking? The fact that we are not masters of our decisions, but
products of biochemical processes (or some others)?"
Hence Rex might well be right that the discussion here continues
because we do not have free will.
This shows only that we don't have free-will in the absolute
incompatibilist sense, but there are compatibilist theories, which
explains well the correctness of a relative (to the subject)
incompatibilist feature of free will.
Critics of free-will are based on error confusion level. I think it is
a bit dangerous, especially that there is already a social tendency to
dissolve responsibility among those taking decisions. We are just not
living at the level were we are determined. If we were, we could
replace jail by hospital, and people would feel having the right to
justify any act by uncontrollable pulsions. This leads to person and
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at