On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Stephen Paul King
<stephe...@charter.net> wrote:
> -----Original Message----- From: Bruno Marchal
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 3:45 AM
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [OT] Love and free will
> 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
>> http://www.zeit.de/2011/15/Ps-Treue-Philosophie
>> "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
> conscience eliminativism.
> Bruno
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
> **
> Hi Bruno,
>   Well said! I wonder if such eliminatists are subconsciously attempting to
> justify psychotic thoughts, tendencies and/or impulses. Parenthetically, it
> has been noticed that almost all of the serial (and mass) murderers in
> history where highly intelligent but did not even care to justify their
> pathological acts.

You think Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell, and Mark Twain were
closet psychopaths?

I would think that you should focus on refuting their arguments rather
than defaming their character.

Besides, if we are ascribing unsavory motives to our opponents, what
equally dark impulses might we conclude drive the believer in free
will?  That knife cuts both ways.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to