Let me give an example: Free will.
That we can choose between alternative actions (and we can predict the
consequences for the good or evil of ourselves and others) has been ever
considered a fact. something evident. No greek philosopher, no oriental
philosopher, to my knowledge, considered free will as something debatable.
That implicit definition of free will is the straight one and there is no
doubt about it.
The jews and christian had more reasons to attack free will, since an all
omnipotent omniscient creator God is at odds with the idea that the human
being can choose anything. But both wanted not to go against what is
evident the naked understanding: the fact that we can choose. Then Judaism
and Christianity created a theology compatible with human free will.
That did not happen in the muslim word. I don´t like to cite names but the
idea of an omnipotent God was taken to the final consequences. Also the
Lutheran and specially calvinists. That is an ideológical negation of what
is evident. I mean, it is a negation of what is evident -free will as was
defined above- by cause of an idea external to the evidence, -the idea of
an omnipotent God. To compatibilize with the evidence of free will, muslims
and christian reformists entered in different forms of fatalism and
negation of the primacy of human understanding, so evidences such are the
notion of free will were not such evidences, but creations of our wicked
nature. (Although the idea of divine love saved protestants from the social
starvation that the negation of free will produced in the Muslim world).
That has a exact parallel today in the negation of free will by cause of
the existence of deterministic laws. Since free will, as defined above is
evident, to construct the ideological negation, the contemporaries can not
get rid of human understanding, because the human capability for unlimited
knowledge is a dogma. It is necessary to redefine free will as something
different, for example as some unpredictability as a result of some process
in the brain. Here is were the discussions about free will are reduced
Instead of that I want to stress the evidence of free will. According with
the naked definition, it is evident that we have free will. All the rest,
including theories, must accommodate this fact and not the other way
around. The negation of this is not only to twist the concepts and to
reverse the order of science, that normally goes from evidence to theory,
but it can also have grave social consequences.
2013/9/30 LizR <lizj...@gmail.com>
> On 30 September 2013 12:15, Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Although this is lateral to what I wanted to say,... the decline
>> standpoint is just the opposite of the "the heaven is coming" of the
>> uthopians. The latter is genuinelly western and postchristian (I would say
> Yes, interesting idea. "Heaven is a place on Earth", indeed?
>> WTF is a good question ;)
> "WTF is a good question?"
> (in the same vein as "Who is the greatest Doctor!")
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.