theos-l

[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: The Limits of Free Will

Jan 06, 1997 08:40 PM
by Bart Lidofsky


Tom Robertson wrote:

> Morality exists independently of human perception.  Human beings have no
> choice about the moral value of any alternative, but only which alternative
> to choose.

	Each alternative touches many moral axioms. How they are weighted
depends on the individual. Not even the Mahatmas could agree on the
moral rectitude of many actions; do you know something they didn't?

> Although they can choose to be dishonest about their beliefs, human beings
> have no choice about what those beliefs are.  

	Please explain this; on the surface, it is trivial to disprove.

> Human beings have no choice about philosophical laws.  

	Perhaps you are changing the English language to suit yourself? BY
DEFINITION, human beings have choices about philosophical laws, as
philosophical laws exist only in the human mind (once they can be proven
to exist outside the human mind, they become SCIENTIFIC laws).

> Human beings have discovered some laws of logic and of mathematics.
> We may use them, but they exist independently of us.  They cannot be
> changed.

	Mathematics is an entirely artificial system, and can be changed at
will. In general, however, the change has to be useful in order for it
to be widely accepted. The most recent major change in the laws of
mathematics was the invention of imaginary numbers. 

> Probabilities exist objectively .  These probabilities can be partially
> perceived, but not changed.

	Except by altering the system.

> Human beings cannot do anything for which they have no motive.  Choice is
> necessary, but not sufficient, for behavior to occur.  Human beings have no
> choice about their motives, but only in how to respond to their motives.

	Can you say, "reflex"?

	There are certainly philosophical and religious systems within which
free will does not exist which are not self-contradictory or violate
scientific knowledge (in plain English, they are valid). It is simply
that you have failed to create one, with this try.

	Bart Lidofsky


[Back to Top]


Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application