Re: The Limits of Free Will
Jan 08, 1997 04:23 AM
by Tom Robertson
On Tue, 7 Jan 97, Bart Lidofsky <bartl@sprynet.com> wrote:
>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?
I taught them everything they know.
>> 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.
How to act on one's beliefs is subject to free will, but beliefs are
deterministic. I believe that World War 2 ended in 1945. It is not
possible for me to choose to believe it ended last year.
>> 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).
All human beings have a unique perception of philosophical laws, but the
laws themselves exist independently of human perception. Otherwise, truth
would be entirely subjectivistic, and anyone's truth would be as good as
anyone else's, with no standard to which to compare the value of each
perception.
>> 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.
Can you decide that 2+2=5? Can you decide that if all oranges are fruits,
and if X is a fruit, then X must be an orange?
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
