Liberum arbitrium indifferentiae

Yeah, I know, I was agreeing with joybird. I knew who it was (and wasn't) as soon as the post came up.

LOL

Too cute. And to think I was starting to enjoy you!

I'll reiterate: I was using a particular writer's philosophy on a topic I find intriguing as a basis for discussion. I do not submit to his ideals, nor would I reject them outright. Most people's comments seemed to disagree with him, so I played devil's advocate, and I feel like a pretty interesting debate emerged. What part of that made you so angry?

Your distaste with discussion and philosophy is disturbing to me. No one in here was berating anybody until your last comment, which seems to take issue with anyone thinking about anything other than what is immediate and tangible. Is that offensive to you? Do you realize that voluntary ignorance of theoretical discussion (not to mention your apparent hatred for "this douchebag") IS a belief?

What a curiously oblivious comment.

I don't really see it pragmatically, in fact, I think of it the other way around. Animals can only think on a practical level, striving for betterment of themselves, their group, and their species. And as animals, we've grown from that system. It's a useful one. But our ability to comprehend abstract theory is a privilege that, as far as we know, only we possess. We aren't entitled to this beautiful curiosity. Why WOULDN'T we stretch and explore that landscape?

Also, the practical and theoretical aren't mutually exclusive. Any political issue (practice) necessitates a discussion of morality (theory). International religious issues (practice) would benefit from an epistemological approach to theology (theory). Economic matters (practice) require study of sociology and ethics (theory). Would a nation best thrive under a democratic system, wherein individualism is encouraged and rewarded, or a communist society of common ownership and classlessness, or a fascist duty to nation and heritage? These are practical philosophical questions, and I believe the question of free will is inherent in them. If we never asked these questions, we'd be in the Dark Ages. Actually, no, we'd still be neanderthals.

But that's not important to me. Even if philosophy was irrelevant to society (which I have a hard time believing), these ideas are beautiful in their expressiveness. Why do we create art but to convey our deepest unspeakable thoughts and emotions? Why have we developed such meticulous language but to do the same? Art, language, and philosophy may not appear to serve any practical purpose... but I'd argue that they're some of our most treasured accomplishments.

But that's exactly what's fascinating about the Copenhagen interpretation - it renounces the streamlined causality that defines our lives! I think you may misunderstand - it doesn't mean that we can't KNOW where an atom is until we observe it, it means that the atom doesn't definitively exist in any single place until we observe it. The cat is both alive and dead. That flies directly in the face of determinism and Laplace.

It's a little different, for reasons that would derail this entire discussion. I won't risk tiptoeing that line.

Here's the crux of the issue: whether or not virtue (i.e. motive, basis for action) is innate or learned or, most likely, some combination or both, it is NOT decided. You've never sat down and decided where you stand ethically. Even if you did on, say, abortion, your decision was affected by years of learning and genetic predisposition. So it doesn't matter if you did something because you wanted to. What Schopenhauer is saying is that the mere fact that you willed something to happen limits your actions, or rather, the question of whether or not there is "free will" at all is a non-issue, because it is will itself that binds our freedom.

Sure, we act upon our desires, but our desires were never free.