Enneagram Type 4 Board Archive

Re: the aristocrat, the bohemian, and thoughts on chicken soup

Re: the aristocrat, the bohemian, and thoughts on chicken soup

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Type 4 Message Board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Tal on September 28, 1999 at 00:02:51:

In Reply to: the aristocrat, the bohemian, and thoughts on chicken soup posted by johnmerrick on September 27, 1999 at 19:35:21:

You can run two trains in opposite directions or you can run them on parallel tracks in the same direction. To me, that's all that needs to be said about the difference between 4w3's and 4w5's.

: while this last thought is grossly out of context, i must ask this of deecee and pseudoname and whoever else was involved in the string about everyone on the planet having opportunities: does a child born into starvation and surrounded by war have choices? i’ll answer: yes. he can walk over to that tree and starve, or he can walk over to this other tree and starve, he can go sit by a rock and starve, etc, etc. you guys are
: right!! i don’t feel so bad about the misery in the world after all!! i now realize that my point was indeed SKEWED.

: yes, he has decisions to make, and they all SUCK. so don’t give me your dog crap about everyone having choices.

You're effectively creating two boxes and saying "we here, in one box, have freedom. Those people over there, in the other box, have no freedom." PN and Deecee are taking the opposite stance and sticking everyone in one box, complete with freedom of choice, batteries included. Myself, I don't think it's either. I think the question of free will is tricky enough in itself; to me it seems quite plausible that our brain is nothing but a computer forever searching for the best possible course of action (something that would negate free will). I'm not saying I believe this, just that to argue over who has free will and who doesn't depends on what exactly you accept as axiomatic about free will to begin with. Because if, in keeping with the computational theory of mind, we are essentially just machines in search of a fix, then the only difference between me and a starving African is that his conditions predispose him towards more misery than mine do. And that has nothing to do with free will, or choice, or anything of the like.

If, on the other hand, you take the existence of free will for granted, then I think what you get in any case isn't two boxes of yes free will and no free will; I think you get a gradient. External conditions may certainly *limit* your choices, but, unless you're dead, there's no way to eliminate them entirely. Really, it's no different than a rat in the maze. If there only two ways to go at each junction, the rat has less choice to make than if there are seventy or eighty.

So sure, your average African child probably has, in a certain context (and an important one, no doubt) less choice than the average Westerner. But again, it's a gradient. All human beings have the ability to make choices. Some are more limited than others in terms of the potential outcome. Obviously, it's our duty to try and remedy this.

But then the thing is it can become much trickier if you start to look at things from a group perspective rather than an individual one. You could say that you and I have the freedom to post on this board because our forefathers or whoever fought for those liberties and so on and so forth. Yet, if you take an African nation at random, you can see clearly that the people at the top, who have just as much 'choice' as a Westerner (hell, if choice is based on living conditions, they're in luck) are responsible for the people at the bottom being more limited. So the question is: can you say, on the one hand, that our freedom is really ours, given that other people's actions ensured we would have it? As opposed to a different society where the situation is reversed and the rulers keep a short leash on the people? I don't know. It's difficult to call these things. It's certainly not as simple, I don't think, as either you or PN and Deecee make it out to be. I don't have an answer. I'm just pointing out that both arguments are fairly elementary, given that there are many other things you might want to consider before coming to a conclusion.

Follow Ups:

No, No and No PseudoName 02:50:08 9/30/99 (0)
free will johnmerrick 01:06:55 9/28/99 (11)
- Re: free will Tal 09:24:46 9/28/99 (10)
  - for tal johnmerrick 11:27:34 9/28/99 (9)
    - Re: for tal Tal 12:57:25 9/28/99 (8)
      - more for tal johnmerrick 22:33:31 9/28/99 (1)
        
        Re: more for tal Tal 23:32:18 9/28/99 (0)
      - Re: No more four bashing, please Summer 13:10:23 9/28/99 (5)
        
        Re: No more four bashing, please Tal 15:15:52 9/28/99 (4)
        
        Bash away, darlin' LOL n/t PseudoName 02:55:43 9/30/99 (0)
        
        Re: Ok... Summer 15:50:22 9/28/99 (2)
        
        Re: Ok... Ev 16:34:54 9/28/99 (1)
        
        Re: Ok... Summer 09:35:16 9/29/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: You can run two trains in opposite directions or you can run them on parallel tracks in the same direction. To me, that's all that needs to be said about the difference between 4w3's and 4w5's. : : while this last thought is grossly out of context, i must ask this of deecee and pseudoname and whoever else was involved in the string about everyone on the planet having opportunities: does a child born into starvation and surrounded by war have choices? i’ll answer: yes. he can walk over to that tree and starve, or he can walk over to this other tree and starve, he can go sit by a rock and starve, etc, etc. you guys are : : right!! i don’t feel so bad about the misery in the world after all!! i now realize that my point was indeed SKEWED. : : yes, he has decisions to make, and they all SUCK. so don’t give me your dog crap about everyone having choices. : You're effectively creating two boxes and saying "we here, in one box, have freedom. Those people over there, in the other box, have no freedom." PN and Deecee are taking the opposite stance and sticking everyone in one box, complete with freedom of choice, batteries included. Myself, I don't think it's either. I think the question of free will is tricky enough in itself; to me it seems quite plausible that our brain is nothing but a computer forever searching for the best possible course of action (something that would negate free will). I'm not saying I believe this, just that to argue over who has free will and who doesn't depends on what exactly you accept as axiomatic about free will to begin with. Because if, in keeping with the computational theory of mind, we are essentially just machines in search of a fix, then the only difference between me and a starving African is that his conditions predispose him towards more misery than mine do. And that has nothing to do with free will, or choice, or anything of the like. : If, on the other hand, you take the existence of free will for granted, then I think what you get in any case isn't two boxes of yes free will and no free will; I think you get a gradient. External conditions may certainly *limit* your choices, but, unless you're dead, there's no way to eliminate them entirely. Really, it's no different than a rat in the maze. If there only two ways to go at each junction, the rat has less choice to make than if there are seventy or eighty. : So sure, your average African child probably has, in a certain context (and an important one, no doubt) less choice than the average Westerner. But again, it's a gradient. All human beings have the ability to make choices. Some are more limited than others in terms of the potential outcome. Obviously, it's our duty to try and remedy this. : But then the thing is it can become much trickier if you start to look at things from a group perspective rather than an individual one. You could say that you and I have the freedom to post on this board because our forefathers or whoever fought for those liberties and so on and so forth. Yet, if you take an African nation at random, you can see clearly that the people at the top, who have just as much 'choice' as a Westerner (hell, if choice is based on living conditions, they're in luck) are responsible for the people at the bottom being more limited. So the question is: can you say, on the one hand, that our freedom is really ours, given that other people's actions ensured we would have it? As opposed to a different society where the situation is reversed and the rulers keep a short leash on the people? I don't know. It's difficult to call these things. It's certainly not as simple, I don't think, as either you or PN and Deecee make it out to be. I don't have an answer. I'm just pointing out that both arguments are fairly elementary, given that there are many other things you might want to consider before coming to a conclusion.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Type 4 Message Board ] [ FAQ ] type4board/messages/3014.html

Your Ad Here