Evolution, Science & Religion (Evolution)

by romansh ⌂ @, Saturday, June 30, 2012, 02:31 (4528 days ago) @ xeno6696

What is your definition of free will? 
It is sufficiently broad as to eliminate such things.-> Buddhism rejects the idea that we have unfettered free will. Specifically, more often than not we're not exercising it, even when we think we are. -Unfettered free will, so we have fettered free will? Is that like being a little bit pregnant?-You said here
>> Not exactly. Sort of true.
>> 
>> It's not that eastern thought rejects free will, but it rejects the notion that the actor is in itself, a dependent, non-contingent thing. Our ego binds us and tricks us into thoughts of true independence.
I read this as eastern thought accepting free will at least to some degree.-
> Have you ever entered a room and then wondered why? Have you ever tried to break a habit? Buddhism's "rejection" of free will is really the psychological observation that our animal will exerts more influence on our daily lives than we want to admit. 
It comes with old age, not that it did not happen when I was young. I suspect we are far more unconscious than we give ourselves credit. It is not even clear our conscious thought comes first with respect to us making choices etc.
 
> Why did I pick computer science? Because I get really excited when I think about it. Why do I get excited? It isn't through conscious, or conditioned effort. Unless you want to say, my drive to solve puzzles. But why do I have a drive to solve puzzles and not to be an Attacking midfielder? 
I think we can only pick a handful of influences that shape our life's choices. We also cannot be sure we are rationalizing after the fact. But essentially I agree with your point.-> Our egos tend to wrap all this up into discrete, concrete things, and it is Buddhism's perspective that these things are precisely--not concrete.-There is nothing wrong with my ego Matt. It is big and active. 
 
> What are you passionate about? Why? The answer to Buddhism's half-rejection to free will lies within the honest answers to those questions. -It is the half acceptance where I find the dissonance Matt.-> When you realize exactly how much unconscious will drives you, it is scary. At least it was for me. -I agree that some find this scary - but when we understand it can be no otherway, then that becomes interesting for me. -> The similarities in myths as the one you pointed out is most easily described by similarly limited peoples arriving at similar conclusions. And probably a liberal dosing of pyschotropics. (See Mayan, Azteca)-I have read three of Campbell's books Power of Myth, Pathways to Bliss and Myths to Live By. The first two were his last (Bliss is a collection of lectures published posthumously). I found them an easy read - essentially a summary of his views. -> Its no different than the near simultaneous invention of Chinese and arabic algebras. -Are you sure there are not some as yet unrecognized common seeds?
 
> Though his roots were in... murky waters, Campbell's analysis is quite thought provoking... but to me it seems more a generalization of story archetypes than necessarily, a single, common story.-Yes - I think we all take away a reflection of ourselves in Campbell's works/


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum