In Conclusion... (Adler\'s \"Difference of Man\" Book) (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, August 04, 2009, 03:36 (5589 days ago) @ David Turell

I can tell you by personal experience that I am aware of free will and can even tell you when my free will seems to be abrogated. (Such as right now when I should be studying for my GRE Wednesday. I don't want to write this, but feel compelled to do so.) 
> 
> I wish I had the philosophic background to really discuss this with you. All I can see is that we differ by kind not degree and I can't be talked out of that.And I am positive my free will is absolutely free.
> - As for the free will issue, there was that idea I threw out from N that you said you liked... let me get the exact quote, I think you'll like it. It's one of the rare cases that N is direct in argumentation. - "With regard to the superstitions of logicians, I shall never tire of emphasizing a small terse fact, which these superstitious minds hate to concede--namely, that a thought comes when "it" wishes, and not when "I" wish, so that it is a falsification of the facts of the case to say that the subject "I" is the condition of the predicate "think." It thinks; but that this "it" is precisely the famous old "ego" is, to put it mildly, only a supposition, an assertion, and assuredly not an "immediate certainty." After all, one has even gone too far with this "it thinks,"--even the "it" contains an interpretation of the process, and does not belong to the process itself. One infers here according to the grammatical habit: "Thinking is an activity,; every activity requires an agent; consequently--" - This really is an attack both on materialism *and* immaterialism. Materialism for its assertion that nothing is immaterial, immaterialism for asserting that binary logic can apply to the immaterial. (It was N, that struck me off the materialist path, actually.) - EDIT:
Sorry, let myself get off track. It is this passage that challenges free will as we commonly know it. We don't know what free will is, but we know we have it. We cannot however, really study it. All we can do is assert it--its another "immaterial agent." - 
> But more importantly, best of luck on the GRE. I know you will do well. You come across as very bright. I took either the first or second MCAT, and on the side the GRE, in case (1949). I went to med school so there was no in case, but I remember what the tests were like. I don't know how you study for them, they are so diffuse. I didn't.
> 
> I have a story about grade creep. I rarely got straight A's. My Ph.D. daughter never got anything but A's. Her GRE result and mine were identical! - My grades are awesome. I tend to be awful at standardized tests, however. Part of the reason I chose Information Systems is that I'm a project-based learner, I rarely do well on traditional exams. Not an anxiety thing, just... I'm just not good at them. Didn't used to be that way, but I've got to accept the current reality. - Technically I need a 700 on the quant in order to be accepted, underestimating the difficulty as it is I'm averaging 620 or so according to the practice exams. However my GPA is high enough that I was told if I "got in the ballpark" I'd be fine. What exactly that ballpark is, remains to be seen, heh. - EDITED

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"