Please note: because you're not logged in, you may be viewing older cached versions of pages which are served up to reduce server load.
Print Free-Will Bigotry | |
|
wuliheron
Tenured Poster  Usergroup: Members Joined: Jun 02, 2003 Location: Chesapeake, VA Total Topics: 18 Total Posts: 5044 |
 #11
My own point of view is that there is no single best way to describe the human condition, any more than there is a single best way to describe the color red. Whatever works for people as individuals works and that is what matters. As for psychology vrs philosophy, psychology deals with issues of mental health and illness and is heavily regulated and defined by governments and cultural beliefs. Calling someone mentally ill because they have false beliefs is stretching even the most liberal definition of psychology to the breaking point imo. On the other hand, truth and falsehood are classic philosophical issues which can be considered without invoking the beliefs of any particular mental health community. This is a common misconception about philosophy and psychology. There is no single "psychology" but, rather, a large number of schools on the subject. Likewise, different countries, states, and provences define sanity differently and these definitions often disagree with those of various schools of psychology. In addition, like any other subject, psychology is fair game for philosophers and, in fact, each school of psychology has its own unique philosophical foundations. And last-but-not-least, as I said before, what makes the difference between an assessment and a judgment (imo) is the emotional disposition of the individual. If I say, "The sky is blue" and I just happen to hate the color and consider it the color of the devil then I am not merely making an assessment. When in trouble, When in doubt, Run in circles, Scream and Shout! |
|
ciceronianus
Attorney at Natural Law  Usergroup: Members Joined: Sep 20, 2008 Location: USA Total Topics: 18 Total Posts: 1609 Last Blog: On the Death of Death in the Afternoon |
#12
You seem to equate the belief in free will with a kind of stubborn, unthinking ignorance or stupidity. Those who believed that the conditions you refer to are a matter of choice in the past were ignorant of their causes, and much more. Those who believe they are matters of choice now are clearly fools, but I doubt that they do so because they believe in free will. It's far more likely they do so because they are fools. One can argue that all bigots are in a way stupid (or ignorant) but not all stupid people are bigots. You may as well accuse a believer in determinism of bigotry for saying nothing can be done about AIDS, or those who are starving, or poor. It is an emotional appeal, like calling someone unpatriotic. You may call them bigots if you wish, of course. One might say you are "free" to do so. "Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero "Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey |
|
wuliheron
Tenured Poster Usergroup: Members Joined: Jun 02, 2003 Location: Chesapeake, VA Total Topics: 18 Total Posts: 5044 |
#13
No, I don't equate a belief in free will with bigotry. There are people who believe in free will who do not consider those with other beliefs to be stupid, insane, etc. Just as it is quite possible for someone to believe in God or science without thinking that people with alternative beliefs are stupid, insane, or otherwise somehow "less than". Like most bigotry, free will bigotry can be subtle and insidious. So intertwined with our lives from day one that we grow up unaware that it is a form of bigotry. Just as many racial bigots never question their beliefs and, more importantly, the attitudes they have grown up with. It is one thing to believe you have superior genes, and quite another to attack and denigrate those with different genes. Likewise the same holds true for beliefs. Are Christians really the only people who will go to heaven (assuming there is a heaven.) Personally I don't know and I would not call them bigots for holding this belief. However, if they attack and denigrate people who have other beliefs and faiths I would describe them as bigots. Not because I like to use the word bigot, but simply because I don't know of any reasonable alternative! When in trouble, When in doubt, Run in circles, Scream and Shout! |
|
ciceronianus
Attorney at Natural Law Usergroup: Members Joined: Sep 20, 2008 Location: USA Total Topics: 18 Total Posts: 1609 Last Blog: On the Death of Death in the Afternoon |
#14
I have a better understanding of what you mean now, I think, and thank you for the clarification. Certainly I agree that the people you describe are reprehensible. But what I seem to have trouble with is associating this fact with their belief in free will. Perhaps a belief in free will is not in and of itself objectionable in the sense that a belief in the superiority of a particular race is, on its face. Because I can conceive of a rational argument for free will, I am not as inclined to attribute prejudice to those who propound it as I am in the case of those who maintain that a particular race is superior to others. "Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero "Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey |
|
wuliheron
Tenured Poster Usergroup: Members Joined: Jun 02, 2003 Location: Chesapeake, VA Total Topics: 18 Total Posts: 5044 |
#15
By definition we are all predjudiced, we are all merely human after all. What I am more interested in is bigotry which is defined as: Dictionary.com wrote: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. Personally I do not have any difficulty with someone believing one race is somehow superior to another, that is, as long as they do not denigrate or attack people of other races or with other beliefs. As long as they do not display a "stubborn and complete intolerance" of others. Live and let live I say. Perhaps a few more examples of what I mean are in order. The Swedes are rather famous today for having made it illegal to strike or publically humiliate a child. This was not done by the politicians, who understandably would prefer to avoid bring up such legislation, but was passed by public mandate. People generally said that their Calvanist roots caused child abuse rates to become epidemic, and by passing the mandate they forced the government to interceed. By the way, the government did not end up taking children away from their parents in any greater number than before. Instead, they dedicated resources towards teaching people how to raise their children without relying on hitting and shaming them all the time. I would argue that in many cases this presents a classic example of free will bigotry. Children, especially small children, have no real concept of free will and many parents feel it is encombant upon them to teach them. This is all good a well until bigotry rears its ugly head. If the child is seen as stuborn, for example, the parent may easily become angry and punish the child all the more severely. Never mind that the child might just actually take after their father, who also just happens to be stubborn, they are punished as if it is merely a choice and as if making the wrong choice is patently unacceptable. As happens in most cases of bigotry, peoples' individual pet pieves also come into the mix and make a royal muddle of things. Mommy hates daddy's stuborness, and takes it out on the child. Mommy and daddy have a fight, so daddy takes it out on the child because daddy also hates his own stubborness. And round and round it goes. As tends to happen to people who are incarcerated or tortured or otherwise the recipient of prolonged or severe punishment, attacks and denigration they eventually begin to believe what they are told, that they are somehow bad. Thus the cycle of hate is complete and is passed on to the next generation. Edited by wuliheron on Apr 6, 2009 - 3:06 PM When in trouble, When in doubt, Run in circles, Scream and Shout! |
|
ciceronianus
Attorney at Natural Law Usergroup: Members Joined: Sep 20, 2008 Location: USA Total Topics: 18 Total Posts: 1609 Last Blog: On the Death of Death in the Afternoon |
#16
But, is the child being punished because the parent is a "free will bigot"? That would seem to be the pertinent question. To refer to the definition you quote, I don't think the child is being punished because he/she is of a particular creed, or holds a particular belief or opinion, that differs from that of the parent, and regarding which the parent is stubbornly and completely intolerant. I think the child is being punished for acting in a particular manner that the parent considers inappropriate. It may be the case that if the parent knew or believed the child's conduct was involuntary, there would have been no punishment, or the parent would have acted in another manner. To that extent, the action of the parent may have been motivated in part by the belief the child was deliberately misbehaving. However, I don't see how it can be maintained that the parent's reaction was caused by bigotry. "Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero "Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey |
|
wuliheron
Tenured Poster Usergroup: Members Joined: Jun 02, 2003 Location: Chesapeake, VA Total Topics: 18 Total Posts: 5044 |
#17
My example has room for both possibilities. The only necessary assumption is that the parent believes the child has a choice, that they have free will. For example, the traditional Chinese method of childrearing is to treat very young children the same way you would a spoiled pet. The assumption, which scientific studies support, is that they are incapable of being reasoned with anymore than a cat or dog is capable of being reasoned with. Although they can mimic whatever behavior we might teach them such as how to share their toys, they really cannot understand the concept before a certain age. People who are taught from an early age that we all have free will and that to act or believe differently is wholely unacceptable often tend to treat young children harshly. I can't begin to count how many times I have seen mothers fly into a rage in public over the most innocent and minor misbehaving of a two year old. When I have spoken to them about it, they have made it quite clear that they believe the child understands what they are upset about and is deliberately being bad. When in trouble, When in doubt, Run in circles, Scream and Shout! |
|
That0neguy
Initiate Usergroup: Members Joined: Apr 14, 2009 Total Topics: 0 Total Posts: 9 |
#18
You know, people use NO reason to attack and hurt people, why are you so surprised about this? |
|
J. Random Hacker
banned  Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Apr 11, 2009 Total Topics: 12 Total Posts: 479
|
#19
wuliheron wrote: When people assert that you must be insane, stupid, or self-destructive to not believe in free will what better word is there to describe such a position? That is a good question and I think that a better word to describe the kind of people that you are referring to in the text of your post would be "opinionated". |
|
Lord Drivel
rambler Usergroup: Members Joined: Jan 29, 2006 Total Topics: 10 Total Posts: 287 |
#20
All belief systems require non-analytical unquestioning obedience, and if they are to survive must be protected by what the initiator of this thread has referred to as bigotry. Bigotry is therefore part of the mechanism of sustaining a belief system, and is a natural function of human behaviour in its endeavour to survive, and imparts strength from belonging to a group that is united by a belief in an idea. Belief in the idea may lead to great works being achieved under the auspices of that idea. Whether this idea is valid or invalid, based on reason or nonsense, is irrelevant; but it must be engendered by some charismatic human force that gives the idea life of its own. This usually gives rise to another opposing idea which sustains a separate group, that vies for dominance. An idea may survive only a short while or even for thousands of years such as those of Free Will and Predetermination. The conflict that opposing ideas causes prevents stasis in the human condition and generates a momentum that seems to roll humanity onward, though this in itself may be another illusion. |
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.