This short piece of work by Mark Twain is what has kept me occupied for the whole week. It brings up alot of different ideas of what we are and how we think. Below I've put some of the main points I got out of the book. It would be a good idea to read all of it before looking at the points otherwise I'll spoil the story for you. Also, watch the whole video.
The first point argues that man is a machine. Nothing originates solely from the person. Outside influences decide the person's look/personality etc.
The second and probably most important point the story brings up is that people only do things if it contents their own spirit. The law in the story says
"FROM HIS CRADLE TO
HIS GRAVE A MAN NEVER DOES A SINGLE THING WHICH HAS ANY FIRST AND
FOREMOST OBJECT BUT ONE--TO SECURE PEACE OF MIND, SPIRITUAL COMFORT, FOR
HIMSELF."
People always do things to content their spirit, even if they think they're only doing it for someone else. This is quite controversial since it kind of eliminates martyrdom and self sacrifice. Do you think this law is right? Or can you prove and example where it's broken? I believe this law is true, I will give a prize if you can find a situation where it's not.
The third point is similar to the first, where it discusses how people's acts proceed from outside influences. It goes quite indepth, so it's better you read it again than me describe it.
The next chapter describes instinct and thought and how animal's don't just act out of instinct. They think the same way we do, just not at the same level. ( like the difference from the way we think compared to how Einstein thought). In fact ants could be smarter than us...
The story argues that nobody has free will, only free choice. It cites the previous law (of spritual content), and all we get to do is think about which action contents our spirit the most.
Near the end it poses a question "what is the spirit?" When you say "my body," what is the 'my.' And is the spirit only "spiritual" (separated from the physical). Again, it would be better to read through the passage again rather than me try to explain it.
What do you think about it? I agreed with almost everything brought up in this story. Then again, I also believed in Einstein's theory of time travel.
Since I haven't written for a while, here's another video. Remember, he didn't really choose the answer himself:
11 comments:
The way to answer this question requires a lot of deep thought...I shall think about this from a religious perspective...
From a religious perspective (Sikhism), people do have free will (and I agree with this)...and I anticipate that the key to debating this topic will come down the way we define free will...
How is the freedom to choose different from free will? I think free will is the freedom to choose things...
So, let's start by agreeing on a definition of free will...
Ok, here is another point...I think our thought processes have a huge influence on our actions...
Often our thought processes are enforced by the things we do, the people that we are around...
I agreee, that some people may NOT have a "choice" with regards to this...but I think the vas majority of people do...
I think we can change the way our thought processes work...and this is perhaps something that can be classified under having "free will".
Do you agree with that? We can change the way our thought processes work?
If you agree that we have the choice to change the way we think, and this ultimately influences what we do, then I think we should be accoutable for the things we do...
Sure, outside things have influenced us, but we allowed those things to do so.
It is very very rare that some body comes upto you and shoves a cigarette in your mouth. You see other people do it...then you have the choice to do the same, at this stage, most people consult thier thought processes (which, as I said eariler, they influence themselves), and based on what thier thoughts tell them, they act in a particular way...
I assume you haven't read the article. You should read it before forming an opinion on things because I'm no Mark Twain. But I will comment on your comments anyway...
Point #2: No I don't believe we can personally change the way our thought processes work. What is the reason behind wanting your thought processes to change? Some kind of outside influence has made you want to change it (remember you change it to content your spirit, otherwise you wouldn't). Give me an example where you would change your thought process entirely under your free will. I don't think you can...
Comment #3 has no predicate until you clarify #2, so it's pointless for now. But I did want to ask you something you touched on. When you say "based on what their thoughts tell them, they act in a particular way," who do the thoughts belong to? You're implying ownership of the thoughts right? So the thoughts themselves don't decide how to act?
Comment#1 wants us to come up with a definition of free will we can agree on. True, free will is free choice, but I would like to add to it that for it to be free will, you have to be able to act as you please. "I choose to kill someone right now," is what I'm thinking, but I'll never actually be able to do that..I know you'll say that "I never did choose to kill someone then," but I want to establish "the choice includes acting upon it."
sorry cant comment yet coz i havent read the article...but that einstein stuff b4 sounds reallly interesting!!
As per our discussion thism morning, they primary point of difference seems to be whether we have a choice to accept a different way of thinking or not.
I believe we often do. Sure, a lot of the things on the "attempt" to have an influence on your thinking, but ultimately, whther you accept them or not is upto you.
The reason I think we have this choice is because God has given us the ability to distinguish right from wrong. Most of the time, we know a certain way of thinking is wrong, but most people cannot be stuffed changing this.
I guess, we will now debate whether people can distinguish right from wrong. I think most people can. It is another issue that we often try and justify the wrong things we do.
And yes, I accept that there are some things which a lot of people would percieve to be wrong, which may actually be right from a "spiritual" point of view.
There are differences in a lot of things that are invloved in making decisions that we don't agree on...
Let's try...you agree that you make decisions based on they way we think and our conscience?
The issue then is what influences these and whether we have a choice on influencing them or not?
I have a feeling you will say that we cannot influence these...
I assume you still haven't read the article because you want definitions that are given in the article..
Your first comment today says the same thing you said in your 2nd comment yesterday. I thought you would give an example that I asked for, but you didn't. Is it right to assume you can't?
Instead you say God gave us the ability to tell right from wrong. I disagree with this. We learn what's right and what's wrong from outside influences. How is a baby to know that it's wrong to touch the element until he/she does, or gets smacked by the parent? Does a baby know it's wrong to throw a knife at her parents?
A better example would be drinking (let's assume drinking is a wrong thing to do). Suppose a naive person who doesn't know what alcohol can do sees their friends drinking, and they offer him a drink. He doesn't know it's wrong because he's never seen what it can do. If God has given us the ability to tell right from wrong, they should know that it's wrong to drink. It's only the day after he will realise it's wrong. His experience tells him it was wrong (by the way he feels), not the gift God gave him.
I would go further into what you said after that point, but first I would like an example of where you would change your thought process entirely under your free will.
What story do I have to read? Is it the one about the dying boy?
Your example (about the baby) is very very naive. Ofcourse, there are a lot of things in life that we are taught are bad. Yet, people still do these bad things...
People are taught all their lives that stealing and deception is bad, yet we still do it.
Perhaps I didn't clarify myself enough in the last post (I wrote it in a hurry), God gave us a conscience...
Most religions aim to educate our conscience to distinguish right from wrong (as these religions see fit). oUR conscience then tells us right from wrong, provided we havn't corrupted it ourselves and
provided we don't ignore it...
Quite understandly, you will now say that it is an external influence that is shaping our conscience (religion) and our way of thinking...with this I agree...
But I don't see how this makes man a machine...if man was a machine, he would simply follow these religious teachings...but we often choose to ignore a lot of things that religions tell us because we are being swayed by ANGER, EGO, LUST, GREED and MATERIAL ATTACHMENT...
Assuming I read the right story, I think I need more of an explanation into how MT calls man a machine.
you were meant to read the whole 'what is man' story. the first chapter tells you about man being a machine. man does whatever contents its spirit the most. that is machine-like because that always holds true
Post a Comment