It’s a classic, at the fifth round of drinks, someone gets up and says “if God knows in advance what I will freely decide, that means in truth that it was planned or written in advance, and this means that I am not free.”
So someone else asks “if "he" whom you call God exists, and if "he" is as you suppose eternal, why would "he" not know in advance what you will decide freely? For that would mean that "he " is not atemporal…”
Obviously, this creates a bit of discomfort, and usually the spotlight swings immediately to “and me, why don’t I know in advance what I will freely decide?”
Which then shows the desire to not be free, putting forward the following dialectic: “If I know ahead of time what I will decide freely later on, then I will freely choose the opposite, or at least something else, just to experience what it will do. Yet I cannot decide to do differently or the contrary of what I ignore!”…
Thus the bloke answers that he would like to freely renounce his freedom, which is a sophism evidently... therefore, we find ourselves in front of the following assertion: “I am not free to not be free”, that is to say in front of two consecutive negations.
But does saying “I am free to be free” make any sense? Not really any more than the preceding double negation, for “I am free” is enough, and we don’t clearly see what “to be free” adds. In consequence, it seems that a freedom which contemplates itself should necessarily and logically lead to its suicide, bogged down in a sort of perverse effect: I request not to be free”. Just as if that was the only choice. Curious isn’t it?
This shows that freedom is not an end in itself, and also that when one seeks to make a transcendental out of it, we kill it. I wonder if that is not what we do when we carry to the rank of transcendental whatever else that is not one, like beauty for example. I mean by this that I wonder if to make a transcendental out of beauty doesn’t also, sooner or later, lead to negate beauty. Finally, instead of creating, that is when one assimilates oneself to "he" whom religious traditions call “God”, what we mostly know what to do, is destroy lol
What characterizes contemporary thought is negation. Aristotle is the friend of wisdom in as much as he starts by admiring, even that which is reputed to be self-evident. Aristotle is the philosopher of admiration. The contemporaries are for the most part the buffoons of doubt and of negation. It is Descartes who pulled the first punch: “I think, therefore I doubt, and therefore I am”… Geez!
It is because of Descartes that all of contemporary thought is a saloon-bar philosophy.
Posts
Translator note: a transcendantal is a notion which is convertible to being. Aristotle names 5 of them: True, Good, One, Thing, Other.
ReplyDeleteI guess I like your last quote very much:D))!!!
ReplyDeleteI guess that subject does occasionally come up after the fifth round! I liked the last quote too.
ReplyDeleteWhy should "he", the bartender,care what you drink. Perhaps, you and the bartender are the same. The Observer and the Observed, one and the same. Takes care of the questions, doesn't it? Perhaps, the "he" who builds the bars has become lost in the stars building more bars for us to run. Putting Decartes before Dehorse again, perhaps, the old philosop meant to write, I think, therefore, I...uh,uh, um...ummmmmm drink? Time to build another bar.
ReplyDeleteI liked the last quote too.
ReplyDeleteWork From Home India
Life affirms itself, but thought leads to doubt. That's why humans kill themselves, and horses never do.
ReplyDeleteI think many people believe in destiny, that their lives have already been written out the day they were born, therefore, they are a slave and to their destinies. I believe in destiny but I also believe no one is bound to it. We can change our destiny based on our karmic deeds. Your post is deep...had to read it twice to understand it.
ReplyDeleteI believe that there is a black hole within our spirit that cries out to be God-filled. He gave us free will, thereby allowing us to make choices, whatever they may be. Using "destiny" is kindred to giving up, not growing, and surrendering to the apathy.
ReplyDelete@nothingprofound: We need to affirm life. Humans have souls; horses do not. I do not believe that doubt causes suicides; certainly despair does.
Asksherlock: I respect your beliefs. However, they're not mine.
ReplyDeleteThanks all for your comments... hips- Count, I wonder what type of grog they drink in those times? NP, indeed; interestingly a number of Sartres disciples did commit suicide... Rose, nice to e-meet you, I don't know too much about the karma concept... asksherlock, nice to see you here. you may agree with this def. of despair: the belief that a good has absolutely escaped us.
ReplyDeleteThe first paragraph is thought-provoking. Freedom can be viewed in different ways. We can choose to decide or to not decide on certain things. We can say we are free not to do anything or we are free to do everything but it wouldn't mean we are free from the consequences. There will always be consequences--either something will happen or nothing happens--still a consequence. Talking about free will, we may have that but it also comes with responsibility. I remember the Spider man quote with great power, comes great responsibility..something like that
ReplyDeleteactually, i prefer not to be free. unfettered life is scary. i wouldnt know what to do with it and might kill myself. :) love your blog, though i have to read each post more than once.
ReplyDelete