• Samuel Lacrampe
    322
    Hello.
    Yes, power of intentions or power of will is the same thing. If one is forced to do something without their consent, it is called "against their will"; and it is a self-contradiction to say "Their will is changed against their will".
  • Cavacava
    1.6k


    You are conflating again.
    Truth=good
    False=bad
  • Nils Loc
    234
    If one is forced to do something without their consent, it is called "against their will"; and it is a self-contradiction to say "Their will is changed against their will". — Samuel Lacrampe

    The last quoted sentence does make sense in a way because the physical underpinning of whatever is willed at any moment changes. Desires change based on changing circumstance, which may well be against our previous will. There are also competing desires within a person. If you control your will well then it is less likely to change against your will. There are competing wills within a person.

    Whatever I will is not what I will because my will arises against me, tortures me. My will makes me suffer as much as it helps to attenuate that suffering.

    Going to work everyday is done against my will, but I will myself to work anyway. My present willingness is often changed against my immediately past willingness by ever shifting desires and environmental circumstance.

    Unless willing is synonymous with action and less to do what we think we want or intend for a future state.

    If this doesn't make sense just ignore me.
  • TheMadFool
    1.5k
    You are conflating again.
    Truth=good
    False=bad
    Cavacava

    No.

    Lies/falsehood = Bad
    Truth = Good

    That's exactly what I'm saying.

    There are more lies than truth.

    For instance, take the statement below:

    A) 2 + 2 = 4

    Statement A is true but there are an infinite number of false answers for 2 + 2.

    So, it follows that, given our morals aren't perfect, we're more likely to utter a lie than the truth
  • TheMadFool
    1.5k
    I agree with your emphasis on intentions
  • Cavacava
    1.6k


    Good and bad are normative concepts of valuation , true and false as you have presented them, are analytic concepts, which are true or false based solely on their form.
  • TheMadFool
    1.5k
    Good and bad are normative concepts of valuation , true and false as you have presented them, are analytic concepts, which are true or false based solely on their form.Cavacava

    I see.

    But truth is an aspect of Good and falsehood that of Bad.
  • Samuel Lacrampe
    322

    I think it is important to clarify what will is, and what it is not. Will is synonymous with intentions; it is not synonymous with desires. Will comes from within, from inside, and one is always in full control of it. Desires come from without, from outside, and one is not necessarily in control of that.

    Remember those cartoons where the protagonist has a moral choice to make, and then pops a good angel on one side and a bad angel on the other, and the protagonist listens to both sides and makes the choice? This symbol represents the three parts of the soul, first introduced by Plato I think. (1) the protagonist, (2) the good angel, and (3) the bad angel represent in that order (1) the will, (2) the reason/conscience, and (3) the desires/appetite of the soul. Frequently we make moral choices such as (2) helping the needy, or (3) relaxing and watching TV; and that choice is decided by (1) the will.
  • Nils Loc
    234
    Will comes from within, from inside, and one is always in full control of it. Desires come from without, from outside, and one is not necessarily in control of that. — Samuel Lacrampe

    Given that will is about the deliberation (thinking) in concert with desire, those desires figure in to purposeful (and automatic) striving and partially determine what choices one makes, one therefore cannot be in full control of will. Willing deals with motivating factors of which we are not in full control of and at times wish we could be free of. If we are not fully in control of our desires (if we can't inhibit or delay an impulse) then we can't fully be in control of our will.

    The instinctual impulse to act in a lock and key fashion developed in evolutionary history long before the module of the neo cortex which functions to inhibit or delay behavior on the basis of reason and preferred future states. The functional power of a neo cortex varies greatly on the basis of a multitude of environmental and inheritable factors by which it develops.

    I think you're presenting a prescriptive view. We ought to view (treat) will or intention as something we are fully responsible for(?).
  • matt
    11


    Why do you say the number of truth statements is limited?

    Given the time, one could make an infinite number of true statements (as well as false statements),

    Trump is the president.
    The president is white.
    The president has hair.
    The president has blonde hair.
    The president is taller than 5'
    The president is taller than 5'1"
    etc etc
  • TheMadFool
    1.5k
    Why do you say the number of truth statements is limited?matt

    In my opinion truth can be either qualitative (color, shape, emotion, beauty, etc.) or quantitative. Under both types there are categories (red, round, happy, sad, ugly, 1, 100, etc.).

    Of each category there can be only one truth. Take your example of Trump. Under the category ''president'' only Trump makes for truth at present. Under the category ''race'' only white makes for truth, so on and so forth.

    However, under each category described above, a larger number of falsehoods exist. For instance in the category ''present president'', Jane, John, etc. are all false.
  • Samuel Lacrampe
    322

    I agree that our desires, which we are not necessarily in control of, can influence our actions, and even our decision making. That said, while these can remove our ability to act, they cannot remove our intentions to act. E.g. If I had an addiction so strong that I cannot control myself and I don't have the ability get rid of it, I can still have the intention to get rid of it.

    As you said, "Willing deals with motivating factors of which we are not in full control of and at times wish we could be free of". This 'wishing' is tied in with our intentions. I.e, we would not be wishing to be free of these factors if we did not intend to be free of these factors. Thus these factors cannot influence our intentions.
  • szemi
    7


    You replied to my answer by saying that my answer was the repetition of the same thing.

    That may be true.

    On the other hand, the same thing is true of your example.

    Your example, which was "2+2=696845" and an infinite number of other wrong answers, is a repetition of the same falsehood.

    If you say that your falsehood is different each time, I reply that my counter example is different each time.

    In QUALITATIVE form, my example is the same as yours. You provided an infinite number of false answers, and I provided an infinite number of good answers.

    In essence, a decision must be made which is more powerfully indicative.

    You say your example is more powerfully indicative.

    I say our oppostionary examples are equally indicative.
  • TheMadFool
    1.5k
    How can we differentiate lies/truths?

    1. Obama is the current president
    2. Bush is the current president

    1 and 2 are both lies but they're about different people. So, they're different lies.

    Similarly,

    3. Everest is the tallest mountain
    4. Pacific is the largest ocean

    3 and 4 are both truths but they're different because they're about different things.

    Your example:

    5. Person A claims Trump is the current president.
    6. Person B claims Trump is the current president.

    5 and 6 are NOT different truths because they both claim the same thing about the same person. Who claims is irrelevant to truth. Truth is based on how the world is and not on who claims it.
  • szemi
    7
    So, it's more likely that someone will tell you a lie than the truth. Evil wins. Good loses.TheMadFool

    As you very aptly pointed out, this statement is is evil if you superimpose a morality on it, namely, "lying is bad".

    However, morality is a "moving target". It is not a fixed entity and not fixed quality. Some may argue, that morality is completely arbitrary.

    I shan't argue that. I will accept that lying is bad.

    But I shall expand this acceptance of standards by saying that what is bad for one party, may not be bad for another party. Lying is a superimposed morality, that is, it is dictated by society, by authority. Lying is not an innately moral evil. If lying was an innate moral command, nobody would lie. We lie, because the mechanism of the lying process assumes that advantage is gained, and the lie shall go undiscovered.

    We all lie. Why do we lie? Many reasons for it, and I shan't go into that. My point is that all interpersonal evil, morally judged or not, is evil for one party, and good for the other. Be it senseless Sadism that makes one lie, or a conniving attempt for undue advantage, or stupidity, all lies favour one party, and work toward the detriment of the other party.

    I reject therefore the notion that all lies are always evil for all concerned. First of all, I reject that lying (not telling the truth on purpose) is immoral. It is immoral in some interpersonal sense of judgement, but in and by itself lying is not immoral, and many examples are extant to prove that exceptions to "all lies are evil" exist. Second of all, if a lie is evil, then it is necessarily good for some other party, at the same time. Lies can't be all bad (evl) for all parties at any given time.

    This can be shown to be similarly true for the value couplets of (love, hate), (truth, lies), (kindness, meanness), (selfless, selfish), etc.

    Therefore good will not be defeated by evil via acting immorally.

    Now, you may talk about fair play, ethical expectations, and telling the truth. But to be fair, you must admit that telling the truth hurts the teller once in a while. You say telling lies hurts someone (the teller or the hearer of the lie). One is ethical, the other, is un-. So if they both hurt someone, and favour someone else, then I don't see how you can declare that lying causes more hurt than telling the truth.
  • TheMadFool
    1.5k
    Moral relativism doesn't save the situation. In fact, it supports my case. If morality is relative, then it implies there will be confusion - a particular act, x, will be good in one culture and bad in another. So, not only do the possibilities of bad multiply, it also stymies all attempts to come to a consensus on what is good and what is bad; thereby perpetuating evil.
  • szemi
    7
    Moral relativism doesn't save the situation. In fact, it supports my case. If morality is relative, then it implies there will be confusion - a particular act, x, will be good in one culture and bad in another. So, not only do the possibilities of bad multiply, it also stymies all attempts to come to a consensus on what is good and what is bad; thereby perpetuating evil.TheMadFool
    The Mad Fool, You forgot to allow for the flipsidedness of evil. If it is good for one, it is bad for the other; if it is bad for one, it is good for the other; it can be good for both. You did not address this reasoning.

    Instead, you declared that reversing good and evil increases bad (evil) across the board. That is not a solid argument, as good reverses to bad, and bad reverses to good; and you originally declared that there is more bad than good. If you are right, then reversing good to bad and vice versa (in relativistic morality, as you called it) increases the good. I don't see a line of reasoning in your argument in this last quote that refutes that.
12Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.