Is it moral for our governments to impose poverty on us? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

If you put the question in such simple words, there can, I believe, only be one answer: No.

Taxation determines what poverty levels will exist within it’s demographic form. It controls the graph shown below. Governments control taxation and thus control poverty levels directly. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

It is not only taxation as such. It is also the economic policy.

What do you think is the cause of poverty? Couldn't we just address that? — DingoJones

Well, whose poverty? The poverty of third world countries? The poverty of the poor in rich countries?

This is what I am disputing. Standards of poverty are not absolute, but relative, and hence, arbitrary. — god must be atheist

Not necessarily arbitrary. Standards of poverty can change over time and are always relative, that much is true, I believe. Someone who is regarded as poor in our days may have been considered wealthy in past centuries.
But this does not mean that every definition of poverty is arbitrary. For example, I could say that someone who has an income that is not sufficient to buy enough food in order not to starve and to rent a place to have elementry shelter is definitely poor, whatever else may be considered poor under whatever definition. Such an assertion would not be arbitrary for at least two reasons: First, I think I can safely say that the majority of people in the Western world would agree with me. And secondly, in the welfare states of the Western world, it is taken for granted that everyone should have the sufficient financial means in order not to starve.

Think about all activities that you enjoy, can you keep doing it indefinitely and get the same feeling? I personally can't think of any. — Purple Pond

Nor can I. In economics, there is the concept of marginal utility, which was developed by the German economist Gossen in the 19th century.
Marginal utility declines over time, so, for example, if you eat five bars of chocolate, you will enjoy the first one more than the second, the second more than the third, etc.
The same concept could be applied to anything else that may give you pleasure.

Do feelings run out like fuel in a car? — Purple Pond

Well, that question seems to me to be a bit too general to be answered clearly. Think about the people you love. Do you love them less when you see them more often?
Perhaps when they are around very much, you get used to it and you love them less; you simply need a break. But you don't stop loving them, I am inclined to presume.

I think the everyday use of "metaphysical" is something like this:

Metaphysical
(popularly) abstract, abstruse, or unduly theoretical.
Incorporeal; supernatural. — Collins English dictionary


But I think we need something better than "stuff that's a bit weird" for our use, don't we? — Pattern-chaser

Well, I believe at least one definition of metaphysics is "what goes beyond physics". Now, what goes beyond physics is not necessarily the supra-natural, but it is, I think, whatever cannot be empirically demonstrated. Thus, the question whether or not life has a meaning would be a metaphysical question.

Wittgenstein, at least as I read his Tractatus, wanted to eliminate metaphysics from philosophy altogether, because he saw no advantage in discussing questions for which there cannot be a verifiable answer. In this, Wittgenstein was by no means isolated, and I believe that even today most philosophers agree with him on this question.

If yes then is it safe to say that people don't truly wanna know themselves and choose to be ignorant. — Sheik Yerbouti

There may be many people who choose to be ignorant, but not all of them, I believe.
Sometimes of course, the truth may hurt, and sometimes we may all of us unconsciously choose not to know, simply because we are not strong enoough to bear the truth. But then I can feel in myself the strong desire for truth, even if it may be unpleasant.
All in all, I find it to be too one-sided to say that people generally choose to be ignorant.

Ok. So if we go back to the definition of WILL (from earlier in this thread) - the faculty by which one decides on and initiates action - then it seems to me that deciding on and initiating an action is not the same as the act of choosing.

I’m getting the impression that it’s problematic to use the term ‘choice’ in a discussion about will. Because at the moment you choose, the act of choosing has already been decided on and initiated. Therefore the will must be an underlying faculty that initiates the act of choosing. — Possibility

Okay, this far I can go along with you. The will as the faculty that initiates the act of choosing. That is fine with me, although I see the difference more in the act of choosing versus expressing that choice, so when you express your choice, you have accomplished the act of choosing before. In my view, the act of choosing is accomplished at the time your consciousness realizes that you have chosen.
Now distinguishing between the act of initiating a choice, which would then be unconsciuous, and the conscious realization of the choice may perhaps by some people be seen as splitting hairs, but I can say, that I do find it useful, especially is the one, as I see it, is unconscious whereas the other is conscious.

But then it seems we reach the dilemma of an ‘uncaused cause’. Something decides on and initiates an action in time from a position beyond time. In my view that’s not ‘God’ - it’s human consciousness. But as an evolving capacity, not as some special ‘gift’ that sets us apart. — Possibility

Here I find it problematic when you say that the action is initiated from a position beyond time. Why is this?

In my view, this is the WILL: before we choose, before we think, before we act, there is a point (outside time) at which the human mind is at least potentially capable of freely structuring (ie. initiating and deciding on) the causal conditions of any action. — Possibility

At this moment, I am more inclined to believe that it is not outside time, but outside consciousness.
There may be more dimensions than the three spatial plus the temporal dimension (although I am not very acquainted with the theories here), but I do still think that whatever choice is initiated and finally made, that takes place in the human brain, and for this action of the brain, a fifth dimension does not seem to be needed.

You may have also noticed by now that I keep re-wording this theory as I go. Many of the contributions here have been extremely helpful in helping me to articulate how it all already fits together in my mind. — Possibility

Yes, this is how philosophical enquiries go. Philosophy, to me as well, is not about knowing, but first about not knowing and wondering, and then later about gaining a better understanding. So I agree again here.

Nevertheless, I must point out that a reduced free will is not free. Also, ‘choice’ and ‘will’ are not interchangeable terms.

I’m not trying to be difficult here — Possibility

No, I think you are quite right here to point out that there is a difference.
To me, will also incorporates the unconscious element. Will is what is wanted or desired, even if it is not formulated in clear language.
A choice is always something that I consciously face or the deliberate act of choosing something.

And I may indeed choose something I don't really want.
For example, when I am in a restaurant, and hungry. So I know I want to eat, but there are no dishes available that I really like.
I may have a choice not to eat at all, but as I am hungry I may prefer having something that I don't really like, as that evil may be lesser than the evil of staying hungry.
Or, another example, I am tired, but have work to do. I may want to go to bed, but if I do so and not finish the work I have to do, I may face consequences that I don't want. So I stay up and do the work.

But regardless of how we currently define ‘will’, perhaps we can agree on a few statements before we continue (and please feel free to suggest edits here):

1. We are at least capable of CHOICE: an ACT of choosing a particular OPTION from a VARIETY or range.

2. Limitations and/or constraints on choice appear to occur at any or all of the above three points.

3. Some of these limitations/constraints on choice are considered to be SELF-IMPOSED at various levels of consciousness.

4. Other limitations/constraints are the result of EXTERNAL power, influence or control.

5. The current question of FREE WILL cannot be taken as an absolute yes or no, because of the four statements above. — Possibility

At least at first sight I see nothing here to disagree with.

Another aspect, however, may be the fact that our free will is reduced by genetics.
I don't know, if that point has already been discussed in this thread, but I believe it to be of some importance.
We are born with a certain DNA, which also determines our character, and so we may think we act freely, while in fact we are determined by our genes.

I don't think it is meaningful to speak in terms of absolutes — Wayfarer

Agreed.

many of those who deny the possibility of free will, seem to me to deny free will simply because it's not absolute — Wayfarer

Okay, but I do believe that it is useful at times to recall in what ways we are not free, and don't have an entirely free will. It is, I am inclined to believe, similar to the question whether or not we are objective in our judgements.

It may, it seems to me, be a huge step towards more freedom, if we were conscious of all the restrictions of our free will, and it may be a step towards more objectivity, if we realize in what ways our thinking and believing is indeed subjective.

Sure, the will is not *absolutely* free, but the degree of freedom we have is still very meaningful. — Wayfarer

I do agree here as well, at the end. Even if our free will has limits (and it has, as said before), then the whole concept of personality and humanity would seem meaningless, if we totally denied free will.

A simple example of free will is this discussion. People, including you and I, are free to contribute to this discussion or not to do so. The decision is entirely theirs.

Another simple example of free will is the question, whether I get myself some coffee or tea now. My free will may be reduced by the fact that I am thirsty now, and so I have no choice but to get something to drink. But I have a free choice as to what I will drink.

There are often people registering here and posting that ‘free will is an illusion’. When I can be bothered, I ask if if they did so voluntarily. If they claim they didn’t, then I say discussion is pointless as they cannot be persuaded to change their minds. If they say they did, then they don’t have a case. — Wayfarer

Well, I think this topic needs to be addressed in a very differentiated way.

I am not saying that free will is an illusion, but I do believe that our will is not entirely free. The emphasis in this sentence should be on the word "entirely".

So what does "free" mean here? Free, to me, means free from any influence whatsoever except for one's own will. And what does "will" mean? To me, it is the conscious or unconscious resolution to think, do or achieve something that is based on the concerned person's inner self.

We are, in my view, not entirely free, because there is an environment to consider. The environment consists, to name a few examples, of social, economic and political, possibly also religious factors.

With that said, as someone who most closely is aligned with Stoicism and Cynicism, due to their influence on Christianity and such, I do find the asceticism to be difficult to incorporate into the life on an average Western adult, that I am. Even in our consumer-based economy that is the United States, it's a matter of personal preference and ultimately individualism to embrace Buddhism, or so I thought. Namely, that Buddhism is not an individual based 'taste' or 'liking', as far as I'm aware, nor is it a philosophy that embraces individualism in any regard. Is this something anyone would agree with? — Wallows

I am not sure, if I can agree with you here, but then I am not even sure at this stage, whether or not I clearly see your argument.

As far as I can see your argument, you seem to be in favour of Buddhism, but not with asceticism it entails. Perhaps you could say more precisely what you like about Buddhism, or with which Buddhist teachings you agree, and then also why you dislike asceticism.

I am inclined to believe that it is not necessary to be an ascetic in the sense that you refuse food and any personal pleasure in order to be religious. What is needed much more, in my view, is a respect for the teachings of the religion and a sincere attempt to live according to its moral standards.

2) Another misgiving that I have towards Buddhism is the fact that it's a philosophy that is at once very elegant in its simplicity, yet very hard to master or achieve. By which I mean to make the claim, that Buddhism is a philosophy that is too stringent on such a basic urge that is desire. Think about it this way, if everyone in the world mastered their desires and practiced Buddhist asceticism, then we wouldn't have made it very far as a species. The entire economy would fall apart and we would figuratively live as if we were still in the stone age. I mean no disrespect here in comparing a world full of Buddhists to cavemen with some fire; but, I hope I got the point across here. Is this something anyone would agree with? — Wallows

This is, in my view, indeed an important point.
On the other hand, of course, I don't think Buddhism tells you to stop working.
It just means to tell people not to be guided by personal greed and the desire to influence others and exercise power over them.
Buddhism, I tend to believe, is not a religion/philosophy for young people, though. In your youth, you can and should have desires, such as the desire to earn a living and to find a partner.
Wisdom, including the wisdom that all achievements in life are questionable, is something that comes later.

3) Finally, and perhaps most abstractly in scope is my dread with the concept of reincarnation. It's almost scary to think that I will be reborn as a centipede or let alone as another human being, in the future. The only reassuring thing about death is the fact that it is final and permanent or certain. I find the desire to live an after-life in some magical place in the sky or as a pig in some field, like some cruel and sadistic joke. I mean, would you want to live in perpetuity in a world with so much suffering? I would not. The people that do come off to me as insane or lacking in sensibility with regards to this matter. — Wallows

As far as I know, there is no empirical basis for reincarnation.
Reincarnation, however, if someone believes in it, does not necessarily mean you are reborn as the same person with the same qualities, traits and characteristics. It is not even sure you are reborn on this planet.
An immortal soul reaching the heights of God and a state of eternal love and light need not be such a bad thing, I think. But as I said before, we don't and can't know, if this is what we will be.