Eastern philosophy says the self is an illusion

"Free will only refers to the process of choosing, deciding, acting"

Where does the process exist?

This is what I am talking about:

"It is a matter of transforming a being
who can, which the ancient human being essentially is, into a
being who wills, which the Christian subject will be—or in other
words, of displacing human acting from the sphere of “potential”
(dynamis) into that of will.

https://anarch.cc/uploads/giorgio-agamben/karman.pdf

Christians invented the idea of subjectivity.
 
Now let's see some hate...



Yup, there it is. You lose! You DO feel anger or hatred or resentment.

No Perry aka Jank, anyone who is constantly changing screen names, accounts, and posting under sock puppets is not posting in good faith. And because I have free will, I choose to invest my time in discussing this only with people who post in good faith.
 
Last edited:
This is what I am talking about:

"It is a matter of transforming a being
who can, which the ancient human being essentially is, into a
being who wills, which the Christian subject will be—or in other
words, of displacing human acting from the sphere of “potential”
(dynamis) into that of will.

https://anarch.cc/uploads/giorgio-agamben/karman.pdf

Christians invented the idea of subjectivity.

Your quote references only humans, though you've said that animals also have free will. Based on this very simplified definition of free will, basically the ability to transform potential (something that can be done) into something that is done, would you agree that my AC system, which turns potential into "is" when it turns itself on to cool the house, has free will?
 
Your quote references only humans, though you've said that animals also have free will. Based on this very simplified definition of free will, basically the ability to transform potential (something that can be done) into something that is done, would you agree that my AC system, which turns potential into "is" when it turns itself on to cool the house, has free will?

Yes.
 
Ok. Given your definition of free will, it's safe to say that we are too far apart to make conversation useful.

Yes, I never agreed with your definition of free will. I have posted mine several times. We may be done.

I just do not see any consequences for saying there is no free will. Looks like metaphysics. Like saying everything is God's will.
 
No Perry aka Jank, anyone who is constantly changing screen names, accounts, and posting under sock puppets is not posting in good faith. And because I have free will, I choose to invest my time in discussing this only with people who post in good faith.

Funny how I actually commented on your post with an actual reference and you IMMEDIATELY did what you ALWAYS do and made it about me. That's all you ever do. You are incapable of discussing anything without making it about me.

Funny.

Hypocrite. Pseudo-intellectual.

You aren't as smart as you want everyone to think. ANd it shows. The SECOND you thought it was me you made it about me and you never discussed the technical topic which I supported with a reference.

Funny hypocrite you are.
 
Funny how I actually commented on your post with an actual reference and you IMMEDIATELY did what you ALWAYS do and made it about me. That's all you ever do. You are incapable of discussing anything without making it about me.

Funny.

Hypocrite. Pseudo-intellectual.

You aren't as smart as you want everyone to think. ANd it shows. The SECOND you thought it was me you made it about me and you never discussed the technical topic which I supported with a reference.

Funny hypocrite you are.

Jank, aka Perry, this is why I think you are mentally unstable. Not only are you constantly changing names, accounts, and sock puppets - but you seem to be consumed by grievance, envy, petty resentment.
 
Jank, aka Perry, this is why I think you are mentally unstable. Not only are you constantly changing names, accounts, and sock puppets - but you seem to be consumed by grievance, envy, petty resentment.

You sure do have a lot of hatred for me. Even when I actually address a point you make complete with a citation, you can't address it, you have to make it about me again.

As per usual you characterize yourself very different from how you act. Poseur.

If you actually look at this thread as an example I came on here with a straightforward comment which you couldn't respond to meaningfully. I even gave you a reference to support my position. You blew it off because you know you are a poseur.

And now you are trying to tell people your bile isn't bile because you don't have thoughts of hatred.
 
It is a social construct. The idea of the self is largely Roman, which transformed into the Christian's concept of the subject to explain what God is.

That's interesting. So people didn't have a sense of self before the Romans? That sounds insane. Especially given that people long before the Romans talked about themselves as separable from others. Interesting hypothesis.
 
You sure do have a lot of hatred for me. Even when I actually address a point you make complete with a citation, you can't address it, you have to make it about me again.

As per usual you characterize yourself very different from how you act. Poseur.

If you actually look at this thread as an example I came on here with a straightforward comment which you couldn't respond to meaningfully. I even gave you a reference to support my position. You blew it off because you know you are a poseur.

And now you are trying to tell people your bile isn't bile because you don't have thoughts of hatred.

Jank, aka Perry, aka Cardinal, are you going to start screaming at me again in 36 point all caps bold red font?
 
Individuals are not selves.

But awareness of the individual's separation from others would be a "self".

And, of course, there are tons of examples of people referencing themselves (the self) as separate from others long before the Romans. As such it is hard to imagine that the Romans invented the "self".
 
Jank, aka Perry, aka Cardinal, are you going to start screaming at me again in 36 point all caps bold red font?

I just wish you could discuss a point without making it about me all the time. But I understand. You are challenged and that bothers you. You only ever want people to agree with your surficial understanding of any given topic. That helps you confirm your sense of self as an "intellectual" when you are really nothing more than a pitiful poseur.
 
I just wish you could discuss a point without making it about me all the time. But I understand. You are challenged and that bothers you. You only ever want people to agree with your surficial understanding of any given topic. That helps you confirm your sense of self as an "intellectual" when you are really nothing more than a pitiful poseur.

I've been registered here since 2006, Perry PhD and I think that was the first time anyone ever screamed at me in super-sized all caps bold red font. On the subject of free will, either your rage and resentment is something you can control and suppress, or else it's not.

Claims have been made on this thread that there is no way to control thoughts and impulses. To me, that sounds more like mental illness.
 
But awareness of the individual's separation from others would be a "self".

And, of course, there are tons of examples of people referencing themselves (the self) as separate from others long before the Romans. As such it is hard to imagine that the Romans invented the "self".

Ancient Greeks did not have a concept of self.
 
I've been registered here since 2006, Perry PhD and I think that was the first time anyone ever screamed at me in super-sized all caps bold red font. On the subject of free will, either your rage and resentment is something you can control and suppress, or else it's not.

Claims have been made on this thread that there is no way to control thoughts and impulses. To me, that sounds more like mental illness.

So much hatred. And anger. Funny but you tell everyone you don't feel those things. Which is it?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top