Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bumab
Which is?
(gettin' my post count up here  )
|
I have to be very careful how I proceed so as not to confuse anyone. Then it will be my fault that they didn't understand. Without the book to quote word for word, I have to paraphrase and the explanation in my own words might be unclear. Moreover, I am not following the way it was presented in the book, which is much more orderly. That being said, I will try my best.
There is a tremendous misunderstanding about the meaning of determinism therefore it is necessary to show where the confusion lies and prove absolutely and positively that will is not free so the reader will be able to follow the reasoning that leads to the discovery. Once it is proven mathematically - which takes into consideration the implications - there can be no more opinions or theories expressed on the subject, just as our ancestors stopped saying, "I believe the earth is flat", once they knew for a fact that it was round.
Under the banner of determinism one 20th century philosopher stated that if man committed a crime, society was to blame; if he was a fool, it was the fault of the machine, which had slipped a cog in generating him." In other words, he assumes that this kind of knowledge, the knowledge that states man's will is not free, allows a person to shift his responsibility for what he does. One individual blames society for his crimes, as he rots in prison, while another blames the mechanical structure of the machine which slipped a cog and made him into a fool.
However, you will soon see that not only this philosopher but all mankind are very much confused by the misleading logic of words that do not describe reality for what it is. This is why it is imperative that we proceed in an undeniable, not logical manner otherwise someone may quote this philosopher, a priest, professor, lawyer, judge or politician as an authority for believing in freedom of the will.