Nah, it's not required. Certainly I wouldn't force it upon you :) But I strongly believe it's better for you if you do.
arendjr
joined 2 years ago
I can agree with the first sentence to some extent, but I think the "in your environment" is unnecessary, whereas you seem to need the "in your environment" qualifier to arrive at the conclusion of the second sentence? Why would it be more intuitive to argue about free will not from my perspective, but rather from the perspective of my environment? I am me, and my ability defines me. My environment may influence me, but it would be backwards to make my ability determined by what the environment can predict about me.
I suppose you do believe in a deterministic universe? If so, that could at least explain why you think such a reasoning is more intuitive, but it doesn't align with my intuition at least.
I think your position represents a paradox then. If you “choose” to act, that choice is either of your own volition, in which case it is an example of true free will, or it is predetermined in which case it isn’t a “real” choice. Both branches represent a contradiction with your position, no?
Regardless, since you don’t believe in free will, you are either covered by option 2 or 4, depending on whether free will is real or not. How you choose to act doesn’t affect whether it exists or what you believe to be true.
As a parent, I can say with confidence it doesn’t have to be that bleak. My wife and I work 4 days a week and don’t own a car. Our kid’s school is nearby, so we don’t spend a lot of time travelling, and we both work from home a fair amount. We get to spend plenty of time with each other as a family and we’re certainly not working only for the sake of it.
That said, we are in the Netherlands, so depending on where you live things may be harder or even easier. In general I would say it is good to think about the kind of life you want to live, and the choice where you raise kids is an important one in that.
I’m agreeing with you, but I don’t think the phrases have to be condescending, smug or detached?
They surely point to a disagreement, but can’t they be used from such a position in a genuine capacity without implying the person is being condescending or smug about it?
Of course it’s easy to see how when those things are said to you, they may be perceived as smug or condescending, because the other person doesn’t want to agree with you. But that doesn’t necessarily make them so.
Not a native English speaker though, so genuinely curious about the nuances here.
Okay, I’ll spend one last reply on this, because I don’t appreciate getting a strawman assigned to me. I didn’t say getting “every character’s expressed desires being instantly granted” is the main thing making fiction interesting. I said it’s seeing actions play out that you normally don’t is what it makes it interesting. That’s quite a different thing.
And no, I still don’t think it’s a major plot point. It’s a plot point, yes, but the movies also left it out without real impact to the plot. That’s not a major plot point to me.
that’s a reason to have Beverly suggest it. Not a reason to have it actually happen.
Sorry, but that's just silly. If it were brought up as a suggestion that didn't happen, that would be even weirder than it actually happening. As a writer, you don't go around finding reasons to block your character's ideas, because that's a horribly anti-climactic thing to do, teasing your readers for no purpose, but worst of all, you don't get to see how the action pans out if it does happen, which is the primary thing that makes fiction interesting to begin with.
And no, not every action needs foreshadowing either. In the grand scheme of things, this whole scene that people fuss about isn't a major plot point in the book. I read the book twice (though even the second time was a while ago), and I had pretty much forgotten about it, until I saw people complaining it. But it still seems as if you think King has some moral obligation to guard and guide the actions of his characters. He doesn't, and thankfully he doesn't, because his books are more interesting for it.
As a writer, I disagree. Writers often write thinking from the perspective of their characters. If something makes sense from the character’s perspective, they’ll write it. It’s not an endorsement by the writer, it just makes for a natural and believable progression and that’s why the book is better for it.
I can bet you King never decided that he should include such a scene because it would make the book better. He did it because he was writing from her perspective, and it popped into his mind as something that made sense for her to do.
It’s not a fantasy, not an endorsement, and not a post-rationalisation either. And knowing his writing style, upon reflection he probably felt it belonged for shock value alone. Writers do have a knack for pushing boundaries, and he’s certainly got a taste of it.
I think there is an objective good. That goodness is Life itself. So long as we treat all Life with respect and try to live a life of balance, that makes us good. You are right though that this is still a very simplified view, and what it means to "live in balance" can depend on the situation or environment. But it's a starting point at least.
As for forgiveness, it's a choice. If someone makes an honest mistake, it should be easy to forgive them, as whatever harm they caused was not intentional. But if someone makes a wilful mistake, it will be harder to forgive them. And yet, because forgiveness is a choice, we can look at the reasons why someone acted in a manner that was harmful, and still decide to forgive them, especially if they repent.
As for consequences, those are results of our actions, whether intentional or unintentional. They are not strictly related to the concept of forgiveness, but generally speaking, we find it easy to forgive someone if their actions are harmless, or if the consequences don't affect us personally. But if someone's actions do affect us, we find it harder to forgive, regardless of whether something was an honest mistake or not. But the key to forgiveness, in my opinion, is that we need to look beyond the consequences and look beyond how we were personally affected. Forgiveness is a choice, and that choice is easier to make if our emotion is not muddied by consequence.
No worries, I understood that you were playing devil’s advocate somewhat. And indeed I don’t like it either, and fwiw, I’m not American either (European, so I don’t really have skin in this particular issue).
But when you say it’s a “rather valid decision with its motivations and reasons”, then yes, that’s basically what it means when I say it’s justified. But then you still have to ask the question as to who it is justified for. If you say it makes “sense on an economical and geopolitical level”, that’s well and good, but which economical and geopolitical level are we talking about? A deal such as this is unlikely to benefit the economy as a whole, so who are the beneficiaries? That’s the question of perspective. Probably this benefits Trump and his billionaire friends, hence why it’s justified from their perspective. But Average Joe, or the Argentinian equivalent, are unlikely to ever see a benefit from this.
I think you’re both right. The problem in this discussion is that “justified” really depends on perspective. I agree with the other guy it is justified… from Trump’s perspective. I agree with you it is not justified for the American people.
Ah yes, I agree that's a fair way to look at it. I think if you combine that reasoning with the idea of a deterministic universe, then you also basically arrive at Spinoza's view where it is said that God is Nature, because effectively Nature then is the constraining agent.
But it does still lead me to question the sentence you posited at the start:
If such a constraining agent does not exist, doesn't that imply that the universe is not deterministic? Unless you also believe that free will can exist in our mind without the ability to act upon the universe. This too was argued by Spinoza, though personally I never found such an argument to be convincing.