Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

Free Agency

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 4:48:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
As the individual acts, he, or she, distinguishes himself, or herself, from the collective. The development of personality is only facilitated through one's ability to act, freely.

However, not completely independent from the collective, the individual shares both emotionally and physically in the thoughts, feelings, and actions of the group. The only characteristics that are known, individually, are those not shared. Of course, the individual may notice characteristics that are distinct to the group; but, any found, universally, among all known groups are not distinguishable.

The personality is developed as tension between action and inaction or freedom and restraint, freedom to act and the impedance of one's will by that of greater wills. The individual does not have free agency if his, or her, actions are, only, the product of another, in other words, he, or she, is not able to withstand a will greater than his, or her, own. In this regard, our actions are determined by wills greater than our own. However, we, ourselves, are able to act on those things that have wills lesser than ours; and, in this sense, we, too, have free agency.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 5:29:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 4:48:33 AM, s-anthony wrote:
As the individual acts, he, or she, distinguishes himself, or herself, from the collective. The development of personality is only facilitated through one's ability to act, freely.

However, not completely independent from the collective, the individual shares both emotionally and physically in the thoughts, feelings, and actions of the group. The only characteristics that are known, individually, are those not shared. Of course, the individual may notice characteristics that are distinct to the group; but, any found, universally, among all known groups are not distinguishable.

The personality is developed as tension between action and inaction or freedom and restraint, freedom to act and the impedance of one's will by that of greater wills. The individual does not have free agency if his, or her, actions are, only, the product of another, in other words, he, or she, is not able to withstand a will greater than his, or her, own. In this regard, our actions are determined by wills greater than our own. However, we, ourselves, are able to act on those things that have wills lesser than ours; and, in this sense, we, too, have free agency.

I think your fallacy is found here:

"The only characteristics that are known, individually, are those not shared."

This implies that we can only define an individual person by ways in which they differ from others in the group. But this is clearly untrue. Even if I share a quality with someone else, I can still know that quality in myself.

Following from that fallacy, comes the conflation between equality of ends and equality of opportunity. Just because I have something in common with someone else, this does not mean I was forced to be so. If the world did work this way, then humanity would be in a constant state of internal friction, since our only desire would be to separate ourselves from others as much as possible.

Rather, we are free insofar as our actions are dictated by our internal values, but there is nothing to say that these values cannot overlap with those of others. That is called love :)
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 9:25:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think your fallacy is found here:

"The only characteristics that are known, individually, are those not shared."

No. If you read further, you'll see I go on to say each individual group has characteristics other groups don't share; that's the reason they are classified as groups.

This implies that we can only define an individual person by ways in which they differ from others in the group. But this is clearly untrue. Even if I share a quality with someone else, I can still know that quality in myself.

Yes. Because, that which may be common in one group may not be found in others. Sameness can only be known as it is contrasted with difference.

Following from that fallacy, comes the conflation between equality of ends and equality of opportunity. Just because I have something in common with someone else, this does not mean I was forced to be so. If the world did work this way, then humanity would be in a constant state of internal friction, since our only desire would be to separate ourselves from others as much as possible.

There are things determined for you, such as living in the Milky Way galaxy; and, there are things you determine. Greater, or transcendent, forces, forces beyond your control determine things for you. Yet, you, yourself, are greater than some other weaker forces; and, you determine things for them.

The world is both dynamic and static, both in motion and at rest.

Rather, we are free insofar as our actions are dictated by our internal values, but there is nothing to say that these values cannot overlap with those of others. That is called love :)

Yes. You're right; for the most part, there is nothing to say they can't.