New discovery

[peacegirl]

Every motion of life expresses dissatisfaction with the present position. Scratching is the effort of life to remove the dissatisfaction of the itch; as urinating, defecating, sleeping, working, playing, mating, walking, talking, and moving about in general are unsatisfied needs of life pushing man always in the direction of satisfaction.

 

It is easy, in many cases, to recognize things that satisfy, such as money when funds are low, but it is extremely difficult at other times to comprehend the innumerable subconscious factors often responsible for the malaise of dissatisfaction.

 

Your desire to take a bath arises from a feeling of unseemliness or a wish to be refreshed, which means that you are dissatisfied with the way you feel at that moment; and your desire to get out of the bathtub arises from a feeling of dissatisfaction with a position that has suddenly grown uncomfortable. This simple demonstration proves conclusively that man's will is not free because satisfaction is the only direction life can take, and it offers only one possibility at each moment of time.

[peacegirl]

The government holds each person responsible to obey the laws and then punishes those who do not while absolving itself of all responsibility; but how is it possible for someone to obey that which under certain conditions appears to him worse? As we just analyzed, it is quite obvious that a person does not have to steal if he doesn't want to, but under certain conditions he wants to, and it is also obvious that those who enforce the laws do not have to punish if they don't want to, but both sides want to do what they consider better for themselves under the circumstances.

 

The Russians didn't have to start a communistic revolution against the tyranny that prevailed; they were not compelled to do this; they wanted to. The Japanese didn't have to attack us at Pearl Harbor; they wanted to. We didn't have to drop an atomic bomb among their people, we wanted to. It is an undeniable observation that man does not have to commit a crime or hurt another in any way, if he doesn't want to.

[bumab]

Consequently, since B (eating the yellow apple at that moment of time) was an impossible choice, he was not free to choose A.

 

You presuppose the non-existance of free will as support for the non-existance of free will.

[peacegirl]

The most severe tortures, even the threat of death, cannot compel or cause him to do what he makes up his mind not to do. Since this observation is mathematically undeniable, the expression ‘free will', which has come to signify this aspect – that nothing can compel man to do what he doesn't want to do – is absolutely true in this context because it symbolizes what the perception of this relation cannot deny; and here lies in part the unconscious source of all the dogmatism and confusion since MAN IS NOT CAUSED OR COMPELLED TO DO TO ANOTHER WHAT HE MAKES UP HIS MIND NOT TO DO – but that does not make his will free.

[peacegirl]

Someone recently said, "You may be satisfied with this explanation, but I'm not. The definition of determinism is the philosophical and ethical doctrine that man's choices, decisions and actions are decided by antecedent causes, inherited or environmental, acting upon his character. According to this definition we are not given a choice because we are being caused to do what we do by a previous event or circumstance. But I know for a fact that nothing can make me do what I make up my mind not to do – just as you mentioned a moment ago. If I don't want to do something, nothing, not environment, heredity, or anything else you care to throw in can make me do it because over this I have mathematical control. Since I can't be made to do anything against my will, doesn't this make my will free? And isn't it a contradiction in terms to say that man's will is not free yet nothing can make him do what he doesn't want to do?"

[peacegirl]

"All you said was that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink, which is undeniable, however, though it is a mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another what he makes up his mind not to do – this is an extremely crucial point – he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment of his existence to do everything he does. This reveals, as your friend just pointed out, that man has mathematical control over the former but absolutely none over the latter because he must constantly move in the direction of greater satisfaction.

 

It is true that nothing in the past can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the opposite, that man was not caused or compelled, ‘he did it of his own accord; he wanted to do it, he didn't have to.' The term ‘free will' contains an assumption or fallacy for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not mathematical conclusions.

[peacegirl]

As was previously stated, the expression ‘I did it of my own free will' is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean – ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.'

 

This expression was necessarily misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed, for although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact I shall use the expression ‘of my own free will' frequently myself which only means ‘of my own desire.' Are you beginning to see how words have deceived everyone?

 

Because of this misinterpretation of the expression ‘man's will is free', great confusion continues to exist in any discussion surrounding this issue for although it is true man has to make choices, he must always prefer that which he considers good not evil for himself when the former is offered as an alternative.

 

The words cause and compel are the perception of an improper or fallacious relation because in order to be developed and have meaning, it was absolutely necessary that the words ‘free will' be born as their opposite, as tall gives meaning to short. Nothing causes man to build cities, develop scientific achievements, write books, compose music, go to war, argue and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to God, for these things are mankind already at a particular stage of his development, just as children were sacrificed at an earlier stage.

[peacegirl]

These activities or motions are the natural entelechy of man who is always developing, correcting his mistakes, and moving in the direction of greater satisfaction by choosing the best alternative at each particular moment in time. The fact that will is not free demonstrates that man has been unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate, and during every moment of his progress was doing what he had to do because he had no free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to do anything against his will, for the word cause, like choice and past, is very misleading as it implies that something other than man himself is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two, it is that already; God does not cause – He is. As long as history has been recorded, these two opposing principles were never reconciled until now.

 

The amazing thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies, and desires, theology's promulgation of free will, the millions that criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently because the mankind system is obeying this invariable law of satisfaction which makes the motion of all life just as harmonious as the solar system – because we are these laws.

[peacegirl]

"In other words, no one is compelling a person to work at a job he doesn't like or remain in a country against his will. He actually wants to do the very things he dislikes simply because the alternative is considered worse, and he must choose something to do among the various things in his environment, or else commit suicide. Was it humanly possible to make Ghandi and his followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death which was judged, according to their circumstances, the lesser of two evils?

 

Therefore, when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will, that he didn't want to but had to – and innumerable of our expressions say this – he is obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to another is done only because he wants to do it, done to be humorous, of his own free will, which only means that his preference gave him greater satisfaction at that moment of time for one reason or another."

[bumab]

Saying "man only does what he wants to do" is a self-fufilling prophecy, and as such is pretty useless in supporting the absence of free will. Free will means being able to change what you want to do, independent of causality (determinism).

[peacegirl]

Just because I cannot be made to do something against my will doesn't mean my will is free because my desire not to do it appeared the better reason, which gave me no free choice since I got greater satisfaction. Nor does the expression, "I did it of my own free will, nobody made me do it", mean that I actually did it of my own free will – although I did it because I wanted to – because my desire to do it appeared the better reason which gave me no free choice since I got greater satisfaction.

 

Then let me summarize by taking careful note of this simple reasoning that proves conclusively (except for the implications already referred to) that will is not free. Man has two possibilities that are reduced to the common denominator of one. Either he does not have a choice because none is involved, as with aging, and then it is obvious that he is under the compulsion of living regardless of what his particular motion at any moment might be; or he has a choice, and then is given two or more alternatives of which he is compelled, by his nature, to prefer the one that appears to offer the greatest satisfaction, whether it is the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods, or a good over an evil. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible for will to be free because man never has a free choice, though it must be remembered that the words good and evil are judgments of what others think is right and wrong, not symbols of reality.

[peacegirl]

The truth is that the words good and evil can only have reference to what is a benefit or a hurt to oneself. Killing someone may be good in comparison to the evil of having that person kill me. The reason someone commits suicide is not because he is compelled to do this against his will, but only because the alternative of continuing to live under certain conditions is considered worse. He was not happy to take his own life but under the conditions he was compelled to prefer, by his very nature, the lesser of two evils which gave him greater satisfaction.

 

Consequently, when he does not desire to take his own life because he considers this the worse alternative as a solution to his problems, he is still faced with making a decision, whatever it is, which means that he is compelled to choose an alternative that is more satisfying. For example, in the morning when the alarm clock goes off he has three possibilities; commit suicide so he never has to get up, go back to sleep, or get up and face the day. Since suicide is out of the question under these conditions, he is left with two alternatives.

[peacegirl]

Even though he doesn't like his job and hates the thought of going to work he needs money, and since he can't stand having creditors on his back or being threatened with lawsuits, it is the lesser of two evils to get up and go to work. He is not happy or satisfied to do this when he doesn't like his job, but he finds greater satisfaction doing one thing than another. Dog food is good to a starving man when the other alternatives are horse manure or death, just as the prices on a menu may cause him to prefer eating something he likes less because the other alternative of paying too high a price for what he likes more is still considered worse under his particular circumstances.

 

The law of self-preservation demands that he do what he believes will help him stay alive and make his life easier, and if he is hard-pressed to get what he needs to survive he may be willing to cheat, steal, kill and do any number of things which he considers good for himself in comparison to the evil of finding himself worse off if he doesn't do these things. All this simply proves is that man is compelled to move in the direction of satisfaction during every moment of his existence. It does not yet remove the implications.

[peacegirl]

The expression ‘I did it of my own free will' has been seriously misunderstood for although it is impossible to do anything of one's own free will, HE DOES EVERYTHING BECAUSE HE WANTS TO since absolutely nothing can make him do what he doesn't want to. To repeat: Was it humanly possible to make Ghandi and his followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death which was judged, according to their circumstances, the lesser of two evils? In their eyes, death was the better choice if the alternative was to lose their freedom.

 

Many people are confused over this one point. Just because no one on this earth can make you do anything against your will does not mean your will is free. Ghandi wanted freedom for his people and it was against his will to stop his non violent movement even though he constantly faced the possibility of death; but this doesn't mean his will was free, it just means that it gave him greater satisfaction to face death than to forego his fight for freedom.

[peacegirl]

Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will, that he really didn't want to but had to because he was being tortured, he is obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and others because he could die before being forced to do something against his will.

 

What he actually meant was that he didn't like being tortured because the pain was unbearable so rather than continue suffering this way he preferred as the lesser of two evils to tell his captors what they wanted to know, but he did this because he wanted to not because some external force made him do this against his will. If by talking he would know that someone he loved would be instantly killed, pain and death might have been judged the lesser of two evils.

 

This is an extremely crucial point because THOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT WILL IS NOT FREE, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ON THIS EARTH CAN MAKE MAN DO ANYTHING AGAINST HIS WILL. He might not like what he did – but he wanted to do it because the alternative gave him no free or better choice. It is extremely important that you clear this up in your mind before proceeding.

[peacegirl]

This knowledge was not available before now, and what is revealed as each individual becomes conscious of his true nature is something fantastic to behold for it not only gives ample proof that evil is no accident, but it will also put an end to every conceivable kind of hurt that exists in human relations. There will take place a virtual miracle of transformation as each person consciously realizes WHAT IT MEANS that his will is not free, which has not yet been revealed.

 

And now I shall demonstrate how these two undeniable laws or principles – that nothing can compel man to do anything against his will because over this his nature allows absolute control; and that his will is not free because his nature also compels him to prefer of available alternatives the one that offers greater satisfaction – will reveal a third invariable law – the discovery to which reference has been made.

[Smokinjoe9]

What if..... Since a choice has to be made then man has no free will? If we have to choose between something then we do not have free will. whether we choose good, evil, right, or wrong, just because we have to choose means we have no free will, right? Let's say I dont' want to choose, that is a choice, oh man no free will again..I get it..