Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY

mcbernier

Member
  • Content Count

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Interests
    snapping necks and cashing checks.
  1. Howdy. I only have about two minutes to spare, so I hope what I say is coherent. Interesting. I was only attempting to defend a very flat understanding of basic libertarian freedom. But you are right to call attention to other concepts. I don't know Schopenhaur, but I have some knowledge of Kierkegaard's freedom--somewhat radical stuff, actually (the self IS freedom, not just an activity of an agent). Your suggestion on Kant is interesting, given that time is not metaphysically absolute on his account--it's more a condition for experience. Also, I think Augustine had a conception of the so
  2. Your argument goes something like this (very roughly stated): (1) Foreknowledge requires a "deterministic universe" (2) If a universe is "deterministic," then there are no other ("real?") possibilities (i.e., there is only one causal line of events exists?) (3) If there are no other possibilities, then there is no libertarian freedom (4) Hence, foreknowledge entails that there is no libertarian freedom. There are a few difficulties with this argument. The whole thing hinges on the claim that the universe must be deterministic for there to be foreknowledge, and that this deterministic s
  3. Your argument goes something like this (very roughly stated): (1) Foreknowledge requires a "deterministic universe" (2) If a universe is "deterministic," then there are no other ("real?") possibilities (i.e., there is only one causal line of events exists?) (3) If there are no other possibilities, then there is no libertarian freedom (4) Hence, foreknowledge entails that there is no libertarian freedom. There are a few difficulties with this argument. The whole thing hinges on the claim that the universe must be deterministic for there to be foreknowledge, and that this deterministic s
  4. This argument reminds me of the theological debate about the concept of free will being incompatible with the concept of an omniscient Creator. Suppose that you accept the free will hypothesis. There are two different cereal boxes in front of you, and you are able to use your free will to choose what you have for breakfast today. Now think back to what you ate for breakfast yesterday. Can you change yesterday's decision? No. Does that disprove free will? No. Similarly, something outside of time (or, in the case of the 'finns, somehow able to see outside the confines of time) is not inc
  5. This argument reminds me of the theological debate about the concept of free will being incompatible with the concept of an omniscient Creator. Suppose that you accept the free will hypothesis. There are two different cereal boxes in front of you, and you are able to use your free will to choose what you have for breakfast today. Now think back to what you ate for breakfast yesterday. Can you change yesterday's decision? No. Does that disprove free will? No. Similarly, something outside of time (or, in the case of the 'finns, somehow able to see outside the confines of time) is not inc
  6. This argument reminds me of the theological debate about the concept of free will being incompatible with the concept of an omniscient Creator. Suppose that you accept the free will hypothesis. There are two different cereal boxes in front of you, and you are able to use your free will to choose what you have for breakfast today. Now think back to what you ate for breakfast yesterday. Can you change yesterday's decision? No. Does that disprove free will? No. Similarly, something outside of time (or, in the case of the 'finns, somehow able to see outside the confines of time) is not inc
  7. Hello Plato. Nice name for this sort of discussion I still don't think this is correct. Knowing what will happen does not entail that there is no (libertarian) freedom. Such knowledge is of the future, but knowledge itself does not determine the future, or fix it. Perhaps: my having pancakes for breakfast tomorrow is a free choice I make at breakfast tomorrow. It may be true today that "tomorrow I will have pancakes for breakfast," but what makes that true, what determines that this will be true, is not God's knowledge, or the supercomputer, but my making the choice tomorrow morning. We c
  8. This argument reminds me of the theological debate about the concept of free will being incompatible with the concept of an omniscient Creator. Suppose that you accept the free will hypothesis. There are two different cereal boxes in front of you, and you are able to use your free will to choose what you have for breakfast today. Now think back to what you ate for breakfast yesterday. Can you change yesterday's decision? No. Does that disprove free will? No. Similarly, something outside of time (or, in the case of the 'finns, somehow able to see outside the confines of time) is not inc
  9. I know, in the real world commanders don't have the ability to send instant orders to the field, or watch a battle from above, or send immediate orders to correct something, or...hey, wait a minute! If you think about modern warfare, there is a lot of similar stuff, when you consider the level of fire power we can bring to a fight, or the way we can watch ("real time") what is happening on the battlefield. And yet, we still study the great battles of history. Why? Because the principles still apply. What Alexander the Great did is still relevant. Modern day commanders have this abilit
  10. I know, in the real world commanders don't have the ability to send instant orders to the field, or watch a battle from above, or send immediate orders to correct something, or...hey, wait a minute! If you think about modern warfare, there is a lot of similar stuff, when you consider the level of fire power we can bring to a fight, or the way we can watch ("real time") what is happening on the battlefield. And yet, we still study the great battles of history. Why? Because the principles still apply. What Alexander the Great did is still relevant.
  11. I guess I see it differently. The way Mat was written was the biggest disappointment. But I'm glad you liked it. You bring up an interesting point about tactics and "out-general-ing" Demandred. I don't have a lot of knowledge about military history, but I do know that battles have been won through tactics. Go back to Alexander the Great, and some of the stuff he pulled off, while leading the cavalry on the battlefield, at times against absolutely horrible odds. That's how I always pictured Mat. So I sort of expected Mat to do something similar, and "out-general" Demandred on the field of b
  12. I guess I see it differently. The way Mat was written was the biggest disappointment. But I'm glad you liked it. You bring up an interesting point about tactics and "out-general-ing" Demandred. I don't have a lot of knowledge about military history, but I do know that battles have been won through tactics. Go back to Alexander the Great, and some of the stuff he pulled off, while leading the cavalry on the battlefield, at times against absolutely horrible odds. That's how I always pictured Mat. So I sort of expected Mat to do something similar, and "out-general" Demandred on the field of b
  13. I guess I see it differently. The way Mat was written was the biggest disappointment. But I'm glad you liked it. You bring up an interesting point about tactics and "out-general-ing" Demandred. I don't have a lot of knowledge about military history, but I do know that battles have been won through tactics. Go back to Alexander the Great, and some of the stuff he pulled off, while leading the cavalry on the battlefield, at times against absolutely horrible odds. That's how I always pictured Mat. So I sort of expected Mat to do something similar, and "out-general" Demandred on the field of b
  14. What was bullshit is Demandred's claim of: AMoL Demandred is centuries old but the War of Power only lasted around 10 years(before that it was unknown during the AoL). The Great Captains should have more practical experience in warfare than he does. Wow, I hadn't thought of that. Seems like a big mistake (but maybe there is a way to explain it?)
  15. I disagree with you. I loved the Mat of the last three books. Boy, it's funny how two people can see things so differently. I completely agree with Suttree, that mat is no longer a rogue but a court jester. I think that's perfectly stated. It felt like I wasn't even reading the same character. Even if the new "mat" were a good character, it was not Mat. This is one of the biggest disappointments I had with BS's writing, since Mat was one of my all time favorite characters (in any book). I can see why it might be difficult to write mat, though, since what was really interesting and enjoyab
×
×
  • Create New...