Uplifting ..... Hope for your future.

[Prometheus]

I love these guys...Flipsyde-Someday --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlQ7i85SnKs&feature=related Make a wish !! :D

[freakazoid]

I love these guys...Flipsyde-Someday --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlQ7i85SnKs&feature=related Make a wish !! :D

Dude, you seem to have a poverty mentality. You identify with failure, poverty and it looks to me like you are a classic blamer of the system for your situation. Maybe a different way of thinking might help.

[Limbo]

Dude, you seem to have a poverty mentality. You identify with failure, poverty and it looks to me like you are a classic blamer of the system for your situation. Maybe a different way of thinking might help.

When I took a psych course back a few years ago, I remember how they talked about internalizers and externalizers. Perhaps that way of looking at things has gone out of style, but it sure made sense to me. Externalizers think that everything happens "to" them, so to speak, that they are victims of external forces beyond their control. To them, failure is always blamed on external forces or influences. Internalizers, on the other hand, think that they control their own destiny. Failure is their own fault.

I have always tried to be an internalizer. Even when bad shit beyond your control happens, make the best of it.

Check this video out. This guy lost both legs in a skydiving accident, and a few months later his wife left him saying she could never live with a cripple. Did he just give up and blame his circumstances?

Dana Bowman - click the play button (right arrow thingy) to start the video (http://healthcorner.walgreens.com/display/906.htm)

[freakazoid]

When I took a psych course back a few years ago, I remember how they talked about internalizers and externalizers. Perhaps that way of looking at things has gone out of style, but it sure made sense to me. Externalizers think that everything happens "to" them, so to speak, that they are victims of external forces beyond their control. To them, failure is always blamed on external forces or influences. Internalizers, on the other hand, think that they control their own destiny. Failure is their own fault.

I have always tried to be an internalizer. Even when bad shit beyond your control happens, make the best of it.

Check this video out. This guy lost both legs in a skydiving accident, and a few months later his wife left him saying she could never live with a cripple. Did he just give up and blame his circumstances?

Dana Bowman - click the play button (right arrow thingy) to start the video (http://healthcorner.walgreens.com/display/906.htm)


Very good point, Limbo, and a great article too! http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

[General Septem]

When I took a psych course back a few years ago, I remember how they talked about internalizers and externalizers. Perhaps that way of looking at things has gone out of style, but it sure made sense to me. Externalizers think that everything happens "to" them, so to speak, that they are victims of external forces beyond their control. To them, failure is always blamed on external forces or influences. Internalizers, on the other hand, think that they control their own destiny. Failure is their own fault.

I have always tried to be an internalizer. Even when bad shit beyond your control happens, make the best of it.

Definitely. When I learned about it, it was called the "locus of control". I definitely believe the internal locus of control is the superior mentality.

[Limbo]

Definitely. When I learned about it, it was called the "locus of control". I definitely believe the internal locus of control is the superior mentality.

Oh yeah, that's it... locus of control. It struck me as a profound truism when I first heard about it.

[MrJim]

When I took a psych course back a few years ago, I remember how they talked about internalizers and externalizers. Perhaps that way of looking at things has gone out of style, but it sure made sense to me. Externalizers think that everything happens "to" them, so to speak, that they are victims of external forces beyond their control. To them, failure is always blamed on external forces or influences. Internalizers, on the other hand, think that they control their own destiny. Failure is their own fault.

Sort of, yet there is a distinct difference betweeen "everything happening to" and "(specific group of assholes) causing things to happen to", especially when determining the cause of an individual's failure.

Simply put, outside of natural events (like volcanos), "things" aren't just "happening", rather people are causing things to happen. These 'externalizers' you speak of can point to the actions of others and describe how those actions directly relate to their problems.

Ex. If a bank employee loses their job due to market conditions caused by subprime mortgages (which is commonplace today), then the participants in bad loans can be deservedly called out, and it is responsible to do so. In a case like this, the employee was not in control of his/her own destiny unless he/she participated in the actions that impacted the job. The employee picked a path, took it, and would still be on that path if it weren't for the actions of another, so an outsider caused the problem.

It's also valid to point out that technically the employee could have chosen a different path, and now has been forced to do so. No arguments there. However, if there is an epidemic of poor choices made which impact millions of people, ignoring the source is irresponsible.

[1stoic1]

I have always tried to be an internalizer.

This makes no sense with religious beliefs such as your's.

[Prometheus]

I love these guys...Flipsyde-Someday --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlQ7i85SnKs&feature=related Make a wish !! :D

I was kinda hopeing for some thoughts on the video.:rolleyes:

[WhiteRaven]

This makes no sense with religious beliefs such as your's.

why must you bring everything up to levels of stupidity equal to Richard Dawkins on crack?

[Limbo]

I was kinda hopeing for some thoughts on the video.:rolleyes:


It's sad and tragic, of course, but very thought provoking.

[1stoic1]

why must you bring everything up to levels of stupidity equal to Richard Dawkins on crack?

Pointing out nonsense escalates stupidity? That makes no sense either.

[WhiteRaven]

Pointing out nonsense escalates stupidity? That makes no sense either.

How is what Limbo said nonsense?

[1stoic1]

How is what Limbo said nonsense?

Internalizers, on the other hand, think that they control their own destiny. Failure is their own fault. I have always tried to be an internalizer.

"Internalizers" are incompatible with the judeo-christian theology. It is a logical fallacy to suppose one can have free will when there is an omniscient (ie god).

If everything is known (by anyone or anything), then we cannot act beyond what is known, thus no free will. We cannot "control our own destiny" because it is already predetermined in some pool of knowledge. Furthermore, it is not as if this omniscient only observed all events, but it also initialized all events. The omniscient, who is aware of all possibilities, began the act of creation under specified conditions that would bring about preconceived effects. We are effects in a deterministic existence, our characters are comprised of effects, so we cannot be faulted.

[RoseandCross]

Internalizers, on the other hand, think that they control their own destiny. Failure is their own fault. I have always tried to be an internalizer.

"Internalizers" are incompatible with the judeo-christian theology. It is a logical fallacy to suppose one can have free will when there is an omniscient (ie god).

If everything is known (by anyone or anything), then we cannot act beyond what is known, thus no free will. We cannot "control our own destiny" because it is already predetermined in some pool of knowledge. Furthermore, it is not as if this omniscient only observed all events, but it also initialized all events. The omniscient, who is aware of all possibilities, began the act of creation under specified conditions that would bring about preconceived effects. We are effects in a deterministic existence, our characters are comprised of effects, so we cannot be faulted.


Yeah, but that don't mean there ain't no point doing nothing, I mean we can still do stuff and improve our lives and stuff. You know.

[RoseandCross]

Internalizers, on the other hand, think that they control their own destiny. Failure is their own fault. I have always tried to be an internalizer.

"Internalizers" are incompatible with the judeo-christian theology. It is a logical fallacy to suppose one can have free will when there is an omniscient (ie god).

If everything is known (by anyone or anything), then we cannot act beyond what is known, thus no free will. We cannot "control our own destiny" because it is already predetermined in some pool of knowledge. Furthermore, it is not as if this omniscient only observed all events, but it also initialized all events. The omniscient, who is aware of all possibilities, began the act of creation under specified conditions that would bring about preconceived effects. We are effects in a deterministic existence, our characters are comprised of effects, so we cannot be faulted.


Yeah, but that don't mean there ain't no point doing nothing, I mean we can still do stuff and improve our lives and stuff. You know.

[WhiteRaven]

Yeah, but that don't mean there ain't no point doing nothing, I mean we can still do stuff and improve our lives and stuff. You know.

That's an intelligent thought, though you phrased it in an astoundingly moronic way. I think what you were trying to say is that just because everything is already decided does not mean that our choices don't have meaning.

[General Septem]

Internalizers, on the other hand, think that they control their own destiny. Failure is their own fault. I have always tried to be an internalizer.

"Internalizers" are incompatible with the judeo-christian theology. It is a logical fallacy to suppose one can have free will when there is an omniscient (ie god).

If everything is known (by anyone or anything), then we cannot act beyond what is known, thus no free will. We cannot "control our own destiny" because it is already predetermined in some pool of knowledge. Furthermore, it is not as if this omniscient only observed all events, but it also initialized all events. The omniscient, who is aware of all possibilities, began the act of creation under specified conditions that would bring about preconceived effects. We are effects in a deterministic existence, our characters are comprised of effects, so we cannot be faulted.

That is a load of horse shit. No matter how many variables you control, there are always effects left up to chance. Hell, the possibility of getting burned when you touch a hot stove is only a probability. No prediction is a certainty.

[Limbo]

Generally, I hate getting involved in philosophical debates like this over such things as free will, omniscience, evil, and the like. The problem always becomes the fact that it is impossible to accurately and definitively define such terms. This means that nothing can really be certain, so it always become an exercise in futility.

Having said that, just a few points I would like to make. How does the fact that God knows what we will chose affect our free will? Christians and others believe that while we are bound by space and time, God isn't. This makes the fact that God can know what is going to happen in the future no big shock.

In practical terms, when people become Christians, they are submitting themselves to God's will and both acknowledge God's existence, and ask God to involve himself in their lives. Doesn't mean we sit back like doormats and expect God to do everything for us, but we expect to see God's providence in our life from time to time. Ultimately, Christians know that they will have to completely surrender their free will in our next life as this is necessary for evil not to exist.

[1stoic1]

How does the fact that God knows what we will chose affect our free will? Christians and others believe that while we are bound by space and time, God isn't. This makes the fact that God can know what is going to happen in the future no big shock.

Suppose that god tells you that you will inevitably do something horrific, and he even specifies exactly what it will be. You know what to avoid from doing, but can you avoid it? If god was being honest, then you cannot. An inescapable destiny is manifested from the information that god has about you before you yourself even exist. The future is fixed if it is known. The deduction is this: if everything is known, then we cannot act beyond what is known, thus no free will.

Whether god warns you or not is part of an interconnected network of causes\effects, and all of which have been predetermined (before creation), and then commited to by god. It isn't just that god records all components of existence by observation (which nullifies free will on it's own), but that he considered all possible variables, and then decided upon and executed the particular fundamentally initial causes which would systematically give rise to all subsequent events as they have done so that detracts our free will.


Ultimately, Christians know that they will have to completely surrender their free will in our next life as this is necessary for evil not to exist.

You may want to elaborate because this implies that either god is evil or that god does not have free will.

[WhiteRaven]

"Suppose that god tells you that you will inevitably do something horrific, and he even specifies exactly what it will be. You know what to avoid from doing, but can you avoid it?"

Um... Stoic, if god told us things like that, there wouldn't be any atheists or agnostics, now would there?

[1stoic1]

Um... Stoic, if god told us things like that, there wouldn't be any atheists or agnostics, now would there?

Sure, if god personally informed us in that way, then we wouldn't be atheists, but we also wouldn't hold any illusions of free will either - which is what's relevant to this discussion.

[General Septem]

Sure, if god personally informed us in that way, then we wouldn't be atheists, but we also wouldn't hold any illusions of free will either - which is what's relevant to this discussion.

Knowing what choice someone is going to make doesn't make it any less of a choice. For instance, you may know someone is going to choose to make a right-hand turn because his right blinker is on. This is a crude example but an example nonetheless.

Communicating your knowledge of a person's future choice would impede their free will, but the knowledge itself does not. Your scenario of a hypothetical god communicating his knowledge of our future choices is an illogical argument because that would present an entirely different scenario than a god who knows but does not interfere.

The other obvious case is when there are simply no other choices. If someone turns down a narrow one-way street, you know that they will not make a three-point turn and go the opposite direction. To attempt to do so would cause thousands of dollars worth of damage and present the risk of a head-on collision with another vehicle. Unless the operator of that vehicle is impaired in some way, it can be known beyond reasonable doubt that he will make the choice to keep going on his present direction.

[1stoic1]

Knowing what choice someone is going to make doesn't make it any less of a choice. For instance, you may know someone is going to choose to make a right-hand turn because his right blinker is on. This is a crude example but an example nonetheless.

Your knowledge of what someone will do is not absolute. You are merely estimating based on probability and reason, and so that person can still decide to turn left instead. This is not the case with an infallible omniscient, because you are bound by what it knows you will do.


Communicating your knowledge of a person's future choice would impede their free will, but the knowledge itself does not. Your scenario of a hypothetical god communicating his knowledge of our future choices is an illogical argument because that would present an entirely different scenario than a god who knows but does not interfere.

It does not matter whether you are clued in on what you will do - that only serves as a cause to an effect like any other cause. The fact that the information of what you will do exists is the issue. If the information exists, then a destiny is manifested, whether you know of the information or not. Again, the deduction is: if everything is known, then we cannot act beyond what is known, therefore we don't have free will.

[General Septem]

This is not the case with an infallible omniscient, because you are bound by what it knows you will do.

Or is its knowledge bound by the choices you make?

[1stoic1]

Or is its knowledge bound by the choices you make?

It is concurrently, but we are finite beings, and so that does not change the status of our free will as our perception of existing permeates only throughout the dimension of time. Also, those choices aren't made by us but rather carried out as an effect.

Some other factors to consider:

- Free will must emanate from the brain, soul, or some other aspect that is considerably "our's", and all of which are mechanically obliged to adhere to operating laws, therefore restraining the freedom of our actions.

- Free will necessitates a state of independence, however god is omnipresent. Any and every integral part of you, and existence itself, is entirely comprised of one element - god (even seemingly empty space); which means there really isn't a you to make free unadulterated decisions anyhow.

[General Septem]

It is concurrently, but we are finite beings, and so that does not change the status of our free will as our perception of existing permeates only throughout the dimension of time. Also, those choices aren't made by us but rather carried out as an effect.

Some other factors to consider:

- Free will must emanate from the brain, soul, or some other aspect that is considerably "our's", and all of which are mechanically obliged to adhere to operating laws, therefore restraining the freedom of our actions.

- Free will necessitates a state of independence, however god is omnipresent. Any and every integral part of you, and existence itself, is entirely comprised of one element - god (even seemingly empty space); which means there really isn't a you to make free unadulterated decisions anyhow.

It sounds to me like your first argument could apply whether there's a god or not. Are you some kind of nihilist?

[1stoic1]

It sounds to me like your first argument could apply whether there's a god or not. Are you some kind of nihilist?

Nihilism is construed in multiple ways, so in what way are you referring?

[General Septem]

Nihilism is construed in multiple ways, so in what way are you referring?

Are you a goddamn nihilist? In any way?

[1stoic1]

Are you a goddamn nihilist? In any way?

I am left to assume that you concede to my position on free will by posing this cryptic and irrelevant question. Since you wont explain what you aim to know, I'll just settle with that.

[WhiteRaven]

Stoic, you're an idiot.

Do you consider yourself to be a Nihilist? Do you believe that life is pointless? Do you believe life only exists to perpetuate itself? Do you believe that we should just do whatever the fuck we want because when we die, we're gone forever? Are you a Nietszche wannabe who hasn't read a word the man wrote?

If you answered yes to any or all of those questions then you are a Nihilist in some form or another.

[1stoic1]

Stoic, you're an idiot.

Do you consider yourself to be a Nihilist? Do you believe that life is pointless? Do you believe life only exists to perpetuate itself? Do you believe that we should just do whatever the fuck we want because when we die, we're gone forever? Are you a Nietszche wannabe who hasn't read a word the man wrote?

If you answered yes to any or all of those questions then you are a Nihilist in some form or another.

Possessing philosophical commonalities does not brand you as an advocate of any one position that asserts those commonalities. Case in point: Nietzsche rejected absolute values along with the nihilists, yet as you know, he also opposed nihilism.

[WhiteRaven]

Septem asked you a simple yes or no question you could have easily answered, but instead you chose to ask for clarification when it wasn't really needed.

[1stoic1]

Septem asked you a simple yes or no question you could have easily answered, but instead you chose to ask for clarification when it wasn't really needed.

As I have shown you, it is needed. If there is a particular aspect of nihilism he has in mind, then he should say so. I do not intend on being unnecessarily associated with anything.

[General Septem]

As I have shown you, it is needed. If there is a particular aspect of nihilism he has in mind, then he should say so. I do not intend on being unnecessarily associated with anything.

Nihilism is nihilism. It's like asking you if you're a Christian, and then you asking me what denomination I'm referring to. I don't care what kind of nihilist you are, I'm just asking if you are one.

[1stoic1]

Nihilism is nihilism. It's like asking you if you're a Christian, and then you asking me what denomination I'm referring to. I don't care what kind of nihilist you are, I'm just asking if you are one.

You aim to know if one adheres to the core of christianity, which is to believe in Christ, when asking that; but what is the core of nihilism? Is it to believe that existence is without an objective purpose, or that life as we know it is without intrinsic value? I only ascribe to the former while christians take on both cases, yet I doubt you'd label them as nihilists.

[WhiteRaven]

You aim to know if one adheres to the core of christianity, which is to believe in Christ, when asking that; but what is the core of nihilism? Is it to believe that existence is without an objective purpose, or that life as we know it is without intrinsic value? I only ascribe to the former while christians take on both cases, yet I doubt you'd label them as nihilists.

I would... kind of... I would say Buddhists are Nihilists as well.

[General Septem]

You aim to know if one adheres to the core of christianity, which is to believe in Christ, when asking that; but what is the core of nihilism? Is it to believe that existence is without an objective purpose, or that life as we know it is without intrinsic value? I only ascribe to the former while christians take on both cases, yet I doubt you'd label them as nihilists.

I define the core of nihilism as any belief that the world around us is primarily meaningless. Christianity lacks this because they see meaning in helping one's neighbor. Their God rewards them for it.

Congratulations on being enough of an asshole to make me take the Christians' side, by the way. :D

[1stoic1]

I define the core of nihilism as any belief that the world around us is primarily meaningless. Christianity lacks this because they see meaning in helping one's neighbor. Their God rewards them for it.

A nihilist determining that there is not an objective meaning does not prohibit them from asserting their own meaning. The christian believing that their god rewards them, and the nihilist believing that they are rewarding themselves, are equivalent in their subjective respect.


Congratulations on being enough of an asshole to make me take the Christians' side, by the way. :D

The christian's side of what?

[Prometheus]

I love these guys.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYlAwvz8uwc