Curious George
Veteran Member
Additional circumstances that should not be assumed unless specifically stated. As for your suggestion, that is circular. You have merely stated that additional resources are a hassle when they are a hassle.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Free will, determinism and absolute knowledge.
- Thread starter Dan From Smithville
- Start date
Koldo
Outstanding Member
But what about those circumstances make additional resources a disavantage ? How do you determine if any given circumstance will turn additional resources into a disavantage ?
I have not said they are a hassle when they are a hassle. I have said they are a hassle when they are contrary to our goals. I am saying we can determine whether additional resources are a disavantage by looking at what we want to achieve.
Curious George
Veteran Member
When those additional circumstances frame an instance where having additional resources is a disadvantage. An advantage puts one in a superior position relative to what they would have been in otherwise. You want to create a scenario where what is normally an advantage is no longer that. I.e. brewsters millions. The problem is that additional resources without more are just that: additional resources. They allow a person to do what they otherwise could not have done. You want to say those additional resources can have a cost. We are not talking about any additional cost. We are talking about just additional resources.
So a hunter has additional resources to catch an animal. You want to say "ahh but if he needs to move quickly then those additional resources are contrary to his goal because they will weigh him down." We are not talking about the cost, we are simply discussing additional resources. Unless you assume a cost these are cost free additional resources we are discussing.
Yes you did. This statement you are making is begging the question.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
But how do you determine when it is a disavantage ? You are not answering my question.
You are still not answering the question. How do you determine any given thing is superior or inferior ?
The cost is just one aspect of it. It just helps illustrate that I can tell you when any given thing is better or worse than something else.
For instance, how do you determine whether it is better to buy blue shoes or green shoes ?
Also, in what sense is having the ability to do what you will never want to do an advantage ?
You need to explain why you see it as begging the question.
Curious George
Veteran Member
I explained this. By adding additional elements such as cost.
When one is more or less capable.
The cost is the entirety of your position. You are introducing extra elements.
I imagine most people do that on a whim with little reasoning or rational thought. Thos is not the type of choice we were discussing.
In the sense that having the potential to do something is a better position than lacking the potential to do something.
I already did
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Is cost always a disavantage? If so, why ? If not, how do you determine when it is?
Why is being capable to do what you dont want to do an advantage?
Wrong. My rationale applies to any choice. The correct answer would be: it is better to buy the blue shoes when they are the one you want. And It is better to buy green shoes when you want green shoes.
Why so if you will never want to do it ?
You are still assuming that one might eventually want to do it. Take that out of picture.
Afraid not.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Yes
Because you are in a superior position to that which you would be if you lacked capacity.
I understand you feel that way, but that is because you are playing semantics with even yourself. What does it mean to want something?
Well no, i am not assuming that one might eventually want to do it, but i think that it is convenient that you want to assume the future as well. We are not talking about something forever, we are discussing a moment.
Not sure what to tell you here. It was explained. If you do not understand or i did not make myself clear try to narrow it down into a question that you are willing to look at openly.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Let me cut to the chase:
Why is it a benefit to be in this "superior" position ?
From the looks of it, you are merely defining having the capacity to do more things as a benefit. But a definition is not an argument.
Putting that aside for a moment, is it always the case that restricting one's own capacity to do things is a disadvantage ?
Whenever you use up resources to get something you end up not being able to use them to do something else.
So, how do you determine when using up one's own resources ( and therefore, restricting one's own capacity to do more things ) is better than not using them ?
Curious George
Veteran Member
No i am using that as an advantage and i am saying a benefit is an added advantage.
And when you asked i already explained that we were discussing definitions. Otherwise i would not have said "by definition."
yet you got something in the process.
This is a non sequitur. It does not follow that if i exchange apples for oranges that i am now in a inferior position.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
If you buy some apples you no longer have the money you used to buy them, thus losing the capacity to use that money to buy other things.
How do you determine when losing the capacity to do things is worth the thing you have gained in exchange ?
How do you determine whether any exchange is beneficial or detrimental ?
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
I will have to defer on the topic of determinism, but will say that I also question that we have free will in the absolute sense.
I also agree with you that we can know nothing "absolutely". Which means that we can't be absolutely sure that view is correct, either. LOL
Curious George
Veteran Member
Reason
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Elaborate ?
Curious George
Veteran Member
Not sure what you don't understand a person reaches the conclusion that something is beneficial based on reasoning. Were we to decide whether something was in fact beneficial or detrimental we would need to employ the same.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Sure, but using what premises ?
From where do you gather the premises that you employ on your reasoning to reach the conclusion that something is beneficial ?
Where do they come from ? What are they ?
Curious George
Veteran Member
Well from observation and from other reasoning. How is this relevant?
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Extremely so.
I will give you an example:
P1) There are green shoes being sold for 20$ at the market.
P2) ...
C) Therefore, it is ( not ) beneficial to buy those green shoes.
What is P2 and how does 'observation' lead you to P2 ( Or P3, P4, P5... ) ?
Curious George
Veteran Member
You are still in the green shoe kick?
Well if we are off in make believe land on your way to the mall you observed a person giving $50 to people with green shoes. There is an observation that will help you sort out whether to buy your green shoes or not.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Great, but we are talking about spending money in exchange for something. Consider you are not getting any money back, you have 20$ less after buying the shoes, so how would you arrive at P2 through observation ?
Curious George
Veteran Member
Well P2 might be that you have no shoes at all. That would be an observation.