Lord, deliver us from lying to ourselves

[pearl]

The Holocaust survivor Primo Levi noted that we inevitably ask two questions of those who commit atrocities: First, why did you do it? And second, did you realize you were committing a crime? Today, numerous direct confessions are at our disposal. About them Levi writes:

The answer to these two questions, and others along the same lines, are very similar, regardless of the personality of the individual who is questioned.... Using different formulations, and with greater or less insolence, depending on their mental and educational level, they all end up saying basically the same thing: I did it because I was ordered to; other people, my superiors, committed deeds that were worse than mine; considering the upbringing I had and the environment I lived in, I could not have behaved otherwise; if I hadn’t done these things, someone else would have, and more brutally. The first impulse of anyone who reads these justifications is revulsion: they’re lying, they can’t think that anyone would believe them. They can’t see the disproportion between their excuse and the vast suffering and death they’ve caused. They lie knowing that they’re lying; they do so in bad faith.
Levi thinks it runs deeper than that. These monstrous criminals are not simply lying to us. They have learned to deceive themselves. What they tell us is not spoken in good or bad faith.

The silent transition from lie to self-deception is useful: he who lies in good faith lies better, plays his part better, and is more readily believed by the judge, the historian, the reader, the wife, the children (The Drowned and the Saved, 1986).
Lord, deliver us from lying to ourselves | America Magazine

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

…/I did it because I was ordered to; other people, my superiors, committed deeds that were worse than mine; considering the upbringing I had and the environment I lived in, I could not have behaved otherwise; if I hadn’t done these things, someone else would have/…

I could not help but notice how similar this is to what an entrepreneur friend of mine said long after his retirement.

Humbly
Hermit

 

[AlexanderG]

After watching the political rise of Donald Trump and the behavior of his supporters, I feel I have a much better understanding of how the Third Reich and the Holocaust came about. And I'm honestly not trying to be politically provocative here. There are many scholarly articles that have been written on this topic in just the past few years, to study why people are drawn to authoritarian movements and the psychology of how these movements can change people.

In particular, I've read that joining an authoritarian movement creates several benefits for the participant. In particular, they are granted a sense of being part of an important greater whole, of joining a greater purpose that in turn suffuses their own life with this greater meaning. This is emotionally rewarding for someone who has felt afraid, confused, and adrift for much of their life (economic stressors, bigotry, poor education and a sense of inferiority play into this).

Unfortunately, this emotional reward is so attractive, and the positive feedback so appealing, that these followers will then become willing to engage in horrific acts or accept incoherent beliefs just to preserve that feeling and retain their sense of hope, meaning, and purpose. This destructive loop coupled to unquestionable dogma is also present in conservative religious sects, I believe. I think it is an ancient part of our human nature that evolved to our benefit when we lived in small familial tribes that competed with other tribes. Our flawed reasoning in this context would actually help the group survive, but in modern times this human predilection is obsolete. It has become a net detriment, and societies have evolved faster than our neurological evolution can keep up with. I think malignant leaders are aware of this trait in people, and they can harness and abuse it.

Some people today insist Trump actually won the 2020 election, because it is necessary that they believe this in order to maintain the social identity that gives them their hope, meaning, and purpose. Same for the Nazis and their atrocities. The cognitive dissonance and moral dissonance is superseded by the desperate need for continued hope, meaning, and purpose. That's my take, at least.

 

[Estro Felino]

We all have a free will.

There are two categories of free will deniers

1) Those who in good faith think man is helpless and cannot change history for good, because he has neither willpower nor freedom to do it

2) Those in bad faith who deny free will exists, in order to get away with any action their mind conceives.
A thought that is put into action.


We choose every second of our lives.

The problem is that not so many turn back and wonder whether they did they right thing or not.


Nazis were the free will deniers in bad faith.

 

[sun rise]

I think it is an ancient part of our human nature that evolved to our benefit when we lived in small familial tribes that competed with other tribes.

I agree that it's a very old part of human nature, what I would call the "separative ego" but it works the same no matter what our description.

The cognitive dissonance and moral dissonance is superseded by the desperate need for continued hope, meaning, and purpose.

The dissonance is perceived as a threat that must be repelled.

 

[Estro Felino]

Si non vis Veritatem audire, nemo tibi dicere potest.

That is what Pilate's wife says to her own husband.

What does it mean?
That we all have free will.
If you want to get the Truth, you will have to want to listen to it.
If you dont listen, you will nevet get to the Truth.

Of course they lie to themselves.
Actually they say they are for the Truth, but they are deaf to It

 

[AlexanderG]

We all have a free will.

There are two categories of free will deniers

1) Those who in good faith think man is helpless and cannot change history for good, because he has neither willpower nor freedom to do it

2) Those in bad faith who deny free will exists, in order to get away with any action their mind conceives.
A thought that is put into action.


We choose every second of our lives.

The problem is that not so many turn back and wonder whether they did they right thing or not.


Nazis were the free will deniers in bad faith.

Interesting post.

I don't think free will exists because it is logically impossible, but I do feel that I can change history for the good with my "willpower and freedom"; the will that I'm determined to have is not significantly fettered or superseded by other determining factors. I'm also not interested in "getting away with any action my mind conceives" because I recognize that some actions I can conceive of would have terrible consequences for me that I don't want. I think that I'm determined by my nature and upbringing to be a mostly good person who wants to do good things for other people. I don't think your two categories are a constructive way of thinking about this issue, because many people will feel it's just a straw man argument.

You seem to be focusing on how we determine and justify blameworthiness, but I don't think that's what the OP was really about.

 

[Estro Felino]

Interesting post.

I don't think free will exists because it is logically impossible, but I do feel that I can change history for the good with my "willpower and freedom"; the will that I'm determined to have is not significantly fettered or superseded by other determining factors. I'm also not interested in "getting away with any action my mind conceives" because I recognize that some actions I can conceive of would have terrible consequences for me that I don't want. I think that I'm determined by my nature and upbringing to be a mostly good person who wants to do good things for other people. I don't think your two categories are a constructive way of thinking about this issue, because many people will feel it's just a straw man argument.

You seem to be focusing on how we determine and justify blameworthiness, but I don't think that's what the OP was really about.

I am a Christian.
I was raised Catholic and I was brought up to think that way.
Many sermons I have attended in my life, were about free will. And how free will is important, since sin is something avoidable. Absolutely not inevitable.

 

[Estro Felino]

You seem to be focusing on how we determine and justify blameworthiness, but I don't think that's what the OP was really about.

I guess it was, actually.
The OP is about a Catholic priest's article/sermon.

 

[AlexanderG]

I am a Christian.
I was raised Catholic and I was brought up to think that way.
Many sermons I have attended in my life, were about free will. And how free will is important, since sin is something avoidable. Absolutely not inevitable.

Right, your social/personal identity and the hope, meaning, and purpose that you derive from it requires you to believe in free will. Without that belief, your theological understanding of reality becomes too incoherent. Without the blameworthiness of people for their "free" choices, your god would be evil to still infinitely punish them, or your god might have no need to exist. You can't accept either of those options while still maintaining the emotional benefit that your beliefs afford you. This falls within the model that I described in my first post in this thread. You have embraced some cognitive dissonance in order to obtain an emotional benefit.

When you make a choice, it is either:
1. Done for reasons, where the reasons for and against a particular choice are procedurally weighed in your mind, with the more compelling reasons "for" superseding the less compelling "against." In this case, your choice is determined by the reasons. No free will.
2. Done for no reasons, in which case your choice is random. No free will.

This is a "P or not P" true dichotomy. Choices are made for reasons (determined) or no reasons (random). Even if you had a soul letting you make choices, it would still choose for reasons or no reasons. I've never heard a coherent description of how a third option is possible here. I don't see any force, property, or power that can override causation in that way. You can baldly assert that it is so, but that's not convincing for me at all given the logical dichotomy.

Anyway, sorry for getting a little off-topic. I think that in the case of people like Nazis and insurrectionists, we can conclude that their nature and experiences have determined them to make choices that are destructive for society, humanity, or the rest of us around them, and so we are determined to remove them from our society using pragmatic if imperfect solutions like imprisonment.

 

[Lain]

The Holocaust survivor Primo Levi noted that we inevitably ask two questions of those who commit atrocities: First, why did you do it? And second, did you realize you were committing a crime? Today, numerous direct confessions are at our disposal. About them Levi writes:

The answer to these two questions, and others along the same lines, are very similar, regardless of the personality of the individual who is questioned.... Using different formulations, and with greater or less insolence, depending on their mental and educational level, they all end up saying basically the same thing: I did it because I was ordered to; other people, my superiors, committed deeds that were worse than mine; considering the upbringing I had and the environment I lived in, I could not have behaved otherwise; if I hadn’t done these things, someone else would have, and more brutally. The first impulse of anyone who reads these justifications is revulsion: they’re lying, they can’t think that anyone would believe them. They can’t see the disproportion between their excuse and the vast suffering and death they’ve caused. They lie knowing that they’re lying; they do so in bad faith.
Levi thinks it runs deeper than that. These monstrous criminals are not simply lying to us. They have learned to deceive themselves. What they tell us is not spoken in good or bad faith.

The silent transition from lie to self-deception is useful: he who lies in good faith lies better, plays his part better, and is more readily believed by the judge, the historian, the reader, the wife, the children (The Drowned and the Saved, 1986).
Lord, deliver us from lying to ourselves | America Magazine

It says at the end, "All we can do is distrust our own assessments and cry out, 'Jesus, Son of David, have pity on me.'" Amen. It says in the Council of Orange II that "No one has anything of his own except lying and sin. But if man has any truth and justice, it is from that fountain for which we ought to thirst in this desert, that bedewed by some drops of water from it, we may not falter on the way." May the Lord grant it to us as He promises to do in Jeremiah there.

(All the above is my opinion.)

 

[PureX]

The Holocaust survivor Primo Levi noted that we inevitably ask two questions of those who commit atrocities: First, why did you do it? And second, did you realize you were committing a crime? Today, numerous direct confessions are at our disposal. About them Levi writes:

The answer to these two questions, and others along the same lines, are very similar, regardless of the personality of the individual who is questioned.... Using different formulations, and with greater or less insolence, depending on their mental and educational level, they all end up saying basically the same thing: I did it because I was ordered to; other people, my superiors, committed deeds that were worse than mine; considering the upbringing I had and the environment I lived in, I could not have behaved otherwise; if I hadn’t done these things, someone else would have, and more brutally. The first impulse of anyone who reads these justifications is revulsion: they’re lying, they can’t think that anyone would believe them. They can’t see the disproportion between their excuse and the vast suffering and death they’ve caused. They lie knowing that they’re lying; they do so in bad faith.
Levi thinks it runs deeper than that. These monstrous criminals are not simply lying to us. They have learned to deceive themselves. What they tell us is not spoken in good or bad faith.

The silent transition from lie to self-deception is useful: he who lies in good faith lies better, plays his part better, and is more readily believed by the judge, the historian, the reader, the wife, the children (The Drowned and the Saved, 1986).
Lord, deliver us from lying to ourselves | America Magazine

An excellent introduction to a very important subject. Thank you.

 

[Lain]

When you make a choice, it is either:
1. Done for reasons, where the reasons for and against a particular choice are procedurally weighed in your mind, with the more compelling reasons for superseding the less compelling against. In this case, your choice is determined by the reasons. No free will.
2. Done for no reasons, in which case your choice is random. No free will.

It is a very peculiar definition of "free will" that requires that a choice be irrational (or rational and not be free). In my opinion free will is not to be defined like that at all, and of course there are many definitions and accounts of it. One that is my favorite (for it is in accord with many others I found beforehand and seems to explain them all) is this:

"Freedom is a being’s power to flourish as what it naturally is, to become ever more fully what it is. The freedom of an oak seed is its uninterrupted growth into an oak tree. The freedom of a rational spirit is its consummation in union with God. Freedom is never then the mere 'negative liberty' of indeterminate openness to everything; if rational liberty consisted in simple indeterminacy of the will, then no fruitful distinction could be made between personal agency and pure impersonal impulse or pure chance."

But all of that is just my opinion.

 

[PureX]

After watching the political rise of Donald Trump and the behavior of his supporters, I feel I have a much better understanding of how the Third Reich and the Holocaust came about. And I'm honestly not trying to be politically provocative here. There are many scholarly articles that have been written on this topic in just the past few years, to study why people are drawn to authoritarian movements and the psychology of how these movements can change people.

In particular, I've read that joining an authoritarian movement creates several benefits for the participant. In particular, they are granted a sense of being part of an important greater whole, of joining a greater purpose that in turn suffuses their own life with this greater meaning. This is emotionally rewarding for someone who has felt afraid, confused, and adrift for much of their life (economic stressors, bigotry, poor education and a sense of inferiority play into this).

Unfortunately, this emotional reward is so attractive, and the positive feedback so appealing, that these followers will then become willing to engage in horrific acts or accept incoherent beliefs just to preserve that feeling and retain their sense of hope, meaning, and purpose. This destructive loop coupled to unquestionable dogma is also present in conservative religious sects, I believe. I think it is an ancient part of our human nature that evolved to our benefit when we lived in small familial tribes that competed with other tribes. Our flawed reasoning in this context would actually help the group survive, but in modern times this human predilection is obsolete. It has become a net detriment, and societies have evolved faster than our neurological evolution can keep up with. I think malignant leaders are aware of this trait in people, and they can harness and abuse it.

Some people today insist Trump actually won the 2020 election, because it is necessary that they believe this in order to maintain the social identity that gives them their hope, meaning, and purpose. Same for the Nazis and their atrocities. The cognitive dissonance and moral dissonance is superseded by the desperate need for continued hope, meaning, and purpose. That's my take, at least.

One thing I would add to this: regarding humanity's past and present day attraction to authoritarian lies and deceptions (internal and external) ... they only work when the illusions they provide for people (of status, purpose, righteousness, superiority, security, and so on) are NOT BEING PROVIDED BY THEIR EXPERIENCE OF REALITY. The reason this sickness is growing among so many people all around the world is because our current culture is failing to provide for these essential psychological needs. Capitalism is failing humanity, and those who are feeling it hardest are seeking remedy in whatever way is nearest to hand. And those wannabe criminal tyrants are always hanging around awaiting their chance to step in and provide the necessary delusions.

 

[Rival]

***THREAD MOVED TO GENERAL DEBATES***​

 

[PureX]

"Free will" is a moot issue. From our perspective, we have free will whether we have it or not. And we have no other perspective but ours. So the issue is moot.

 

[Estro Felino]

Right, your social/personal identity and the hope, meaning, and purpose that you derive from it requires you to believe in free will. Without that belief, your theological understanding of reality becomes too incoherent. Without the blameworthiness of people for their "free" choices, your god would be evil to still infinitely punish them, or your god might have no need to exist. You can't accept either of those options while still maintaining the emotional benefit that your beliefs afford you. This falls within the model that I described in my first post in this thread. You have embraced some cognitive dissonance in order to obtain an emotional benefit.

When you make a choice, it is either:
1. Done for reasons, where the reasons for and against a particular choice are procedurally weighed in your mind, with the more compelling reasons "for" superseding the less compelling "against." In this case, your choice is determined by the reasons. No free will.
2. Done for no reasons, in which case your choice is random. No free will.

This is a "P or not P" true dichotomy. Choices are made for reasons (determined) or no reasons (random). Even if you had a soul letting you make choices, it would still choose for reasons or no reasons. I've never heard a coherent description of how a third option is possible here. I don't see any force, property, or power that can override causation in that way. You can baldly assert that it is so, but that's not convincing for me at all given the logical dichotomy.

Anyway, sorry for getting a little off-topic. I think that in the case of people like Nazis and insurrectionists, we can conclude that their nature and experiences have determined them to make choices that are destructive for society, humanity, or the rest of us around them, and so we are determined to remove them from our society using pragmatic if imperfect solutions like imprisonment.

I deeply respect your vision.

Things are simpler than how you describe it, imho.
That is: we have evolved from non-humans. That is animals. The animal does thing for reasons.
That is, the lion kills the zebra because it wants to eat.
We are still evolving as human species.
God perfectly understand that.
That we are faillible because we descend from animals. Non-humans.
In His mind He conceived as humans.

The fact the man is faillible, does not imply that man cannot choose among so many options.
And the options are countless.

I was listening to an old interview with Primo Levi.
He said exactly that. We descend from animals so it is clear that evil derives from the chaotic nature animals have.
And that humans dont know how to suppress yet.
But he said that it is possible to suppress it.

 

[Estro Felino]

"Free will" is a moot issue. From our perspective, we have free will whether we have it or not. And we have no other perspective but ours. So the issue is moot.

If free will did not exist, jails would be almost empty.
Because many murders are committed by not dangerous people. Who committed crimes because they were not able to suppress their negative pulsions.

But if free will doesn't exist, it means that the judge cannot jail a person who was not able to decide between
A) kill the person
B) not to kill them

So most murderers would be acquitted.


The fact that the judge condemns them, it means free will exists.

 

[pearl]

Some people today insist Trump actually won the 2020 election, because it is necessary that they believe this in order to maintain the social identity that gives them their hope, meaning, and purpose. Same for the Nazis and their atrocities. The cognitive dissonance and moral dissonance is superseded by the desperate need for continued hope, meaning, and purpose. That's my take, at least.

And this may be one explanation as to why differing beliefs that influence how the history of the Civil War is presented.
Isabel Wilkerson: ‘The defeated’ wrote the history of the Civil War
"How was it that a rioter was able to deliver the confederate flag further than Robert E. Lee himself?” …


https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=site:www.msnbc.com&FORM=NWBCLM

 

[AlexanderG]

"Free will" is a moot issue. From our perspective, we have free will whether we have it or not. And we have no other perspective but ours. So the issue is moot.

I totally agree. We functionally have free will, for the purpose of going about our lives and interacting with other people, even if technically we probably don't have free will.

The only gripe I really have is when religious people impose blame on humans for acting according to how they claim a god created them via perfect foreknowledge, having the ability to create them differently if that god chose to do so. This seems like a logical contradiction, clearly establishing a god whose perfect, pre-ordained plan we must necessarily adhere to irrespective of our choice or will, while also establishing that this god shall justly punish us for adhering to his plan. And they call this good and just, and insist that free will is why humans deserve infinite violent punishment. It just seems contradictory, ridiculous, and morally incoherent.