Hey Ouranos, Wei, Jane - I'm glad to see you all here. Thanks for taking the time to offer some input.
Ouranos wrote:
Rudolf Steiner in the second part of the "Philosophy of Freedom" outlines the free will concept.
'Free will' suggests someone whose actions are not conditioned by his drives, habits or commandments. Which is not possible because we are not disconnected from our environment. And he says that only those who draw the reasons for their actions from pure or 'free thinking' act freely and self-determinedly.
So he places 'free thinking' over 'free will'.
Very early in the discussion (around 3:30), Baumeister shares a similar sentiment when he mentions that "free will," and specifically the use of the word
will, might not be the most appropriate term to use in exploring this question. I'm not sure whether Baumeister's thinking overlaps with Steiner's much further because I haven't read Steiner on my own and am admittedly more aware of criticisms of his work (claims of ecofascism, racism, and inciting Nazism) than I am intimately familiar with his writing firsthand - but I do find value? solace? in the singular quote you shared.
Ouranos wrote:
In astrology, a great astrologer is not someone who is being copied by other astrologers but someone who cannot be copied. A free thinker who has opened up the gates of knowledge and to which we should all strive.
I'm a little wary of this take, Ouranos. lol. It heads into some misty terrain IMO - reminiscent of the theosophical stance on evolved vs. unevolved souls - an outlook I have a hard time getting down with. But that's just where I stand - to each their own.
Wei wrote:This is an exceptionally profound question.
You can say that again, Wei :) Thanks for sharing some of your personal history and teasing out thoughts on this. You mention:
Wei wrote:
this year I gradually realized that my true motives lie within, rather than in external exploration.
I attempted to connect with my own subconscious and the collective unconscious (through studying classic fairy tales, myths, and legends). I feel that my inner self has become increasingly calm, accompanied by an indescribable sense of peace and contentment.
and I'm glad to hear it.
It's hard to describe, but investigating the question of "Who are you?" has been a gateway for me in my personal life, and it sounds like this is what you are describing. Astrology, literature and legends, philosophy, etc. have all been pivotal to this exploration - but I also realize that, not unlike your mention of visiting your homeland this year and feeling that many people were just "following the same script", the structures outlined in astrology, literature, philosophy, etc are also a script of sorts, a scaffolding of concepts which can have influence on our thinking and decision-making for better or for worse. I try and allow myself to put them down as much as I can and tune in to what might be referred to as "felt sense" - a kind of bodymind convergence. But that's a whole other can of worms I won't get into here.
janegca wrote:
I think Sapolsky's argument is a back door argument for the death penalty or life imprisonment. If a person commits an offense once he is bound to commit it again, and again, and again because he is fated to do so; there's a buried case for eugenics in there somewhere.
Jane, I'm glad you found the talk interesting. I'm with you on the quoted text above. It seems like a slippery slope to me too.