JDorian wrote:I just don't happen to agree with your unproven assertion that it eliminates will.
Well I'm sorry but I didn't say that it would "eliminate" the will. Deterministic materialism brings in a different perspective than existentialism on the will and what it might be capable of; if it exists, or how it exists and how it might work.
What you seem to be saying over and over is that since you have your will and others have their will that is equal to people having "free" will. Or that people have the possibility to "emancipate" themselves from the will of others. To me that is a bit superficial even tho from its own perspective it might be correct.
My perspective is that people can never be slaves to someone else without their own cooperation. But, and this is an important but; This cooperation might not be conscious. How does the Stockholm syndrome work for instance?
Again we have to look at how the organism works to figure it out. It's not enough to just see that people have the potential, albeit in embryo, to act on their own. What is required is to understand what the will is, where it is, and what influences or guides it. It appears that there is a multitude of causes behind one single act. So we have to ask, if the will exists, what is it for? What does it do and what is its aim? Is the will intelligent? Not the way it seems... animals have will and they are not as intelligent as humans. Humans have will, but humans can be dull, average or brilliant. So it appears that "will" is simply a biological program of the primitive parts of the brain that is concerned only with survival and to maximize pleasure and minimize pain.
But on top of that basic urge there is a platform (large brain) of reasoning; this reasoning provides information for what kind of action will lead to the kind of pleasure the brain/body seeks. It can even include self sacrifice; Because most of us do have the ability to get pleasure from seeing the well being of others. And most also have the ability to get pleasure from looking good. Self sacrifice looks good; It is celebrated in society.
But back to the Stockholm syndrome, what happens in that situation? My theory is (and I can only speculate at this moment) that the kidnapper uses threats and force and acts of kindness to win his victims over to his side, his beliefs and his values. When they have converted their values and beliefs to their oppressor and see everything his way, they will make choices that is consistent to his beliefs and values. What seems to occur is like a reprogramming of values and when the values are similar to that of the kidnapper the victims are "won over" because the will is preprogrammed and operating towards survival; And with the new information from the kidnapper, the guide has found a different course of action.
The only difference is what sort of information the will is being informed by. I actually think that the will never changes; In the sense that the will can be "converted" or "change its nature"; It merely signals to the brain what it wants. It has only a few simple goals that are biologically predestined in the reptile brain; Generally pleasure and survival. The only thing that changes is the beliefs of the more developed parts of the brain. When those beliefs change, a different course of action will be plotted. So in that sense the will is "free"; Because not even we have control over it. We can only guide it. And we can only guide it from what we know or have information of.
But from a freewillers point of view this is all irrelevant because what is important is the empancipation of the will; I don't know from who or what, but I'm guessing other people and circumstances. Judging from such an argument they do not take into consideration that the will is part of any circumstance it may be found in; Anything else would be to break the rules of physics.
The brain is like a computer in the sense that it is a self teaching computer. As children we program this brain with as much information as we can so that we are adapted to the circumstances that we will continue to live in. When we did this we didn't differentiate between the brain programming itself and us filling it with information and knowledge. Only when we get older and have gotten enough information and knowledge to be able to analyze what we have been filling our heads with can we do that. But a lot of people never do this. They stick to what they programmed themselves with as children.
If you want to change your life and emancipate yourself from others influence it doesn't work to just believe you can do it. You have to reprogram yourself; Change your beliefs and values. But how are you gonna do it if you never done it before or had no one to teach you? And how are you gonna do it without new information?
That raises another criticism of existentialism; That people can change their lives from a conscious choice of will. But as I outlined; It is not about the will! The will trudges on as before. It has to do with your beliefs. And to change your belief by simply including yet one more belief that "You can change!" doesn't change anything. It is just another one of those easy things to say because they sound good; It's fluff. Changing your mind takes a lot of work (speaking not only from my own personal experience); And a mind that has not been changed will not be capable of moving towards different circumstances. It will bring with it the beliefs and values it was preprogrammed with and work towards the old aim that included those old circumstances. Ever wondered why battered women return to their abusive husbands?
Everyone are their own wardens in that sense. But there is no difference between the conscious "you", the brain and that warden. When the mind has been changed, when the ideas it was previously programmed with are analyzed and compared with facts, there is a chance of reprogramming taking place and if it is successful the mind will plot a different course and guide the will towards different circumstances.
Then you're simply jumping to an illogical conclusion and making a straw man argument out of it. Where does Sartre say "you are not limited by (the conditions of) reality"? Why should it be necessary to specify that you are?
Because it is important to be specific to not be misunderstood, I think you would agree with that? A teaching that says "you can be anything you want to be" but doesn't explain any limitations, what is that? I give you a hint, it begins with fl..... and ends with ...uff.