AN UNFREE CHOICE? (TAXIDRIVER) mentally unbalanced.

Illi was sitting in the chair twiddling with his chubby fingers when his thoughts started live their own life.

“It would be easy to use violence, if I wanted to use. To beat, to hit to pieces… But I don’t want to be cruel. A jerk. Yeah. That is! Going bananas,” Toni illi snarls like an urban jungle.

“I could come and smash you like… like a mirror scattering all over the floor. However, I just don’t want. I don’t want to plan… to decide to kill you.

Nothing external to me,demons or madmen, hold back from tearing apart you. No, I don’t acknowledge. I have no inner inhibitions. I just don’t want. Don’t yell. Come on let’s no yelling!

I walk in your home, open the door, throw away a blanket and start strangling. But I said it already. I don’t want.”

Possibilities exist beyond the natural reality. And he has been thinking a while. He is free to go. It is possible him to leave his home. That is, going is a possibility, but it does not appear now in space. It is non-going. Freedom possibilities are in human thoughts. Toni Illi causes them within his own psyche.

A human but a dogmatic mind

1) A person x is not able to think than in one way.

2) Free act requires possibilities to do otherwise.

3) However, a person x has not a possibility to think that in this one particular way. (Maybe x is brainwashed or a mind of x is political or.)

4) Therefore, x is not free, and x is not a freethinker (from 1, 2 and 3).

(free Mr. Gaddafi´s mind!)

A word "a face" and the face

A person x grasps a meaning of the concept “a face”, and grasping it causes an image of a face in the consciousness of x.

But how is that causality possible in the Universe? Further, how does the connection of grasping and a mental image connect with a person’s physical body or its central neural system?

I HAVE NOT BEEN UNDERSTANDING THAT.

(an image: René Magritte, “The Rape”, 1934)

The Death of Socrates: but why?

Philosophizing -> Mental healthy or better reasoning are final causes.

Exercising -> Healthy or look or admiration or sex are final causes. That is, one exercises because of wanting to look good. One believes by exercising one will look good.

According to Socrates virtue is sufficient to happiness meaning to focus on self-development rather than the pursuit of material wealth. Nevertheless, the choice is your personal – problem, a mental problem.
(A program on Socrates – to listen)

Ville: Well, tell me why philosophizing would be useful?

Marjatta: Nobody is home. A man’s question you boy.

V: Thus, what’s it?

M: So where it?

V: That’ is.

M: Tee! What it?

V: So, where it?

M: No, get it!

V: Could it? Wank it?

M: Yes I told it already!

V: So what is it?

M: If nobody is home, then philosophizing is.

And she points a finger at her head at the same time.

A goal as a cause: doing A because of B. B is a goal and doing A is an effect which would lead to the goal B, or so Marjatta believes in, and thus she chooses to do A. However, Marjatta does not grasp why B materializes in her thoughts to the desiring thing.

First, a politician sees a hand and infers from inner feeling “It’s my hand”. He perceives that he points then to himself by his little finger and starts slowly moving it towards his ugly stomach. He sees how his hand is moving. Finally, a politician feels touching within himself.

Seeing a hand or an image in front of a mind

Those are descriptions and thus they are not causal explanations. For example, moving a hand is not the same as interaction of cells inside of his hand. Similarly, seeing a hand in front of one’s eyes is not the same as eyes’ moving due to sexual desire. In brief, we report what appear to us. We do not perceive relations between a hand, light and eyes and their optic nerves.

The contra factual analysis of causality may have a form “If not A, then not B”. Can we then insist: if there won’t be seeing a hand, inferring “It is my hand”, pointing by a finger,starting move a hand, seeing a hand’s moving, then there won’t be feeling touch? A politician sees a hand. However, it does not follow from his seeing he will feel touching soon. He touches his left hand by the fingers of the right hand. That is, he experiences seeing, moving and touching but sees no causality among them. It just seems to him that the hands are over a table appearing round and hard, the walls of a room seems to be yellow, although the surfaces of the walls have no colors, and the form of the hands emerges from the material structures of tiny elements.

Finally,

1) One perceives deciding to move one’s own hand and moving it

2) They both are effects

3) One misrepresents that deciding causes moving

4) Nevertheless, there are only two effects because

5) Their cause is one and the same subject: a bodily person with faculties of experience and thinking

6) There are two acts which are effects: I decide and I move my hand (from 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

7) These acts have a same but between them there is not a causal connection (from 6, 5, 3)

NOT: One’s deciding -> one’s moving

Two hands in two different places behind two eyes?

BUT

a person -> deciding

AND

a person -> moving

(From experience but I’m not sure about the text above. Please explain.)

You have been meeting a tiger.

Promoting self-sufficiency, not fame: Diogenes of Sinope

Maria: “I don’t know… It gives a faculty to recognize when a man or a woman is indoctrinated and brainwashed and a prisoner of some world view. A prisoner of science, politics, nature, men or… Or whatever.”

Matias: “Bitch! What on earth is philosophy of any use for anybody? Explain!”

Maria: “The use is such that one grasps that a man or a woman not being able to think nothing but work and money is not free. How is that? By philosophy. Can you?”

Matias: “Can what fucking what?”

Maria: “To reason… Or being able to think something else?”

Matias:

Maria: “Thanks! Bitch.”

Matias: “Hey come on! That’s not fair.”

Maria: “Philosophy as a way of life… Yeah that is. One educates oneself. It’s the means to the peace of mind. I’m afraid of philosophy as a lifestyle and a culture is disappearing due to the academic philosophers deifying science and matter.”

Matias: “I wanna… No! Wanting drinking is so gooooodd.”

Maria: “Politicos and state moralists like you. They play their game behind the scene being a part of the problem. States make the world in Earth insecure, not philosophers.”

THE CYNICS AND FREE ONESELF FROM CONVENTIONS (A radio discussion about the Cynics, 45 minutes)

A controversial claim! If Mrs. Jones is a person, how can she be many too? And if a group of politicians consists of many individuals, how can it be one when there are actually five persons? One is not identical with five.

That is a thing or a whole - or the impression of a bike.

A thesis: Two different categories x and y differ in each other absolutely, eg. they are not identical with or similar to.

From a thesis follows

if a category x includes A, a category y doesn’t include A. It seems to me that A is supposed to be a category too. And x is not the same as y.

A question: is a thing in the same category as a whole?

From a question:

No, because they are two different categories. It’s possible there are many things and they form a set. But a thing only is one and the same. In fact, a whole is more abstract than a thing, a contingent thing like a book of Kafka. A set is the most abstract.

How can many books be one substance Book?

A claim 2: A whole is its parts, simple parts, but it loses and gains them. So, its identity doesn’t remain over time and change, such as a human body or the nature.

A conclusion: A is a substance and A is not a whole because a substance and a whole is not identical with (from a thesis, a claim 1 and a claim 2).

For instance, for birds flying is natural. For fish swimming in the water is the natural function. For humans thinking is the practical habit to be active in the natural environment.

If birds’ wings are cut off, their natural instinct is prevented. If a human being is forced not to think like he or she wants to think, his or her natural instinct of being in the world has been destroyed.

Peace doesn’t mean silence inside of mouths and lack of contradictions in human relationship. Peace in society doesn’t collapse when people criticizes a leading bloc and claims our real life is not what news, movies and authorities tell us and when people disagree with and rebel. In brief, to prevent one’s thinking is violence, not peace. What one sees is not always true

But is to protect one’s thinking peaceful then? Let’s think it together, my friend:

1. If one must protect peace, it is not violence (Protection: why not violent act? I don’t know… this is problematic. It’s to prevent that harmony doesn’t change but continues. But not violence?)
2. If two parties or persons have a quarrel, peace has disappeared (from experience)
3. If peace disappears, one must protect peace (Peace is better than war; self-evident)
4. They start fighting
5. Peace disappears (from 2 and 4)
6. One must protect peace (from 3 and 5)

7. So, the protection of peace is not violence (from 1 and 6)

Freedom of speech occurs AND doesn’t occur in China – logically true?

But the protection of peace by violence is violence (the logic of despotism!)

Does mental illness strengthen? (The ill Nietzsche, 1899)

Let’s considering next Friedrich Nietzsche’s claim on “On the Genealogy of Morals”: “According to slave morality, therefore, the ‘evil person’ arouses fear; according master morality, it is precisely the ‘good person’ who arouses and wishes to arouse fear, whilst the ‘bad man’ is felt to be contemptible.” Although you would disagree with Nietzsche, you must acknowledge he’s right, if you are an ethical Relativist or Subjectivist.

Oh no! You shout: “It’s morally right to cut one’s hand if one writes something bad about people and its loving ruler!” But, but, but! You must accept your hand also cut, if a group is treated roughly by some culture. It’s not fair to exclude yourself. Put yourself too in a group!

An ethical absolute may be the following one: Persons are always both agents and objects. When considering goodness or badness of acts, put yourself also in the situation of victims.

If you claim that cultural relativism is true, you must accept what other culture do to you because from their perspective it is right to treat you cruelly although you blame it wrong. In general, when somebody says to be a Relativist, it means only “I do whatever I want to do”. Listen, for example, to Socialists or Economists – or to the radio.

There aren't blocs within children's minds.

To form own ends requires freedom from actual desires and impulses. But kids are dependent on guardians’ choices. That’s why children can’t be morally accountable for their acts to norms of the society. Their parents are…

It’s said that kids mirror a society. That claim may be true. So, does school shooting mirror a society and adults? Actions, that is, mirror ourselves: we are in our actions, our internal essence is visible in our own actions. We are responsible for our kids actions, if Kids mirror a society, adult’s conduct and their parents’ world view. ?Absolute school leaving?

If the responsible action is the action expressing self-adopted ends and being free from previous physical contacts, which forces one to act, kids can’t be fully responsible for their acts, harmful or fruitful. Adults decide for kids what they do next. However, girls and boys are agents who cause their own actions. So agent-causality would be the act without determining previous causes before an effect: kid’s actions which determining causes are actors themselves.