REALLY, DID HE DECIDE FREELY?

AN UNFREE CHOICE? (TAXIDRIVER) mentally unbalanced.

Toni “Poika” Illi left the office when he was 55 years old. Everybody respected him in the government machinery. But nothing stopped him from leaving there.Nothing compelled him to stay. He didn’t want to be like everyone else. Human nature didn’t coerce to be like an everyman. “Does it generally cause to be?”, I wandered looking at these human beings over there, in their planet Earth.

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.

What Is Violence Against Humanity: A Suggestion

The representatives of every species have natural way to act. So have human beings too, a woman or a man, and vice versa.

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!)

Fragments of Philosophy: Is There Ethical Absolute?

Most people think themselves in situations as agents but not as objects of acts of someone else. Many thinks also that everyone’s own moral beliefs are right and that different cultures’ moral beliefs about the same act are as right. Thus, my moral beliefs are true for me and your beliefs are true for you. May be moral facts are different on which we are talking.

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.

Responsibility 2: Kids deserve better

There aren't blocs within children's minds.

Kids and their actions are, in partly, their guardians’ responsibility. Kids must be educated as autonomous and critical citizens who are capable to reason their own ends, not politicos’ or guardians’ ends. That’s because responsibility entails freedom, which means non-determined acts and autonomy from the external causes in the material world. So, kids deserve to become better thinkers – not better soldiers free to die for nothingness.

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.

Fragments of Philosophy: A Little Idea about Freedom

If a person has been freed from conceptual thinking, then is he or she free? May be you don’t grasp the question.

The economy gives ready-made answers what to do, it has, then, released people from thinking. Has the economy made them free citizens, socialist and market economy? Don’t you grasp the question?

No, it hasn’t. They’re not free because she or he was freed from thinking*.

*WARNING: Don’t be upset if you grasp the text above.

Fragments of Philosophy: Responsibility 1

Responsibility exists as a general abstract idea although one can’t see it: one grasps it. Reasoning persons become under the idea of responsibility when acting without brainwashing and pressure of threat, that is, acting and reasoning as the autonomous minds.

It’s a fact we distinguish responsible from irresponsible people, like wise from ignorant. But if the word “responsibility” is nothing but a subjective belief and one’s belief is true for him, then everybody is as responsible as someone else. So each person’s private beliefs would be true: what things seem to each person to be like, that is also what they really are like. For example, Mr. Jones sees a car but Mr. Smith hallucinates and seems to see a pink elephant. Their impressions about the reality would be equally true.

But then nobody can distinguish responsible persons from irresponsible ones. That claim would not correspond with the visible fact: people have objective properties. We know that somebody is smart and that somebody is stupid. So knowledge is not relative.

We don’t see Mrs. Perry is responsible: she hasn’t “being responsible” as the visible quality such as color red and form tight are.

The electric lights means the urbanized areas. Human beings go towards lights. They believe to find happiness there. Who faces the consequences?

Do lights symbolize freedom? They will be turned off by the Almighty.

When asking “Who is responsible for that mess?”, we want to know the guilty, someone who is the first cause in an institution. They who command can’t shift the act on someone else. The chain of causes ends in managers.

We are all morally responsible to the future human race, according to Bertrand Russell: last essay “1967” by Bertrand Russell. Read and think!