Molyneux's Philosophy of (un)Forgiveness

nelle · Number of posts: 482 Registration date: 2009-02-09

Yes indeed. Well put.

Guest

QuestEon wrote:

The words "forgiveness" and "restitution" never have to appear in the same sentence. Forgiveness is something you give freely. It is exactly what Molyneux says it is not--something you will. Material, emotional--makes no difference. People often choose it because there is something more important to them than the reparation of a perceived slight.

According to that the whole basis of forgiveness is the desire to pursue "something more important to them than the reparation of a perceived slight". By using the word "perceived" you seem to imply that the emotional hurt resulting from an offense might be only an illusion (merely perception), which is clearly impossible because the offended one is the only one who can with absolute certainty know how he feels.

What you're describing would better fit with forgetting than forgiving, where you move on to focus on something you deem more important than dealing with the particular emotional hurt you feel right now. Forgetting, however, certainly does not heal such emotional hurts. Only forgiving can do that and such forgiveness cannot come the moment you wish it to come like, as I explained, you cannot will the tooth ache away.

The reason "emotional restitution" has a place in the same sentence as "forgiveness" is the same reason why "coercive monopoly" has a place in the same sentence as the "government". One defines the other. You might as well argue that a monopoly has nothing to do with the state. It's a ridiculous argument that leaves no room for clear definition or explanation of what forgiveness is.

This is an extremely weak way of dismissing my rebuttal and pretending that what you call an analysis still stands. It does not.

---

What especially maddens me, now that I revisited the issue of LiMi, is how you still use this failed analysis of yours in your smear campaign against Stef and FDR at FDRLiberated.com. It's one demonstration of intellectual dishonesty after another, proving that what is behind this is not a truly rigorous pursuit of truth, but a pathetic and petty emotional grudge.

It is offensive to me as someone who continues to associate with and refer to FDR as a place where one can learn some extremely important ways of thinking about self and the world. You are effectively calling me a cult member and someone who somehow doesn't have sufficient capacity to think for myself and see how supposedly "manipulated" I am. And you do it with such weak evidence and these extremely irrational and biased "analysis'".

That is how you make enemies. This gives me more than enough reason to react, but my reaction will no longer be limited to debating in these forums.

Danny Shahar · Number of posts: 948 Registration date: 2007-12-30

Welcome back, memeverse! Not that I was really involved in this conversation (at least not since the first few pages, it seems), but it seems to me that it might be helpful for people if you would give your take on what the conversation has been about, what are the major points of disagreement, and what you think are your opponents positions. I know that's a lot to ask, but it serves several purposes: a) it provides a starting point for other potential contributors who may be turned off by having to read seven pages of material, b) it helps to refresh your opponents, who likely will not precisely recall what was going through their minds at the time of the initial debate, and c) it promotes a greater potential for working towards a real agreement, rather than simply trying to win an argument, by ensuring that you and your opponents aren't talking past each other. Do you think that's fair?

Danny Shahar · Number of posts: 948 Registration date: 2007-12-30

A note: I ask particularly because what you're saying doesn't seem to make sense on its face. Wikipedia, for example, starts its article on forgiveness with:

Quote:

Forgiveness is typically defined as the process of concluding resentment, indignation or anger as a result of a perceived offense, difference or mistake, and ceasing to demand punishment or restitution.

This sense of the word is most clear when we think of "forgiving a debt." Clearly, if forgiveness involved restitution, then our normal concept of "forgiving a debt" would be a contradiction in terms. Either it would be "forgetting a debt" or it would be "forgiving a non-debt."

So hopefully that gets a little clearer on why I was hoping you'd drill a little further into what this debate has already established; I never like to jump into an argument halfway through by pulling out a dictionary and pronouncing one of the parties wrong by definition!

QuestEon · Number of posts: 552 Registration date: 2008-03-25

mmvrs wrote:

QuestEon wrote:

The words "forgiveness" and "restitution" never have to appear in the same sentence. Forgiveness is something you give freely. It is exactly what Molyneux says it is not--something you will. Material, emotional--makes no difference. People often choose it because there is something more important to them than the reparation of a perceived slight.

According to that the whole basis of forgiveness is the desire to pursue "something more important to them than the reparation of a perceived slight". By using the word "perceived" you seem to imply that the emotional hurt resulting from an offense might be only an illusion (merely perception), which is clearly impossible because the offended one is the only one who can with absolute certainty know how he feels.

Yes. In your anger at me, I don't think you're seeing that you and I agree on your last point. "Perceived" does not necessarily mean illusion and I certainly didn't imply it. It is how the offended one views the incident, because, as you say, he/she is the only one who can know with absolute certainty.

mmvrs wrote:

What you're describing would better fit with forgetting than forgiving, where you move on to focus on something you deem more important than dealing with the particular emotional hurt you feel right now. Forgetting, however, certainly does not heal such emotional hurts. Only forgiving can do that and such forgiveness cannot come the moment you wish it to come like, as I explained, you cannot will the tooth ache away.

The reason "emotional restitution" has a place in the same sentence as "forgiveness" is the same reason why "coercive monopoly" has a place in the same sentence as the "government". One defines the other. You might as well argue that a monopoly has nothing to do with the state. It's a ridiculous argument that leaves no room for clear definition or explanation of what forgiveness is.

This is an extremely weak way of dismissing my rebuttal and pretending that what you call an analysis still stands. It does not.

We're really at an impasse here, and I don't know a way around it. "Forgiveness" has had a clear and specific definition for some time now and it has always been a willed or granted pardon. The entire Christian mythology is based on that concept of forgiveness--turning the other cheek.

I'm not saying "forgiveness" is good, bad, indifferent, something you should do, something you should not do, etc. I just know what the definition is, and it isn't: "Now you that you've fully paid me back (emotionally or materially) and therefore made restitution, I have decided to forgive you." And I don't see a compelling enough reason in Molyneux's argument to accept his revised definition in place of what is understood by the remainder of the English-speaking world.

I am genuinely sorry that you consider my rebuttal weak, but that's all I got.

mmvrs wrote:

What especially maddens me, now that I revisited the issue of LiMi, is how you still use this failed analysis of yours in your smear campaign against Stef and FDR at FDRLiberated.com. It's one demonstration of intellectual dishonesty after another, proving that what is behind this is not a truly rigorous pursuit of truth, but a pathetic and petty emotional grudge.

That's an unfair charge, but I do thank you for visiting my site and hope you'll come back!

I have no grudge of any kind against Molyneux. I think I've been as honest about that as possible. I've never met him. Never talked to him. Never joined FDR. Never chatted with any FDR member. There is no basis for me to have any emotional feelings about Molyneux.

It is also unfounded and unfair to refer to comments I make about Molyneux's teachings as a "smear campaign." Danny Shahar, BrainPolice, XOmniverse, LaughingMan0x, and aaron0883, among others, are all thoughtful people who released blog and YouTube reviews critical of Molyneux's thoughts. They're smarter than me, which sometimes means their criticisms are far more devastating.

Are those also smear campaigns?

The simple fact is I think Molyneux is brilliant and fascinating. Trying to understand him and FDR is an intellectual challenge and currently something that I enjoy. I can't say I'll feel the same way a year from now, but this is what I'm doing now.

mmvrs wrote:

It is offensive to me as someone who continues to associate with and refer to FDR as a place where one can learn some extremely important ways of thinking about self and the world....

That is how you make enemies. This gives me more than enough reason to react, but my reaction will no longer be limited to debating in these forums.

I deleted the part about me calling you a weak-minded cult member. I didn't and I'm not. I just wanted to run your other two sentences together so you could see them. Are you really learning important ways of thinking about self and the world on FDR? Do you know that if you had made a menacing threat to someone you disagreed with there as you just did to me that you would be immediately banned?

_________________
-Q.E.

Danny Shahar · Number of posts: 948 Registration date: 2007-12-30

Ah hah; I didn't see QuestEon's post on the previous page! Sorry, Memeverse, for thinking that you just randomly appeared out of the blue! This makes a whole lot more sense Razz

Danny Shahar · Number of posts: 948 Registration date: 2007-12-30

(And darnit, QuestEon, you can't say you're going to tell the story of MY rise and fall -- I didn't even know I had a rise and a fall! -- and then leave me hanging like this. It's simply inhumane, and I won't stand for it...quietly.)

Phlogiston · Number of posts: 621 Location: NOLA Registration date: 2007-10-25

mmvrs wrote:

Only forgiving can do that and such forgiveness cannot come the moment you wish it to come like, as I explained, you cannot will the tooth ache away.

Then there is no free will in this? It is the same as a toothache?

mmvrs wrote:

That is how you make enemies. This gives me more than enough reason to react, but my reaction will no longer be limited to debating in these forums.

I have another post on another thread about response vs. reaction. A person who reacts has no power over his/her own self thus has no free will. Flinching is a reaction without thought, a response takes actual thought. Without thought there is no free will thus Stefs points cannot be coherent. This doesn't mean free will exsts. Thats excluded from this framework and above and beyond the point.

QuestEon · Number of posts: 552 Registration date: 2008-03-25

Danny Shahar wrote:

(And darnit, QuestEon, you can't say you're going to tell the story of MY rise and fall -- I didn't even know I had a rise and a fall! -- and then leave me hanging like this. It's simply inhumane, and I won't stand for it...quietly.)

First of all, thank you so much for being a good sport about all of this. I appreciate your kindness. I'm very proud of this series, but needed to make sure I knew where it was going--in other words be writing ahead by one article. Part 3 is nearly finished, although it may get some unexpected revisions, given ReIgNoFrAdNeSs's sudden disappearance (along with all of his videos) from YouTube.

A little birdie told me Part 2 is dropping very soon....

_________________
-Q.E.

Danny Shahar · Number of posts: 948 Registration date: 2007-12-30

Hehe being a good sport is what I do. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a bit apprehensive about having a history of my actions made publicly available in a single place. But I'm leaning on the hope that I've conducted myself with enough decency that it won't be too incriminating, and I do respect what you're trying to accomplish. I'm sure that your article won't be as worrisome to my reputation as I have it built up to be in my mind, but the suspense is admittedly getting to me in a vague way. In any case, it's your project and I don't want you to feel indentured to me. I'm just giving you a hard time because I'm anxious to see the final product.

Laird · Subject: Re: Molyneux's Philosophy of (un)Forgiveness Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:10 am

"I'm willing to forgive you," is an incorrect sentence? I don't think so.

Forgiving is not forgetting the incident that happened or the emotional pain you felt because of it. It's not saying that the offending party didn't screw up. It's saying "Yeah, they screwed up and that offended me. But if I calm down and realize that they had no intention of making me feel pain and it was all a mistake (which everyone makes from time to time), the pain doesn't have to last." Looking at things from a different perspective isn't necessarily creating a fantasy where you ignore all your problems.

_________________
[INSERT MEME HERE]

Conrad · Subject: Re: Molyneux's Philosophy of (un)Forgiveness Mon Jul 06, 2009 5:09 am

mmvrs wrote:

That is how you make enemies. This gives me more than enough reason to react, but my reaction will no longer be limited to debating in these forums.

What do you mean by this?

_________________
My Blog

Guest

wikipedia wrote:

Forgiveness is typically defined as the process of concluding resentment, indignation or anger as a result of a perceived offense, difference or mistake, and ceasing to demand punishment or restitution.

First, nobody is advocating punishment. Second, restitution is generally understood to refer to material restitution which emotional restitution has nothing to do with. Concluding resentment, indignation or anger is EXACTLY what emotional restoration to a prior state is about and you cannot do this willingly, only in reaction upon offenders emphatic expressions towards you.

Free will matters in the matters of will. Where will does not work, free will clearly does not apply. The fact I can't will my emotions in or out (only pretend and repress) or the fact I cannot will the weather to change this minute does not mean I do not have free will, just that these matters are not susceptible to will. I don't want to get into a determinism vs free will thing though (it's pretty unproductive).

Quote:

Flinching is a reaction without thought, a response takes actual thought.

I'm doing both.

Quote:

What do you mean by this?

Say I set up a web site which refers to FDR on a regular basis. Your consistent attempts to discredit this source of information in such extreme ways as calling it a cult and his theories sick etc. (especially on the basis of such weak evidence and analysis) is a direct threat to the potential success of my project, and as already mentioned personally offensive. Your accusations are either true and thus I should indeed cease associating with FDR or they're largely false in which case your continued perpetuation of them enters the realm of smear and should be dealt with as such.

Note this sort of thing can be done without ever giving you negative publicity. It's enough to warn people about the inconsistencies and dishonesty with which certain groups operate for them to be vary of LiMi the moment they see it.

Remember that truth is self-consistent and by that it has within itself the seeds of its own triumph. Contradictions, however, carry within the seeds of their own destruction. All I have to do is accelerate the process by pointing the contradictions out incessantly and before my audience even encounters them from people like some here.

I hope that explains it. Take it as you will. Respond with indignation, curiosity or whatever. I've given enough chances, you failed. I made my points clear and take my stand.

Bye.

reddeerrick · Number of posts: 431 Location: Red Deer, Alberta Registration date: 2007-10-17

OK, QuestEon, it's your turn. Threaten him with a website that will warn people about the inconsistencies in the website that warns people about the inconsistencies in the website that warns people about the inconsistencies of FDR.

_________________

http://tails-dx.deviantart.com/gallery/
My daughters art. =3

Conrad · Subject: Re: Molyneux's Philosophy of (un)Forgiveness Mon Jul 06, 2009 12:08 pm

[quote="Guest"]

wikipedia wrote:

Quote:

What do you mean by this?

Say I set up a web site which refers to FDR on a regular basis. Your consistent attempts to discredit this source of information in such extreme ways as calling it a cult and his theories sick etc. (especially on the basis of such weak evidence and analysis) is a direct threat to the potential success of my project, and as already mentioned personally offensive. Your accusations are either true and thus I should indeed cease associating with FDR or they're largely false in which case your continued perpetuation of them enters the realm of smear and should be dealt with as such.

Note this sort of thing can be done without ever giving you negative publicity. It's enough to warn people about the inconsistencies and dishonesty with which certain groups operate for them to be vary of LiMi the moment they see it.

Remember that truth is self-consistent and by that it has within itself the seeds of its own triumph. Contradictions, however, carry within the seeds of their own destruction. All I have to do is accelerate the process by pointing the contradictions out incessantly and before my audience even encounters them from people like some here.

I hope that explains it. Take it as you will. Respond with indignation, curiosity or whatever. I've given enough chances, you failed. I made my points clear and take my stand.

Bye.

I'll do them in order

indignation: So Stefan's article about LM and me (and all the blog posts by FDR'ers about the same topic) aren't convincing enough, eh?

curiosity:
I wonder why you feel the need to do this and what you expect to come out of it. Do you for example think that it will contribute to FDR gaining a larger audience?
I also wonder why, although you have repeatedly made critical points about people on LM, and also have expressed some misgivins about some FDR practices, you have never (to my knowledge) posted on FDR about the questions and problems you see FDR-wise. We've had interesting, open, at times prodctive and at times frustrating discussions on LM about your critical points. What do you expect the reaction from Stef and other FDR'ers to be when you talk about the misgivings you have FDR-wise?

_________________
My Blog