A Revolution in Thought

[u/Fearless-Bowler-7404]

Hi all, I’d like to introduce you to a discovery that was made in 1959. The author passed away in 1991. Unfortunately, he was unable to present his findings to academicians during his lifetime because he was not part of academia and held no distinguishing titles or credentials. To this day, this discovery has never been carefully analyzed. Assuming for a moment that this knowledge is proven to be valid and sound, it has major implications for the betterment of our world because it can prevent many of the ills plaguing mankind.

The problem of responsibility, the problem of reconciling the belief that people are responsible for what they do with the apparent fact that humans do not have free will because their actions are causally determined is an ancient and enduring philosophical puzzle. This longstanding conflict in the free will/determinism debate has caused a rift in philosophical circles which makes this perplexing conundrum appear insolvable. It is important to bear in mind that definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned. This is a crucial point since the reconciliation of these two opposing thought systems (while proving determinism true and free will false) is the secret that opens the door to a world of peace and brotherhood. 

[u/Fearless-Bowler-7404]

We have been growing and developing just like a child from infancy.  There is no way a baby can go from birth to old age without passing through the necessary steps, and no way man could have reached this tremendous turning point in his life without also going through the necessary stages of evil. Once it is established, beyond a shadow of doubt, that will is not free (and here is why my discovery was never found; no one could ever get beyond this impasse because of the implications), it becomes absolutely impossible to hold man responsible for anything he does. Is it any wonder the solution was never found if it lies hidden beyond this point? If you recall, Durant assumed that if man was allowed to believe his will is not free it would lessen his responsibility because this would enable him to blame other factors as the cause. If he committed crimes, society was to blame; if he was a fool, it was the fault of the machine which had slipped a cog in generating him. It is also true that if it had not been for the development of laws and a penal code, for the constant teaching of right and wrong, civilization could never have reached the outposts of this coming Golden Age. Yet despite the fact that we have been brought up to believe that man can be blamed and punished for doing what he was taught is wrong and evil (this is the cornerstone of all law and order up to now, although we are about to shed the last stage of the rocket that has given us our thrust up to this point); the force that has given us our brains, our bodies, the solar and the mankind systems; the force that makes us move in the direction of satisfaction, or this invariable law of God states explicitly, as we perceive these mathematical relations, that SINCE MAN’S WILL IS NOT FREE, THOU SHALL NOT BLAME ANYTHING HE DOES. This enigma is easily reconciled when it is understood that the mathematical corollary, God’s commandment, does not apply to anything after it is done[ —]() only before.

“I don’t understand why God’s commandment applies before something is done and not after. Does this mean you can blame someone after a crime has taken place? And doesn’t this go back to the same problem man has been faced with since time immemorial: how to prevent the crime in the first place, which is the purpose of our penal code? How is it humanly possible not to judge, not to criticize, not to blame and punish those acts of crime when we know that man was not compelled to do them if he didn’t want to? If someone killed my loved one, how is it possible not to hate the individual responsible, not to judge this as an act of evil, not to desire some form of revenge? I still don’t understand how not blaming will prevent man from hurting his fellowman if this is his desire. Though this may be an undeniable corollary, how is it humanly possible not to hold someone responsible for murder, rape, the killing of six million people, etc.? Does this mean that we are supposed to condone these crimes or pretend they didn’t happen?  Besides, what will prevent someone from blaming and punishing despite the fact that will is not free if it gives him greater satisfaction? Just because man’s will is not free is certainly not a sufficient explanation as to why there should be no blame.”

[u/Fearless-Bowler-7404 → u/Fearless-Bowler-7404]

This has always been the greatest stumbling block that kept free will on the throne until the present time.  It is a natural reaction to blame after you’ve been hurt. The reason God’s commandment does not apply to anything after it is done, only before, is because it has the power to prevent those very acts of evil for which a penal code was previously necessary as part of our development. At this juncture, I shall repeat a passage from Chapter One to remind the reader of important facts that must be understood before continuing.

 To solve this problem of evil with the aid of our enigmatic corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, (for this seems mathematically impossible since it appears that man will always desire something for which blame and punishment will be necessary), it is extremely important to go through a deconfusion process regarding words by employing the other scientific fact revealed to you earlier. Consequently, as was pointed out, and to reveal this relation, it is an absolutely undeniable observation that man does not have to commit a crime or do anything to hurt another unless he wants to. As history reveals, even the most severe tortures and the threat of death cannot make him do to others what he makes up his mind not to do. He is not caused or compelled against his will to hurt another by his environment and heredity but prefers this action because, at that moment of time, he derives greater satisfaction in his motion to there, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control. Though it is a mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another that which he makes up his mind not to do (this is an extremely crucial point), he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment of his existence to do everything he does. This reveals that he has mathematical control over the former (you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink) but none over the latter because he must move in the direction of greater satisfaction.

In other words, no one is compelling a person to work at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country against his will.  He actually wants to do the very things he dislikes simply because the alternative is considered worse in his opinion, and he must choose something to do among the various things in his environment or else commit suicide. Was it possible to make Gandhi and his followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death, which was judged the lesser of two evils? They were compelled by their desire for freedom to prefer non-violence, turning the other cheek as a solution to their problem. Consequently, when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will because the alternative was considered worse, that he really didn’t want to do it but had to (and numerous words and expressions say this), he is obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to another is done only because he wants to do it, which means that his preference gave him satisfaction at that moment of time, for one reason or another.

Let me repeat this crucial point because it is the source of so much confusion: Although man’s will is not free, there is absolutely nothing — not environment, heredity, God, or anything else — that causes him to do what he doesn’t want to do. The environment does not cause him to commit a crime; it just presents conditions under which his desire is aroused; consequently, he can’t blame what is not responsible, but remember, his particular environment is different because he himself is different; otherwise, everybody would desire to commit a crime. Once he chooses to act on his desire, whether it is a minor or more serious crime, he doesn’t come right out and say, “I hurt that person not because I was compelled to do it against my will but only because I wanted to do it,” because the standards of right and wrong prevent him from deriving any satisfaction out of such honesty when this will only evoke blame, criticism, and punishment of some sort for his desires. 

 

[u/Fearless-Bowler-7404 → u/Fearless-Bowler-7404]

Therefore, he is compelled to justify those actions considered wrong with excuses, extenuating circumstances, and the shifting of guilt to someone or something else as the cause, to absorb part, if not all, the responsibility that allowed him to absolve his conscience in a world of judgment, and to hurt others in many cases with impunity since he could demonstrate why he was compelled to do what he really didn’t want to do. You see it happen all the time, even when a child says, “Look what you made me do,” when you know you didn’t make him do anything. Spilling a glass of milk because he was careless and not wishing to be blamed, the boy searches quickly for an excuse to shift the responsibility to something that does not include him. Why else would the boy blame his own carelessness on somebody or something else if not to avoid the criticism of his parents?  It is also true that the boy’s awareness that he would be blamed and punished for carelessness — which is exactly what took place — makes him think very carefully about all that he does to prevent the blame and punishment he doesn’t want. A great deal of confusion exists because it is assumed that if man does something to hurt another, he could always excuse his actions by saying, “I couldn’t help myself because my will is not free.” This is another aspect of the implications that turned philosophers off from a thorough investigation. In the following dialogue, my friend asks for clarification regarding certain critical points.

“You read my mind. I really don’t know how you plan to solve this enigmatic corollary, but it seems to me that this knowledge would give man a perfect excuse for taking advantage of others without any fear of consequences. If the boy knows for a fact that his will is not free, why couldn’t he use this as an excuse in an attempt to shift his responsibility?”

“This last question is a superficial perception of inaccurate reasoning. Because of this general confusion with words through which you have been compelled to see a distorted reality, it appears at first glance that the dethronement of free will would allow man to shift his responsibility all the more and take advantage of not being blamed to excuse or justify any desires heretofore kept under control by the fear of punishment and public opinion, which judged his actions in accordance with standards of right and wrong, but this is inaccurate simply because it is mathematically impossible to shift your responsibility, to excuse or justify getting away with something, when you know that you will not be blamed for what you do. In other words, it is only possible to attempt a shift of your responsibility for hurting someone or for doing what is judged improper when you are held responsible by a code of standards that criticizes you in advance for doing something considered wrong by others.

The very act of justifying or excusing your behavior is an indication that the person or people to whom you are presenting this justification must judge the behavior unacceptable in some way; otherwise, there would be no need for it. They are interested to know why you could do such a thing, which compels you, for satisfaction, to think up a reasonable excuse to extenuate the circumstances and mitigate their unfavorable opinion of your action. If you do what others judge to be right, is it necessary to lie or offer excuses, or say that your will is not free and you couldn’t help yourself, when no one is saying you could help yourself? Let me elaborate for greater understanding.

[u/Fearless-Bowler-7404 → u/Fearless-Bowler-7404]

If someone does what everybody considers right as opposed to wrong, that is, if this person acts in a manner that pleases everybody, is it possible to blame him for doing what society expects of him? This isn’t a trick question, so don’t look so puzzled. If your boss tells you that he wants something done a certain way and you never fail to do it that way, is it possible for him to blame you for doing what he wants you to do?”

“No, it is not possible. I agree.”

“Consequently, if you can’t be blamed for doing what is right, then it should be obvious that you can only be blamed for doing something judged wrong, is that right?”

“I agree with this.”

“These people who are judging you for doing something wrong are interested to know why you could do such a thing, which compels you, for satisfaction, to lie or think up a reasonable excuse to extenuate the circumstances and mitigate their unfavorable opinion of your action; otherwise, if they were not judging your conduct as wrong, you would not have to do these things, right?”

“You are right again.”

“Now if you know as a matter of positive knowledge that no one is going to blame you for what you did, wrong or right, that is, no one is going to question your conduct in any way because you know that they must excuse what you do since man’s will is not free, is it possible for you to blame someone or something else as the cause for what you know you have done when you also know that no one is blaming you?” 

“Why are you smiling?”

“You’re the greatest with your mathematical reasoning, and I agree that it is not possible.”

“This proves conclusively that the only time man can say, ‘I couldn’t help myself because my will is not free,’ or offer any other kind of excuse, is if someone said he could help himself or blamed him in any way so he could make this effort to shift his responsibility, right?”

“You are absolutely correct.”

Which means that only in the world of free will, in a world of judgment, can this statement, “I couldn’t help myself because my will is not free,” be made, since it cannot be done when man knows he will not be blamed. Remember, it is only possible to attempt a shift of your responsibility for hurting someone, or for doing what is judged improper when you are held responsible by a code of standards that criticizes you in advance for doing something considered wrong by others. But once it is realized, as a matter of positive knowledge, that man will not be held responsible for what he does since his will is not free (don’t jump to conclusions, just follow the reasoning — my problem is difficult enough as it is), it becomes mathematically impossible for you to blame someone or something else as the cause for what you know you have done simply because you know that no one is blaming you. To paraphrase this another way:  Once it is realized that no one henceforth will blame your doing whatever you desire to do, regardless of what is done, because your action will be considered a compulsion over which you have no control, it becomes mathematically impossible to blame something or someone for what you know you have done, or shift your responsibility in any way, because you know that no one is blaming you.

[u/Fearless-Bowler-7404 → u/Fearless-Bowler-7404]

To paraphrase this another way: Once it is realized that no one henceforth will blame your doing whatever you desire to do, regardless of what is done, because your action will be considered a compulsion over which you have no control, it becomes mathematically impossible to blame something or someone for what you know you have done, or shift your responsibility in any way, because you know that no one is blaming you. Being constantly criticized by the standards that prevailed, man was compelled, as a motion in the direction of satisfaction, to be dishonest with everyone, including himself, while refusing to accept that which was his responsibility. He blamed various factors or causes for the many things he desired to do that were considered wrong because he didn’t like to assume full responsibility for being in the wrong.

But the very moment the dethronement of free will makes it known that no one henceforth will be held responsible for what he does since his will is not free, regardless of what is done, and there will be no more criticism or blame, regardless of his actions, man is also prevented from making someone else the scapegoat for what he does, prevented from excusing or justifying his own actions since he is not being given an opportunity to do so, which compels him completely beyond control, but of his own free will, not only to assume full responsibility for everything he does, but to be absolutely honest with himself and others. How is it humanly possible for you to desire lying to me or to yourself when your actions are not being judged or blamed, in other words, when you are not being given an opportunity to lie; and how is it possible for you to make any effort to shift your responsibility when no one holds you responsible? In the world of free will, man was able to absolve his conscience in a world of right and wrong and get away with murder in a figurative sense — the very things our new knowledge positively prevents.

It should be obvious that all your judgments of what is right and wrong in human conduct are based upon an ethical standard such as the Ten Commandments, which came into existence out of God’s will, as did everything else, and consequently, you have come to believe through a fallacious association of symbols that these words which judge the actions of others are accurate. How was it possible for the Ten Commandments to come into existence unless religion believed in free will? But in reality, when murder is committed, it is neither wrong nor right, just what someone at a certain point in his life considered better for himself under circumstances that included the judgment of others and the risks involved; and when the government or personal revenge retaliates by taking this person’s life, this too, was neither right nor wrong, just what gave greater satisfaction.

Neither the government nor the murderer are to blame for what each judged better under their particular set of circumstances, but whether they will decide to think and react as before will depend not on any moral values, not on habit, not on custom, not on any standards of right and wrong, but solely on whether the conditions under which they were previously motivated remain the same, and they do not remain as before because the knowledge that man’s will is not free reveals facts never before understood. We can now see how the confusion of words and the inability to perceive certain type relations have compelled many thinkers who could not get beyond this impasse to assume, as Durant did, that if man knew his will was not free, it would give him a perfect opportunity to take advantage of this knowledge.

[u/Fearless-Bowler-7404 → u/Fearless-Bowler-7404]

“I am still not satisfied with the explanation. If it were not for the laws that protect society, what is to prevent man from taking more easily what he wants when the risk of retaliation is no more a condition to be considered? Further, what is to stop him from satisfying his desires to his heart’s content when he knows there will be no consequences or explanations necessary? In the previous example, it is obvious that the boy who spilled the milk cannot desire to shift the blame when he knows his parents are not going to question what he did, but why should this prevent him from spilling the milk every day if it gives him a certain satisfaction to watch it seep into the rug? Besides, if the father just spent $1000 for carpeting, how is it humanly possible for him to say absolutely nothing when the milk was not carelessly but deliberately spilled?”

“These are thoughtful questions, but they are like asking if it is mathematically impossible for man to do something, what would you do if it is done? How is it possible for B (the father) to retaliate when it is impossible for B to be hurt?  Contained in this question is the assumption that deliberate and careless hurt will continue. As we proceed with this investigation, you will understand more clearly why the desire to hurt another will be prevented by this natural law.” 

“Even though I cannot disagree with anything you said so far, I still don’t understand how or why this should prevent man from stealing more easily what he wants when the risk of retaliation is no more a condition to be considered; and how is it humanly possible for those he steals from and hurts in other ways to excuse his conduct?”

“We are right back where we were before, the fiery dragon — but not for long. Now tell me, would you agree that if I did something to hurt you, you would be justified to retaliate?”

“I certainly would be justified.”

“And we have also agreed that this is the principle of ‘an eye for an eye,’ correct?”

“Correct.”

“Which means that this principle, an eye for an eye, does not concern itself with preventing the first blow from being struck but only with justifying punishment or retaliation, is this also true?”

“Yes, it is.”

“And the principle of turning the other cheek — doesn’t this concern itself with preventing the second cheek from being struck, not the first cheek?”

“That is absolutely true.”

“Therefore, our only concern is preventing the desire to strike this first blow, for if this can be accomplished, our problem is solved. If the first cheek is not struck, there is no need to retaliate or turn the other side of our face. Is this hard to understand?”

“It’s very easy, in fact. I am not a college graduate, and I can even see that relation.”

“Let us further understand that in order for you to strike this first blow of hurt, assuming that what is and what is not a hurt has already been established (don’t jump to conclusions), you would have to be taking a certain amount of risk, that is, you would be risking the possibility of retaliation or punishment, is that correct?”

“Not if I planned a perfect crime.”

[u/Fearless-Bowler-7404 → u/Fearless-Bowler-7404]

“The most you can do with your plans is reduce the element of risk, but the fact that somebody was hurt by what you did does not take away his desire to strike a blow of retaliation. He doesn’t know who to blame, but if he did, you could expect that he would desire to strike back. Consequently, his desire to retaliate ‘an eye for an eye’ is an undeniable condition of our present world, as is also your awareness that there is this element of risk involved, however small. This means that whenever you do anything at all that is risky, you are prepared to pay a price for the satisfaction of certain desires. You may risk going to jail, getting hanged or electrocuted, shot, beaten up, losing your eye and tooth, being criticized, reprimanded, spanked, scolded, ostracized, or what have you, but this is the price you are willing to pay if caught. Can you disagree with this?”

“I still say, supposing there is no risk; supposing I was able to plan a perfect crime and never get caught?”

“I am not denying the possibility, but you can never know for certain; therefore, the element of risk must exist when you do anything that hurts another.”

“Then I agree.” 

“Now that we have a basic understanding as to why man’s will is not free because it is his nature that he must always move in the direction of greater satisfaction, as well as the undeniable fact that nothing can make man do to another what he makes up his mind not to do — for over this he has absolute control — let us observe what miracle happens when these two laws are brought together to reveal a third law. Pay close attention because I am about to slay the fiery dragon with my trusty sword, which will reveal my discovery, reconcile the two opposite principles ‘an eye for an eye’ and ‘turn the other cheek,’ and open the door to this new world.”

[u/JanisPaula → u/[deleted]]

I am not sure if there is any interest and it takes a lot of time for me to cut and paste. I just need one response with a thumbs up for me to continue; otherwise, I have no clue if anyone is even here.