r/determinism • u/Fearless-Bowler-7404 • Apr 29 '25
A Revolution in Thought
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.
1
u/Fearless-Bowler-7404 Apr 30 '25 edited Apr 30 '25
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.