Maybe this has come up before, but I still wanted to ask. Lately, I’ve been a bit confused about whether we really have free will or not. I’m not religious and I don’t really believe in metaphysics. I’d probably call myself agnostic. I’ve just been questioning life more than I used to, and this thought keeps popping into my head.

Do we actually have free will? Like, can we really choose things the way religious texts say we can? What made me think about this is how predictable the micro world seems to be—but when you go deeper into the quantum level, things get really chaotic and complex.

On top of that, as people, we’re constantly shaped by what we go through, and it feels like our reactions and choices get more limited over time.

What do you think about all this?

When Tolstoy speaks of Christianity, he's referring to his more objective, philosophical, non-supernatural interpretation of his translation of the Gospels: The Gospel In Brief. For context: https://www.reddit.com/r/TolstoysSchoolofLove/s/g6Q9jbAKSo

"They say that the Christian life cannot be established without the use of violence, because there are savage races outside the pale of Christian societies in Africa and in Asia (there are some who even represent the Chinese as a danger to civilization), and that in the midst of Christian societies there are savage, corrupt, and, according to the new theory of heredity, congenital [(of a disease or physical abnormality) present from birth] criminals. And violence, they say, is necessary to keep savages and criminals from annihilating our civilization. But these savages within and without Christian society, who are such a terror to us, have never been subjugated [bring under domination or control, especially by conquest] by violence,

"The intoxication produced by such stimulants as parades, reviews, religious solemnities, and coronations, is, however, an acute and temporary condition; but there are other forms of chronic, permanent intoxication, to which those are liable who have any kind of authority, from that of the Tzar to that of the lowest police officer at the street corner, and also those who are in subjection to authority and in a state of stupefied servility. The latter, like all slaves, always find a justification for their own servility, in ascribing the greatest possible dignity and importance to those they serve. It is principally through this false idea of inequality, and the intoxication of power and of servility resulting from it, that men associated in a state organization are enabled to commit acts opposed to their conscience without the least scruple or remorse.

Under the influence of this intoxication, men imagine themselves no longer simply men as they are, but some special beings—noblem

Vanity: 1. excessive pride in or admiration of one's own appearance or achievements. 2. the quality of being worthless or futile.

"Vanity of vanities; all is vanity. What profit hath a man of all his labor which he taketh under the sun? One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever...The thing that hath been, it is that that shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there anything whereof it may be said, See, this is new? It hath been already of old time, which was before us. There is no remembrance of former things, neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after. I Ecclesiastes (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastes) was king over Israel in Jerusalem. And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exe

Has anyone attempted to build moral principles into an AI model?

I was thinking about Adam Smith the other day. He is considered the father of modern economics. Many of his philosophies focus on division of labour and free and open trade. He is also credited with establishing many core ideas included in Capitalism which some view as pure evil and others view as good for everyone.

A few questions:

1. Does capitalism tend to gravitate towards fascist ideologies?
2. Is a system that generates wealth intrinsically bad?
3. Who should oversee the equal distribution of wealth in a society? Who decides what is fair?
4. Adam Smith, Economist, Capitalist, or Fascist or all of the above?

Hopefully I have phrased things clearly. I realize I’m covering quite a few different topics. I have been recently studying philosophies of fascism to better understand the main ideas they promote.

"One thing only is needful: the knowledge of the simple and clear truth which finds place in every soul that is not stupefied by religious and scientific superstitions—the truth that for our life one law is valid—the law of love (seen in the sense of things like the laws of physics), which brings the highest happiness to every individual as well as to all mankind. Free your minds from those overgrown, mountainous imbecilities which hinder your recognition of it, and at once the truth will emerge from amid the pseudo-religious nonsense that has been smothering it." - Leo Tolstoy, A Letter To A Hindu, December of 1908 (roughly two years before his death): https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7176/7176-h/7176-h.htm

Tolstoy believed that an objective interpretation of the Sermon On The Mount - Matt 5-7, and its precepts—including to "not take an oath at all," holds the potential of becoming a kind of constitution for our conscience so to speak—for our hearts, as a species.

__Leo

How much do you think human individuals in the society resemble cells in a multicellar creature? Should a man have cognitions, so how about a cell to some extent? Are we enslaving the cells in our body to maintain the existence of our consciousness, by reduction in personalities and specification in cooperative functions? Would a collective mind of a more advanced and multipotent consciousness consisted of millions of people outperform single human individuals and hence utilize the latter to be pure gears of the grand machine?

"In my search for the answers to the question of life ["I am a human, therefore, how should I live? What do I do?"] I had exactly the same feeling as a man who has lost his way in a forest. He has come out into a clearing, climbed a tree, and has a clear view of limitless space, but he sees that there is no house there and that there cannot be one; he goes into the trees, into the darkness, and sees darkness, and there too there is no house. In the same way I wandered in this forest of human knowledge between the rays of light of the mathematical and experimental sciences, which opened up clear horizons to me but in a direction where there could be no house, and into the darkness of the speculative sciences, where I was plunged into further darkness the further I moved on, and finally I was convinced that there was not and could not be any way out.

As I gave myself up to the brighter side of the sciences, I understood that I was only taking my eyes off the question. However enticing a

"Towards the end of my second year in England I came across two Theosophists (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophy), brothers, and both unmarried. They talked to me about the Gita. They were reading Sir Edwin Arnold's translation—The Song Celestial—and they invited me to read the original with them. I felt ashamed, as I had read the divine poem neither in Sanskrit not in Gujarati. I was constrained to tell them that I had not read the Gita, but that I would gladly read it with them, and that though my knowledge of Sanskrit was meagre, still I hoped to be able to understand the original to the extent of telling where the translation failed to bring out the meaning. I began reading the Gita with them. The verses in the second chapter made a deep impression on my mind, and they still ring in my ears:

• "If one
• Ponders on objects of the sense, there springs
• Attraction; from attraction grows desire,
• Desire flames to fierce passion, passion breeds
• Recklessness; then the

Invigorating read complementing the previous entry of the author: https://www.philosophica.ugent.be/article/82556/galley/202370/view/^___^

When Tolstoy speaks of Christianity, he's refering to his more objective, philosophical, non supernatural interpretation of his translation of the Gospels: The Gospel In Brief. For context: https://lemmy.world/post/25679868

"State violence can only cease when there are no more wicked men in society," say the champions of the existing order of things, assuming in this of course that since there will always be wicked men, it can never cease. And that would be right enough if it were the case, as they assume, that the oppressors are always the best of men, and that the sole means of saving men from evil is by violence. Then, indeed, violence could never cease. But since this is not the case, but quite the contrary, that it is not the better oppress the worse, but the worse oppress the better, and since violence will never put an end to evil, and there is, moreover, another means of putting an end to it, the assertion that violence will never cease is incorrect. The use of violence

Tolstoy: "I am a man [human]. How should I live? What do I do?"

Salt and Light

“You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet."

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven." - Matt 5:13, 14

The Salt

We're humans. Therefore, how should we live? What do we do? Well, what good is salt if it's lost the reason for its existence—to preserve foods or make them taste better?Considering humans unparalleled potential for selflessness in contrast to any other living thing that's (supposedly) ever existed, wouldn't it become incredibly obvious what the reason

Suffering\Hate\Anger\Fear\Selfishness\Conciousness

What would be the remedy of fear, and the selfishness that creates it? Knowledge. "When you can understand things, you can forgive things." - Leo Tolstoy

The first of only three maxims inscribed at the Temple of Apollo, where the Oracle of Delphi resided in Ancient Greece: "Know Thyself."

The more we understand ourselves the better we can understand everyone else; an example of how to go about this would be by asking yourself the question: "what is it exactly that leads me into behaving the way I do in any way?" And following it up with being brutally honest with yourself, then begin seeking the origins of why you become sad or angry, desire xyz, or behave and think in any way, etc.

This is where the knowledge of what's captioned as The Golden Rule and considered the Law and the Prophets that were meant to be fulfilled comes in: “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and

"The whole historic existence of mankind is nothing else than the gradual transition from the personal, animal conception of life (the savage recognizes life only in himself alone; the highest happiness for him is the fullest satisfaction of his desires), to the social conception of life (recognizing life not in himself alone, but in societies of men—in the tribe, the clan, the family, the kingdom, the government—and sacrifices his personal good for these societies), and from the social conception of life to the divine conception of life (recognizing life not in his own individuality, and not in societies of individualities, but in the eternal undying source of life—in God; and to fulfill the will of God he is ready to sacrifice his own individuality and family and social welfare).

The whole history of the ancient peoples [even 75k+ years ago], lasting through thousands of years and ending with the history of Rome, is the history of the transition from the animal, personal view of lif

I'm not sure if this is a right type of question for this community.

The context is not essential, but in a recent video Alex O'Connor quoted "The Apologist's Evening Prayer" by C.S.Lewis. As a non-native English speaker, I failed to understand it from hearing, so I looked it up but I still struggle with interpreting it.

Can someone here help me out with "translating" to a bit simpler English?

So here's the poem, as taken from cslewis.com:

From all my lame defeats and oh! much more From all the victories that I seemed to score; From cleverness shot forth on Thy behalf At which, while angels weep, the audience laugh; From all my proofs of Thy divinity, Thou, who wouldst give no sign, deliver me.

Thoughts are but coins. Let me not trust, instead Of Thee, their thin-worn image of Thy head. From all my thoughts, even from my thoughts of Thee, O thou fair Silence, fall, and set me free. Lord of the narrow