Heiko

Do you really have that impression if you take a look on this forum, for example?

In this philosophy kinda seems to serve the same purpose as a better clothes shop.

This already has been done, I guess. Why would we need explanations and philosophy? We got YouTube. Philosophy just tries to solve the problems it cau...

Will aims at purposes, not means. It is different from the action itself as well as the choosing of means. I do not really want to get up and walk to ...

Will has to be free because otherwise it would not be "will" but an effect. It's nature is purely ideal. No one can decide if you do something out of ...

So when I play a game of chess and think, say, 10 minutes about my next move, don't you think the thought-process that I am aware of is a significant ...

Formally the number of potential choices increases when thinking about which things one should not do in any case. Nor is an "objective" decision tree...

No, "of course" you are not trying to understand because it does not fit into your speculation. What you have demonstrated is that you can speculate a...

Of course. Formally.

Now you are speculating. Then my initial (A) decision would not have been free. But I chose (A).

It is a contradiction to say that any option other than my free choice could be my free choice. If (A) is my free choice then (B) is not.

If one option is your free decision the others cannot.

Yes, because only one option can be my free choice.

Because you cannot decide to do both. Either your free decision is the one or the other.

Then I would have wanted it in first place or the decision was not free.

The measure of truth of an argument is it's negative, destructive power.

Yet the everyday conception is satisfied with something being a "computer failure".

Yes, it is :) This "with" has an instrumental character.

Exactly, we need drugs or other means to control which emotions might feel and thus gain absolute souvereignity over the flesh to totalize our freedom...

Horkheimer, Adorno: Dialectic of Enlightenment

§26 After the passage about Humboldt (I'm sorry I don't have an English Edition at hand). Must be something like "But the expression Dasein indicates ...

Just turn the question around. Heidegger drops a little sentence about this the term "Dasein" obviously implies first to be and then to be with, but t...

Domination is conceptually absolute.

I guess the evolutionary pressure in modern societies has more to do with the need to think twice - hard - before doing something foolish. It only get...

Do you want to? That didn't seem to be such a problem...

Dasein wouldn't be "da" if it wasn't with others. Of course that does not mean the factical presence of others but an existential-ontological determin...

Frankly, I think Dasein simply is not possible under that condition.

Free will is will under the reign of reason. Schopenhauer seems right that this does not match the "empirical concept" of freedom. The dialectical one...

Matter does not think, yet water does not flow into arbitrary directions. If opting for something you do not deem reasonable you're not acting rationa...

Yet it seems philosophical trivia that freedom is not to be confused with arbitrariness.

But it is quite easy to draw a decision tree with millions of nodes enumerating all the things they do not do.

So, how would you think this relates to the decision tree?

Of course. The essence of human freedom is manifold.

I doubt he uses that phrase. Being with others is part of human existence. Observation tells us that everyone is in contact with someone else at least...

I guess most people would understand it that way. This does not make it true, however: It is the reign of pure reason itself that does not leave any c...

What should be the difference between both? You could not even say what truth should be without running into a tautology. Given: Tautologies are neces...

Dignity arises from the subject's reflection of itself. Freedom has always been bought at the price of estrangement.

That is popular yet not suitable for an elaborate discussion about the subject. I'll argue it is more accurate to think of that, which sets purposes. ...

Freedom of choice is a formal freedom. Content-wise it does not make sense to say one could have decided otherwise as this would imply to choose what ...

But how can you be sure of that? It might be John who just looks and behaves like Pooh-Bear under some special condition. As if you could be sure to b...

Yeah - never explain things that exist by other things that exist. That is what science does.

The problem is that one cannot wait for something not to happen. The diversity is assumed to be infinite and anti-theses to be arbitrary while they ar...

Hegel pointed out the thing-in-itself to be an abstraction. What gets abstracted away is every concrete form of existence leaving the mind with an exi...

Problems only arise when falling back after conclusions. Descartes was sure about his existence. Hence there must be a way to explain appearances, ill...

Harry, I simply think you are falling behind. Whenever someone talks about the world your statement is "Ah, you are referring to your thoughts". Cheap...

Of what? Words aren't things either. So "mental representation" does not mean all that much - if anything when I start thinking about it. It is m, e, ...

Well, there is some discussion about those things throughout the time. Arguments are made, arguments are refuted. Seems quite natural to assume some k...

And - would you call the morality 2000 years ago equally far developed as today?

There may be a difference between what ppl deem right and what is right. Such a statement implied the idea of the good as being. If one's criterion of...

No offense intented: Isn't this nihilistic? You are basically saying that the one is as good as the other. And both are nothing.