What is more important, what we do or what we would do?

>>1721496
What you would do is only important if there's a possibility you will do it. It's simply estimating your future chances of doing something.

>>1721496
Sometimes the past is just the future of this present.

>>1721496
>There are two analysis.
no
>One is the traditional, objective line of thought, which analysis whether someone is good or bad, moral or criminal, etc, according to a linear timeline of a actions.
no
>However, here is an idea.
ur 0 n 2 right now
>Considering the primal, original state of character of a person, it would be possible to calculate what that person would do in certain circumstances. Would they risk their life to save his mother? Would they put a bag of money in the trunk if they found it and notify was seeing?
nope
>As timelines are ultimately a series of possibilities, it would make more sense to see things that way.
ok
>All past was a future at some point.
BARKBARKBARKBARKBARKBARKBARKBARK

Today we no longer have any pity for the concept of "free will": we know only too well what it really is -- the foulest of all theologians' artifices aimed at making mankind "responsible" in their sense, that is, dependent upon them.
What alone can be our doctrine? That no one gives man his qualities -- neither God, nor society, nor his parents and ancestors, nor he himself. (The nonsense of the last idea was taught as "intelligible freedom" by Kant -- perhaps by Plato already.) No one is responsible for man's being there at all, for his being such-and-such, or for his being in these circumstances or in this environment. The fatality of his essence is not to be disentangled from the fatality of all that has been and will be. Man is not the effect of some special purpose, of a will, an end; nor is he the object of an attempt to attain an "ideal of humanity" or an "ideal of happiness" or an "ideal of morality." It is absurd to wish to devolve one's essence on some end or other. We have invented the concept of "end": in reality there is no end.

One is necessary, one is a piece of fatefulness, one belongs to the whole, one is in the whole; there is nothing which could judge, measure, compare, or sentence our being, for that would mean judging, measuring, comparing, or sentencing the whole. But there is nothing outside the whole. That nobody is held responsible any longer, that the mode of being may not be traced back to a causa prima [“first cause”], that the world does not form a unity either as a sensorium or as "spirit" -- that alone is the great liberation; with this alone is the innocence of becoming restored. The concept of "God" was until now the greatest objection to existence. We deny God; in denying God we deny responsibility: only thereby do we redeem the world.

>>1721496
No . Get ye gone back to where you came from, Aalewis.

File: Schindler,_Oskar.jpg (344KB, 851x1302px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 851x1302px

>>1721496
You can't know what you would actually do in any situation until you experience it. Some of the seemingly most cynical people were known to act selflessly and the most sanctamonious people acting completely selfishly when they were actually put in a situation where they had to make a moral choice.

>>1721496
>All past was a future at one point
DUDE

What we do, because that has actual consequences

There's an idea here I feel, namely we could judge people on what they would do in a society free of coercion, authority and without an environment that drives them towards certain acts (irregardless of wether they've been exposed to that environment in the past or are now). Like, how would people behave in a truly free society, whatever that means for you.

With regards to "what would a person do" assuming the same environment, the best way to judge what they would do is by looking at what they've done in the past, and looking at the choices and options presented to them now. But with this train of thought it doesn't make any sense to judge people based on "what they would have done", because this implies we judge the choices and options they did not choose instead of the ones they *did* choose.

Or much better, to be honest, would be to not judge people at all. Judge yourself instead.

>>1721619
When I read things like that I'm always perplexed by the idea that somewhen, somewhere, someone wrote this, thought about it, and came to the conclusion that any of it made any sense and was worth sharing.