訪客 | 登入
Ψ 註冊 | 登錄 | 搜索 | Flash 遊戲機舖 | 統計 | 幫助 | |  
 
打印

the question of the freedom

lovelyyy

the question of the freedom [ x 0 ]

Now, because an idea, given to us from without, must first in accordance with our characters be adopted as a motive, men believe that they are free, i.e., independent of external influences. The truth, however, according to Eduard von Hartmann, is that “even though we must first adopt an idea as a motive, we do so not arbitrarily, but according to the disposition of our characters, that is, we are anything but free.” Here again the difference between motives, which I allow to influence me only after I have consciously made them my own, and those which I follow without any clear knowledge of them, is absolutely ignored.
This leads us straight to the standpoint from which the subject will be treated here. Have we any right to consider
of the will by itself at all? And if not, with what other question must it necessarily be connected?
If there is a difference between conscious and unconscious motives of action, then the action in which the former issue should be judged differently from the action which springs from blind impulse. Hence our first question will concern this difference, and on the result of this inquiry will depend what attitude we [8]ought to take up towards the question of freedom proper  The answer given to the two problems.
.

What does it mean to have knowledge of the motives of one’s actions? Too little attention has been paid to this question, because, unfortunately, man who is an indivisible whole has always been torn asunder by us. The agent has been divorced from the knower, whilst he who matters more than everything else, viz., the man who acts because he knows, has been utterly overlooked.
版權由 lovelyyywebuddy 網站群族 所擁有,未經同意請勿轉載,轉貼文不在此限

評分 TOP

清除 Cookies聯繫我們Archiver      當前時區 GMT+8, 現在時間是 2018-9-20 10:40

Processed in 0.027733 second(s), 8 queries , Gzip enabled.