Janic wrote:Apparently all futures exist ... there is only to choose.
under the sole condition that this choice is really one. It is a question of philosophical choice because if the living (not only the human) is conditioned by a global and not individual necessity, the supposed choice is not one.
What to do with
need of constraint", in this case? No it is not contradictory.
It is a choice, which is still a sum all, it has at least the therapeutic value we want to give it (and it has one, I confirm).
Janic wrote:For a long time the human has been compared to a machine (which is all the more true nowadays with the grafts of spare parts as for the cars) and it is quite realistic since the medical science describes each function with great detail and the interaction of these, and its psychological functions are compared to the computer programs we are fond of:
It's not so much that the man
Compares to a machine » (still need to be determined
"Which man in what environment and / or culture"?) But rather than making projections. Probably even more surely, because he wanted to escape as much as possible from what he defined as being the irrational for (founded) fear of his own subjective judgments (when it is not the demons who may dwell in certain " subjects "on occasion ...) so that they can not come to hinder the" smooth running "of what he defines as"
Science"...
On the other hand, he wanted to extend this to many areas without too much discernment about the consequences (sometimes enjoining many constraints to counter-employment) and (moreover) are not a scientific approach. Here the errors are (have been) gross, even monumental, certainly.
Here, the question might be:
"Are we free to choose our culture?" To live in harmony? Etc (culture, psychology, sociology or religion does not matter, I speak of the need of belonging that builds us) ... Since it is it (or its absence see its rejection when it is not those who are subject to it) who feel rejected ... case Brozevic? And many others who pose problems to our consciences) yes she, this culture, which greatly determines us? Whatever we think about it, whether we say it or do it! But I do not think it changes much (there are strong common convergences mixed with local and individual particularisms, but which come back sooner or later to similar conclusions (although not comparable question order of magnitude, nor finality ...). Humble transient conclusion: it is a real debate of society, of responsibility, which returns us to the determination of the "choices we want".
Janic wrote:where is the freedom of a car or a computer except to believe that these machines determine their own functionalities (which is not the case!) like humanized cartoons like CARS.
Not yet, but it's coming (do not despair
)
Janic wrote:But we have needs from this illusion to believe to exist what is only an exploitation of the ego rather than the self.
Do not we have all kinds ofneeds"? Is it not our first dependencies (do not they follow us to the end)? Still, it depends how you saw it!
And still happy that we have, I do not think that the man is still wise enough to do without it. (Maybe at bottom this is where the gospel came from: "
give us our daily bread»Etc => that said I do not take a position on this subject.)