I want to move on.
<snip>
Therefore, whatever your reasons for believing free will to be true cannot be accurate since proof of this theory requires going back in time, so to speak, and demonstrating that man could have chosen otherwise. Since it is utterly impossible to reverse the order of time, which is necessary for mathematical proof, the most we can do is assume that he didn’t have to do what he did. Is it any wonder free will is still a theory? The great humor in this particular instance lies in the fact that though it was always possible to prove determinism true, theology considered it as absolutely false while dogmatically promulgating, in obedience to God’s will, that free will was an absolute reality.”
To show you how confused the mind can get when mathematical relations are not perceived, Will Durant, a well-known philosopher of the 20th century, wrote on page 103 in The Mansions of Philosophy, “For even while we talked determinism, we knew it was false; we are men, not machines.” After opening the door to the vestibule of determinism and taking a step inside, he turned back because he could not get past the implications. Now let us understand why the implications of believing that man’s will is not free turned Durant and many others away. Remember, most people are unaware of the implications of this position; they simply accept as true what has been taught to them by leading authorities. If determinism were true, he reasoned, then man doesn’t have a free choice; consequently, he cannot be blamed for what he does. Faced with this apparent impasse, he asked himself, “How can we not blame and punish people for hurting others? If someone hurts us, we must believe that they didn’t have to, that their will was free, in order to blame and punish them for what they did. And how is it possible to turn the other cheek and not fight back from this intentional hurt to us?”
He was trying to say in this sentence that philosophies of free will would never stop returning just as long as our nature commands us to fight back when hurt, an eye for an eye. This is undeniable, and he was one hundred percent correct because this relation could be seen just as easily with direct perception as two plus two equals four, and there was no way that this statement could be beaten down with formulas or reasoning, but this is not what he actually said. He, as well as many philosophers, helped the cause of free will by unconsciously using syllogistic reasoning, which is logical, though completely fallacious. He accomplished this by setting up an understandable assumption for a major premise: “If there is an almost eternal recurrence of philosophies of freedom, it is because direct perception can never be beaten down with formulas, or sensation with reasoning.” Can you not see how mathematically impossible his observation is? This simple paraphrase will clarify a point: “If there is an almost eternal recurrence of” four equals two plus two, ‘it is because’ two equals one plus one, and one plus one plus one plus one totals four. But when a person perceives certain undeniable relations, is it necessary to make an equation out of four equals two plus two, or out of the fact that once free will is proven untrue, it can no longer exist and its philosophies of freedom return? Using this same syllogistic reasoning, he tried to prove freedom of the will by demonstrating, in the same manner, that determinism could never prove it false. In other words, when a major premise is not obviously true, then fallacious reasoning has to result. The purpose of reasoning is to connect mathematical relations, not to prove the validity of inaccurate perceptions.
Durant begins with the assumption that direct perception (which are words that symbolize what he cannot possibly understand) is superior to reasoning in understanding the truth, which makes a syllogistic equation necessary to prove the validity of an inaccurate perception. Thus, he reasons in his minor premise: “Free will is not a matter of reasoning, like determinism, but is the result of direct perception, therefore…” and here is his fallacious conclusion, “since philosophies of free will employ direct perception, which cannot be beaten down by the reasoning of determinism, the belief in free will must eternally recur.” He knew that free will was a theory, but as long as proof was not necessary when it could be seen with the direct perception of our common sense that it was impossible to turn the other cheek (the corollary thrown up by determinism), he was compelled to write, “Let the determinist honestly envisage the implications of his philosophy.” This indicates that all his reasoning in favor of free will was the result of inferences derived from his inability to accept the implications. Durant is anything but a scientist and an accurate thinker. Since it is absolutely impossible for free will to ever be proven true (I take for granted this is now understood), nothing in this universe can prove determinism an unreality (and in this context it shall only mean the opposite of free will, as death is the opposite of life) simply because this would automatically prove the truth of free will, which is an impossibility. Consequently, the belief in free will and all conceptions regarding it can only remain in existence as a plausible theory just as long as no undeniable evidence is produced in contravention. According to his reasoning, he assumes that free will is true because, in his mind, determinism is false, and the reason he thinks determinism is false is because man is not a machine. Then, not realizing how mathematically impossible his next statement is, he claims that philosophies of freedom (free will) eternally recur because reasoning and formulas cannot beat down the obvious truth of direct perception.
Take a look at that last statement very carefully and see if you can’t tell why it is mathematically impossible. If free will were finally proven to be that which is nonexistent (and let’s take for granted that you know this for a fact) and accepted as such by our scientific world at large, would it be possible, according to Durant’s statement, for “philosophies of freedom” to recur anymore? Isn’t it obvious that the recurrence of the belief in free will is a mathematical impossibility once freedom of the will is proven to be a figment of the imagination, or, to phrase it differently, a realistic mirage? Is it humanly possible for the belief that the world is flat to eternally recur when we have mathematical knowledge that it is round? Consequently, the continued return of the belief in free will can only be due to the fact that it is still a logical theory or plausible conception that has never been analyzed properly, allowing the belief and its philosophies to persist. But Durant states that philosophies of freedom eternally recur, not because of the explanation I just gave, an explanation that cannot be denied by anyone anywhere, even by this philosopher himself, provided it is understood, but because direct perception can never be beaten down with formulas, or sensation with reasoning. Isn’t it apparent that such words have no relation to reality whatsoever? If Durant believed direct perception was considered superior to reasoning, is it any wonder he was so confused and his reasoning so fallacious since the word “because” which denotes the perception of a relation, whether true or false, indicates that he is criticizing reasoning while reasoning. This doesn’t stop a person from saying, “I believe.” “It is my opinion.” “I was taught that man’s will is free,” but it would certainly stop him from trying to defend his position with an argument.
One of the most profound insights ever expressed by Socrates was “Know Thyself,” but though he had a suspicion of its significance, it was only an intuitive feeling, not something he could put his finger on. These two words have never been adequately understood by mankind, including psychiatry and psychology, because this observation is the key that unlocks the first door to another door that requires its own key, and where this discovery’s hiding place was finally uncovered. However, the problem here is so deep and so involved that even those like your philosopher Spinoza, who understood that man’s will is not free, didn’t even come close to the solution, and others like your John Wesley and William James would be willing to bet their lives that will is free. Why do theologians treat this “freedom of the will” as if it were an undeniable reality? And what made it so obvious to Durant that man’s will is free? Durant is now deceased, but over 20 years ago I phoned to tell him I had made a fantastic discovery that was hidden behind the fallacious theory that man’s will is free. He replied, “You must be on the wrong tack, but take what you think you have to Johns Hopkins University for an analysis.” I not only contacted that university but many others to no avail.
