Determinism?

[Green]

Would you agree that determinism comes into direct conflict with existentialism? Are they opposites? Does the outer world shape the inner world or does the inner world shape the outer world, and if you think the inner world shapes the outer world (or has the ability to), do you think that comes into conflict with philosophical materialism?

I don't see how you can claim to be an existentialist and really be a philosophical materialist. Sane people don't do anything without being affected by their outworld by taking in information through their senses.

You probably wouldn't send me a message unless you had a reason to do so, like you wanted to sell me something or you were replying to a message I had just sent you.

We're like robots, really complex robots. We sense, compute, take action.

I understand the philosophical idealistic existentialist's position (though I don't agree with it), but I think the existentialists claiming to be philosophical materialists are philosophical idealists in denial, atleast to a small extent.

[Art Delfo]

yeah I would agree that determainism comes in direct conflict.

The outer world and inner world vary in dommnation. However, humans view things from the innerworld. How close that is to the outer outer world depends on the person. The insane is alot less closer to the outer than the inner, while the sane more outer than inner. Its not healthy just to be the inner and I think one's view should be grounded in the outer so that reality dosent hurt you when you ignor it. But you can choose to ignor it. We have free will as regards to our actions in the outerworld, and our reality in the inner world.
As to materialism, I'll be honest and say I don't know, nor really do I care. Materialism sounds like you wont admit to anything you can't see. I would not like the lable placed on me.

[kevn]

Would you agree that determinism comes into direct conflict with existentialism? Are they opposites? Does the outer world shape the inner world or does the inner world shape the outer world, and if you think the inner world shapes the outer world (or has the ability to), do you think that comes into conflict with philosophical materialism?

I don't see how you can claim to be an existentialist and really be a philosophical materialist. Sane people don't do anything without being affected by their outworld by taking in information through their senses.

You probably wouldn't send me a message unless you had a reason to do so, like you wanted to sell me something or you were replying to a message I had just sent you.

We're like robots, really complex robots. We sense, compute, take action.

I understand the philosophical idealistic existentialist's position (though I don't agree with it), but I think the existentialists claiming to be philosophical materialists are philosophical idealists in denial, atleast to a small extent.
Hi.... I read this passage and like it.. I send you...

...The fact that necessity and total detachment cause infinite ease and facility is an extremely profound mystery. We shall facilitate understanding of it with the following comparison:

The degrees of existence are different. And the worlds of existence are all different.

Because they are all different, a particle from a level of existence which is deeply rooted in existence is as great as a mountain from a level of existence that is less substantial than its level; it contains the mountain.

For example, the faculty of memory, which is the size of a mustard-seed in a head from the Manifest World, takes on an existence the size of a library from the World of Meaning.

And a mirror the size of a fingernail from the external world encompasses a mighty city from the level of the World of Similitudes.

If the memory and the mirror from the external world had possessed consciousness and creative power (http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2155603#), they would have been able to bring about endless transformations and activity in the Worlds of Meaning and Similitudes through the power of their minute existences in the external world.

That is to say, when existence is firmly established, power increases; what is only a little becomes like much.

Especially after existence has attained to complete stability, if it is disengaged and detached from materiality and is not restricted, then only a partial manifestation of it will be able to transform many worlds of other less substantial levels of existence.

Thus, And God’s is the highest similitude, the Glorious Maker of the universe is Necessarily Existent.

That is, His existence is essential, it is pre-eternal, it is post-eternal, its non-existence is impossible, its cessation is impossible; it is the most firmly rooted, the most sound, the strongest, and the most perfect of the levels of existence.

In relation to His existence, the other levels of existence are like extremely pale shadows.

The degree of Necessary Existence is so stable and real, and contingent existence is so insubstantial and pale that many of those who have investigated creation, like Muhyi al-Din al-‘Arabi, have reduced the other levels of existence to the level of delusion and imagination; they said: “There is no existent save Him.”

That is, it must not be said of other things that they have existence in relation to the Necessary Existence.

They stated that they are not worthy of the title of existence.

And so, for the Necessarily Existent One’s power, which is both necessary and essential, contingent beings’ both created and accidental existences and both unstable and powerless realities are infinitely easy and simple.

To raise all human beings to life and then judge them at the Great Gathering is as easy as the leaves, flowers and fruits which He resurrects in the spring, indeed, in a garden, or on a tree.

Bediuzzaman 20.letter

[Columbo]

Would you agree that determinism comes into direct conflict with existentialism
Well I cant agree with you unless I know what I am agreeing to.
In what way do you think determinism comes into conflict with an existential
perspective?
if you think the inner world shapes the outer world (or has the ability to), do you think that comes into conflict with philosophical materialism?If we have free will then that would be dificult to explain, but then so is a purely deterministic veiw dificult to justify. The simple fact is that the mind is set within a combination of the two we are not entirely subject to a causal chain, but then we are not entirely free thinking. Unless there were some deterministic element to our thoughts, they would be just a random selection of mental events. It would literally be insanity to have free will
Our thoughts are rational therefore determined

I understand the philosophical idealistic existentialist's position can you name one or two philosophers and the works you are refering to that come into this category - that you have read? I just want to be sure I understand whaat you mean by the sentence in quotes