Yah, but the issue is, is it true that people choose what they become not what affect choice. I just realized that this debate has gone in circles. I feel that people choose what they want to be. Today a person might feel like being generous and caring while the next day they might feel like not being bothered. That sort of situation will be caused by a external or internal occurance but in the end is what the person decides to do.
In some cases, people choose who they become. But not in all cases. You have changed your opinions a little from what your first posts were. By the choices they make, they become a certain person. It's not always something as obvious as "Hey! Presto! I'm a clown!". Your example of a person choosing to be generous and caring for the day, I'm sure he didn't mentally think "I choose to be a nice person today" or vice versa. And many things are out of our choice on who we are. But since we don't want to go around circles anymore, I would just suggest reading the past posts.
I never changed my opinion. Also, let me clarify. I am not saying that the choices people make are the only things that make a person. The beforehand mentioned, influences and past experiences, contribute but does not produce the end result. Someone can be forced into doing something but hey, check out runaway brides, although they are not forced they decide " I don't want to get married today", and with bad timing. There probably were events that led up to the final decision but it was still the decision the bride decided to make. Not to be cliche, but with the " you are what you eat " statement. People decide what they eat and that is what the end result is for them. Not saying in the literal sense but rather, they eat fatty foods therefore they are fatty even including high metabolized persons, like myself, who could still get problems that larger people have from eating the same foods.
Really? So you are still saying that: And this? Was that your original opinion from the very start of this thread? Because "I am what I choose to become" sounds like a person becoming what a person wants through choice. If not, then okay. As for the runaway bride, you're just repeating different situations with the same out come, so i'll just repeat what i've been saying. Past experiences and influences affecting the choices you make. Yes, she did choose to run away, but something happened in the past to make her have cold feet. I never say that they have to be forced to make the decision. Well, even in the literal sense, we are what we eat. We break down food and use it for various functions in the body. But the term "you are what you eat" means that to be healthy you need to eat healthy foods. But many people don't have health benefits in mind when choosing what they eat. When people do choose to eat fatty foods, they don't think "I want to become fat". Becoming fat from eating fatty foods is just an end result. Many people eat without thinking of the consequences. People eating too much sugar in their diet don't "choose" to get diabetes II. When going out to dinner with my friends, I certainly don't have that weighing on my mind when I choose what to eat. And like I said before, that only applies in later stages. Your parents decide what you eat from when you are a baby, and hopefully it is the right diet. People may alter their diet, they may choose to eat healthier because they say "I want to be skinnier." But even then something must have influenced and motivated them. Maybe they want to get into that dress that is one size thinner, or maybe they want to go up several flights of steps without being out of breath.
Yep, looks like the original opinion to me. It is still supporting that people choose but is not knocking down the influence proposal. I already know about what affects choice and I wrote that to let you know that but that in the end it is what people decide that makes the difference and not the influence. I was trying to make a point of if you take away choice and just use influence then what do you have, totalitarianism ( that spelling is horrific but hopefully you can figure it out). But if combined then it does have a impact on choice but does not make the choice. People choose what they do with full knowledge of the end result. People who enjoy fatty foods don't want to be fat but they know they will become fat without doing something. Smokers know smoking could possibly kill them but they still smoke. I will admit that as a kid I would eat various foods not caring what the effects were but I ate healthy even when I was yound and I was active. People might not care when they are eating, but you definitely will after. Especially with food poisoning .
All right then. I agree with you. Having read 1984 by George Orwell, i can understand what lack of choice is like, where the Government attempts to control most aspects of the people's lives. But as for the other quote, I don't believe that's true in all scenarios. If you let your friend influence you into taking up smoking, yes, that's true. But There are influences beyond our control. Things we are not aware influence us, yet do. Saying that they choose with full knowledge is like saying they can predict the future. If you mean, people choose what they do, knowing the consequences, that's different. Even then, people only gain that knowledge of the consequences once they have experienced it, or have been given knowledge of it. It's called learning. Let's say you have a bowl of soup. Your mother says it is hot. But you still taste a little, just to see how hot it is. Or you touch the side of the bowl with your finger. This is because in the past you have been burnt, so you know how to act in that situation in the future. You can't always do this with new experiences. Like choosing your course in university/college. You can expect a degree at the end, but you don't have full knowledge of everything that is in the end result. You could gain skills in team work, or you could gain experience in time management. But you don't know how much or more of these types of skills you could gain, until you have finished it. Full knowledge would also mean friends they make, clubs they join, parties to go to. If you are talking about consequences, and not the end result, then you need to gain that knowledge either through experiencing it yourself, or by someone else teaching you.
Its not really predicting but knowing all the paths the road can lead to. A cop knows the job will be dangerous but they can't predict when this might occur, but choose to still become a cop because they want to do whatever motivates them. Full knowledge is what has been gained through whatever means. You know if you go to a party that you will encounter people, unless its a boring party. You know who will become your friends because making a friendship requires some time and choices made by both persons' part on where they want to take their aquaintance. Unfortunately, a convict believes that they conviction will prevent many job opportunities, which in many cases are true depending on the country. learning is making choices in the past that will affect your future choices.
Yes, but the way you said it made it sound like they can predict the future. Knowing the consequences and having full knowledge of the end result are two different things. You can't get full knowledge of the event prior to having done it. You can expect to make friends, but you can't know what sort of friends you will make. You don't know what new people you will meet, or how well you get along with them. Yes, you do know what you will encounter people. But you may not know every single person there, and how well you would get along with them. That would mean full knowledge. Once you have learned something, you can apply what you have learned so you know what to expect. But you can't have full knowledge of the end result.
Yeah, that's not a bad idea. This is getting old, and we're just repeating ourselves and dwelling on semantics. A real debate wouldn't last half this long. Well, you guys already know my thoughts. I'll leave it there.