I think he meant that given free will, man will often choose evil.
Not that man always chooses evil. At least that's how I read it.
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Brian Thornton
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:54 AM, <BaxDeal@aol.com> wrote:
>> >while I can appreciate the sentiment that the 21st chapter bestows upon
>> >work, I personally prefer the darker, more ironic message of the the
>> >version. but that's just because for me, noir is a philosophy. and the
>> >idea that given free will, man chooses evil sums up that philosophy
> Thanks for the interesting bits on A CLOCKWORK ORANGE.
> I must take up your statement above, though. The notion that "given free
> will, man chooses evil sums up that philosophy perfectly" gave me pause.
> After all, this statement strikes me as (perhaps intentionally, perhaps not)
> decidedly deterministic. I find that ironic, given the idea of "free
> will." Your summation above seems to push the point that "free will" is not
> actually "free." (e.g. the notion that given an unencumbered "choice" that
> the individual will always choose one...how is that actually "free"?)
> While that's hardly a new notion (see book one of Milton's PARADISE LOST,
> for example), it does seem pretty broad brush coming from someone whose
> posts I've enjoyed for many years chiefly because of their erudition and the
> subtlety of the insights expressed within them.
> So is it "free will" if the unencumbered choice is always the same one?
> I realize it might seem as if I am setting up a straw man here, but the
> question is sincere.
> What do the rest of the Rare Birds think?
> All the Best-
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 02 Feb 2009 EST