You are capable of composing a orchestra masterpiece

Stagnant

But before you do you live and die old.

Were you actually capable of creating such a work?


~~~
I keep playing this through my head.. with no answer. The written idea is poorly constructed but its the best I could muster. So does anyone have some insight?
 
I think that you need to be capable of knowing to write an orchestra before anything else.
 
a better formulated version of your question is: what is the proper model of modality?

(1) do you have the potential to do x even if you never actually do X?

(2) or, can we only infer potentiality from actuality?

(3) or, is x possible if and only if x does not entail a contradiction?

Aristotle's version is (2). ivar's version is (3).
 
I'm inclined to think that if the action was never achieved before death, then you never had the potential to do it.

My interpretations of the words "potential" or "capability" are ways to state that person X has a realistic possibility of doing action Y, but as we cannot predict the future there is no way of telling if that action will be realised.
 
Only those who have true capability have the drive to do what they have the ability to do. Capability only manifests in those willing to actualize their goals.

To be human is to have potential. Everyone has the potential to be great at anything - it all depends on how the environment cultivates one's talents.
 
if you want to prove that you have the capability to do it, then you have to prove that determinism is false.
 
The environment and genes you are born into / with are already set from birth, so everything is going to play out a certain way. There really isn't "potential", what happens happens.
 
Eggbert said:
The environment and genes you are born into / with are already set from birth, so everything is going to play out a certain way. There really isn't "potential", what happens happens.
Click to expand...

But if you are a child you must know what potential you have in order to nurture you strengths. What happens does not just "happen". You need to make it "happen". Determinism isn't an excuse to be lazy. You are more describing Fatalism, which doesn't take any antecedent causes such as genes and environment into account at all. Man is a part of the deterministic chain, therefore he is perfectly "capable" in creating his own outcomes as long as he believes he has the "potential" to.
 
It isn't an excuse to be lazy, never said it was. The outcomes you create are based on the brain and upbringing that you can't control.
 
You realize your argument is completely circular - not to mention, ridiculous - right? You are insinuating that outcomes are based on the upbringing and past of the subject in question and that everything that happens is therefore fated and therefore "potential" doesn't exist, but that assumes that there is an outcome to begin with. If potential never existed, then no outcome would have ever been achieved and the continuum of space would probably have collapsed into itself.
 
Your actions and choices are based on your brain and what your brain has learned from. You have no control on your genes and on how you learn and what you are exposed to. Therefore, there really aren't any choices in life, it will just play out a certain way.
 
You are arguing that potential does not exist and you are arguing that it does exist as a counterargument to my argument that it does exist. You are arguing a contradictory circular argument.
 
it depends whether the potential lies within the infinite version of you, or the mortal version. i would say that human potential is the range of achievements onto which the function of life maps the domain of genetic makeup and environmental influences.
 
iDunno said:
You are arguing that potential does not exist and you are arguing that it does exist as a counterargument to my argument that it does exist. You are arguing a contradictory circular argument.
Click to expand...

It's cool that people like you can put a dead-wrong label on an argument and use that label to justify their correctness. I don't care about determinism either way, but if you're going to argue it, try to make a point that is not based around your ignorance
 
you know i thought this thread was gonna be a cool link to some online composition flash app. but no its fucking philosophy.

bring back random cool website threads
 
masterful said:
It's cool that people like you can put a dead-wrong label on an argument and use that label to justify their correctness. I don't care about determinism either way, but if you're going to argue it, try to make a point that is not based around your ignorance
Click to expand...


He is arguing that potential does not exist, yet he is, at the same time, saying that outcomes are completely based on their genes and brains (in other words: their potential ). His argument is a contradictory circular argument because his argument assumes the truth of that which he is trying to refute in an attempt to refute. So yeah you should probably stfu and try to stop putting dead wrong labels on arguments and try to make a point that is not based on your own ignorance.

I'm not arguing that Determinism isn't a plausible theory. I am arguing that potential exists...
 
iDunno said:
He is arguing that potential does not exist, yet he is, at the same time, saying that outcomes are completely based on their genes and brains (in other words: their potential ). His argument is a contradictory circular argument because his argument assumes the truth of that which he is trying to refute in an attempt to refute. So yeah you should probably stfu and try to stop putting dead wrong labels on arguments and try to make a point that is not based on your own ignorance.

I'm not arguing that Determinism isn't a plausible theory. I am arguing that potential exists...
Click to expand...

He's arguing that the statement that you made: "Everyone has the potential to be great at anything" is false, and that choice based off of potential, not potential itself, does not exist. Pretty simple stuff, if you would bother to read what the person your arguing with is writing. It helps your credibility greatly if you actually understand your opponent's argument, and aren't in such a hurry to suck your own dick that you gloss over his words, create "his" argument in your mind, and argue against that, instead of what the actual topic is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top