- Albert Einstein

And how can you have control if you don't have free will?

Responsibility, and its sister concept blame, are distractions from solving problems. Responsibility and blame put the focus on finding who was responsible for the problem and blaming them, which then leads to the logical conclusion of punishing them. But this so rarely actually solves the problem. When someone makes a mistake, it's usually not intentional, and often it's a failure of training. Sure, there are extremes: maybe the person shows up drunk to work and needs to be fired--but that's still not about responsibility and blame, it's just recognizing that people who show up drunk to work can't make good decisions. It's a matter of facts and mechanics, not of responsibility and blame.

> And how can you have control if you don't have free will?

This is a question without implications. Consider the possibilities:

1. Let's say free will exists. We go along our merry way, exerting our control in everyday situations.

2. Let's say free will doesn't exist. We go along our merry way, exerting no control on any situation, but we perceive ourselves as exerting control over everyday situations.

Just try your best, maybe that won't have any effect because you don't have free will, but maybe it will.

I actually tend with Einstein on this: every system I've been able to gain a firm understanding of has had deterministic causality, and the systems where free will could be hiding (i.e. quantum mechanics) don't appear to actually have any connection to the systems that determine human action--that is to say, I don't think free will exists. But so what? It's sort of an irrelevant conclusion.

Responsibility and punishment are good because people make better decisions inside frameworks that recognize these things.

If you're a dog, yes.

If you are a human of the year 2020 of the Gregorian calendar living in a developed country, there are better options.

You wrote Rouchefoucald, which is wrong.

- myself

- Frederic Lohard

This quote is substantiated.

- myself

I think quotes should be without mentioning the person. If the quote is a valid assertion then it will prove itself otherwise it tends to rely on the 'who' for its validity which lacks context and is decisive in nature.

0] https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-be...

in this case the `who` is Marcus Aurelius, the philosopher King, and his name is well known after 2 thousands years because he was who he was (probably the best king Rome has ever had).

There's an equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius on the Capitoline Hill in Rome and it's been there since 175 A.C. it must mean something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius#/media/File:St...

(actually it's not on public display anymore, it's been moved in the Capitoline Museums to preserve it, but it's still on the Capitoline Hill)

Sometimes the quote has value attached because of the 'who'.

For example: if a man that died on 17 March 180 had knowledge of our mind that predates studies on it, it means that 2 thousands year ago there were exceptionally intelligent people and 2 thousands year later they still are above average.

If Marcus Aurelius already knew it it must be something humans struggle to understand or that humans are wired to blame the outside.

BTW Marcus Aurelius was a he, I'm sure he want get upset if you call him 'he'.

> "In fine, we have the most sensible concern for the poor distressed inhabitants of the frontiers. We have taken every step in our power, consistent with the just rights of the freemen of Pennsylvania, for their relief, and we have reason to believe, that in the midst of their distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase arms and ammunition have, as we are informed, been supplied with both, ...

https://books.google.gr/books/content?id=HptPAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA9...

HN and many other places use that quote to push pro privacy debate in a really different dynamics and world than author of that quote lived in. He couldn't have seen such malicious software taking over the world. While the quote on its may be a good ideal. You can't imply author would take similar stance to software and privacy in drastic different settings where organization argue that to protect the liberty of state and freedom of its people, they require trampling on privacy of others or its own citizens.

Humans by nature are hypocritical and contextual. Assuming that is important in validating the position one might take. In the absence of evidence, just rely on the essence of words.

- Reinhold Niebuhr

I'd say that what we have is power over our actions, and some of our thoughts and feelings.

But Aurelius' larger point, that we should focus on that which we have power over, is key to effective focus and emotional stability.