I agree that as we learn how to handle life’s difficulties, hopefully we are able to learn the ropes as to how to get what we want. But this learning process is not done of our own free will. As Ambiguous said: everything we do, think, and say is in sync with the laws of matter, which means all of our desires, wants, and preferences are not what we choose freely. But once we have these wants and desires, we then choose those things that help us to attain the things we desire, unless what we want is hurting someone. That’s where we also have the God given ability to say “no”, which is also in the direction of greater satisfaction. Nothing falls out of the loop of deterministic law. To repeat: none of what we want, and none of what we pursue to get what we want, is done of our own free will.
These people had a burning desire and the determination that it took to survive, but they didn’t do it of their own free will. All of the factors that made them who they are allowed them to get through the nightmare. None of this was done of their own free will.
Yes, I can of course agree with that - in part. The statement is obviously true but at the same time, there had to be some “defining” moments for some/many of them, moments when perhaps they experienced a particularly horrible scene (they all were) which made their “free” Self rise up thus motivating them to become more than “part and parcel” of who and what they were before, thereby becoming self-determined humans in the moment whose potential would become known in the future. I may not have expressed that well enough so that you would know what I mean.
Some people can rise above horrendous circumstances if they are lucky enough to have the strength and fortitude to do it. Some don’t have the same constitution and are weaker in their ability to think positively in such a dire situation. Neither have free will, not the one who is more resourceful or the one who gives up more quickly.
Self-determined means they had free will, according to the dictionary definition. This is false because no one has free will.
I still think that you are throwing the baby out with the dirty bathwater. Just like “love” to me is more a matter of “action”, not just feelings, resolute, self-determination based on right conscious reasoning followed by action becomes free will. That might not make any sense to you.
.
In reality the one who has that kind of self-determination is just as bound by the law of determinism as the one who doesn’t have that kind of self-determination. His genetics (some people are born to see the glass half full, which has a genetic component) and his environment (maybe his parents telling him for years that he can do anything he puts his mind to, which he has come to believe) has put him in a position of strength during very hard times. But none of what he can do or not do is of his own free will. I hope you read this author’s clear definition of determinism so we can be on the same page.
And of the choices available, most are made consciously. What does this have to do with free will?
Putting that scenario aside, many do not make “conscious” choices. We make them on a whim, the ones which best suit our desire and our time-line, even though it is true that what we sow in haste, we shall reap at our leisure. When we have determined, through reflection and clear thinking what is the best possible outcome for something, that is exercising our free will, our autonomy.
You were right up until the last sentence. There’s nothing wrong with using the term “free will” to mean not having outside influence and thinking through a situation very carefully. For example, you could say, “I was free to make this decision, no one tried to persuade me. I chose this path of my own free will. I gave it a lot of thought and now my decision is clear, I’m going to join the Peace Corp.” Once again, it’s fine to use the term "free"in that way, but this is not the free will I’m talking about. IOW, this does not mean I could have chosen to answer any way other way than the way I did, in fact, answer. Do you see why definition is so important in a discussion like this?
Their choices were limited but they were able to think positively and gather as many resources as they could to try to beat the odds, but none of this was done of their own free will. They moved in this direction out of necessity and their desire to self-preserve, which was in the direction of greater satisfaction.
Leaves which blow in the wind and are carried here and there are not actually free. Their movements are not based in conscious thinking or decision making for their survival. They are not autonomous. They do not have the will to go their own way or to come to a halt when they feel like it. They are not capable of feeling like it. They do not have consciousness, mind, spirits or hearts with which to guide their existence.
So, are you saying that these people in the concentration camps were no better than leaves blowing in the wind simply because they were imprisoned? Are you actually saying that at no time did they experience the inner power to transform their selves and to make the decision to see their selves as human beings exercising free will?
This goes back to the definition of free will. Obviously, leaves are not conscious so you can’t compare. Consciousness does not automatically equate with free will. The word autonomy is very vague and can mean different things. Having the will to go one’s own way or to come to a half when one feels like it doesn’t grant him free will. Yes, he is free in the sense that nothing is constraining him. At first glance the average person would say of course they have free will. They can choose either/or. It’s up to them. But if you look deeper you will see that we are not free at all since we cannot choose what we prefer less when a better alternative [in our eyes] is available. We are constantly moving from dissatisfaction to dissatisfaction. We are moving from dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction, and there is only one possibility each and every moment of time.
They were moving in the direction of greater satisfaction even though their choices were extremely restricted. They were choosing the best survival strategies they could in order to stay alive in the hope that they soon would be rescued.
They were “consciously” moving in the direction of greater satisfaction…these were not random unconscious acts - they were “deliberate” - they knew or felt what it would pretty much take to survive. That does not speak to me of a lack of free will.
Yes, their lives were horribly in the hands of others but not necessarily their minds and their hearts. That is what determines the individual’s inner freedom and freedom of the will.
Once again, you are using the term “free will” to mean nothing was holding them back. It’s okay to use it that way, but in reality they didn’t have the free will not do what they did to save themselves. The survivors are no different from the ones that could not think as clearly as they could; could not figure out strategies to save themselves. Both were doing only what they were capable of doing. Obviously, we are not talking about being satisfied. That’s not what “greater satisfaction” means.
You would say that because of certain conditions and circumstance within a person’s life, there can be no free will. Every act has already been spoken for, decreed - like Judas Iscariot hanging himself because he felt that there was no other way, no other possible outcome. He could not envision otherwise but that does not mean that he could NOT if he had given himself the chance to re-think his options.
If he had given himself the chance to re-think his options, he could have envisioned otherwise, but you’re speaking in hypotheticals. It’s like looking back and saying “if only.” We cannot change the past because it has already been written. The only thing we can do is learn from past experience but there is no way it could not have happened just that way.
I would say that DESPITE these things, conditions and circumstances AND BECAUSE of these things, every act and decision performed can arise from a freedom of the will because so much had already been against the grain, in the tar pit, whatever. The way I look at it, the greater one’s will has been restrained and undermined, the greater the power to Will freedom, upheaval and transcendence and to act on that.
History has shown that as much as it has shown the other.
That may be true, but nothing that has happened or will happen is done of one’s own free will. There are people who have done heroic acts as a result of being in the tar pit, but these are not free acts. That is where you are confused. Your will to go against the grain, to persevere, to fight for “freedom” are all based on things that have driven people to get ahead, transcend their circumstances, if you will, but none of this is done of a “free” will. Replace it with strong will. Not free.
…
[i]Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action,
from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is
never satisfied or content to remain in one position for always like an
inanimate object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’ I shall now
call the present moment of time or life here for the purpose of
clarification, and the next moment coming up there. You are now
standing on this present moment of time and space called here and
you are given two alternatives, either live or kill yourself; either move
to the next spot called there or remain where you are without moving
a hair’s breadth by committing suicide.
“I prefer…” Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you
started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes
it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is
death or here and prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion
is life. Consequently, the motion of life which is any motion from
here to there is a movement away from that which dissatisfies,
otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here or where you are, you
would never have moved to there. Since the motion of life constantly
moves away from here to there, which is an expression of
dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously move
constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction. It should be
obvious that our desire to live, to move off the spot called here, is
determined by a law over which we have no control because even if we
should kill ourselves we are choosing what gives us greater satisfaction,
otherwise we would not kill ourselves.
The truth of the matter is that
at any particular moment the motion of man is not free for all life
obeys this invariable law. He is constantly compelled by his nature to
make choices, decisions, and to prefer of whatever options are
available during his lifetime that which he considers better for himself
and his set of circumstances. For example, when he found that a
discovery like the electric bulb was for his benefit in comparison to
candlelight, he was compelled to prefer it for his motion, just being
alive, has always been in the direction of greater satisfaction.
Consequently, during every moment of man’s progress he always did
what he had to do because he had no choice. Although this
demonstration proves that man’s will is not free, your mind may not
be accustomed to grasping these type relations, so I will elaborate.
[/i]
The fact that you say “that to me is free will” shows me that you don’t understand that this is not an opinion. Either we have free will or we don’t.
How close either of us is to the truth I cannot say for sure. But I DO see both in a way as our own opinion, our own subjective thinking or perception. Many of us perceive things in one way and many of us in other ways. This is why I think that philosophy may never get to the end of this question. Is it supposed to? How can you be absolutely sure about this? Much in philosophy is supposition and theory, no?
I’m sorry but this is not an opinion. Man does not have freedom of the will and what this does for our benefit is amazing once we understand how to apply it. We could not achieve this new world if will was free because we could hurt others with nothing to control that behavior.
We can’t have both because they are opposites.
Why not? Human beings are highly complex creatures. Some of us see with tunnel vision and others with a more panoramic vision. Some of us have the ability to hold to separate thoughts about something in our minds at the same time and then come to the conclusion after investigation, whatever, that both can be part of the same truth.
Free will and determinism are opposites. Either we could have chosen otherwise, or we could not have chosen otherwise. Not both. It would be a contradiction.
Do you see opposites - as in light and dark, night and day, hot and cold, wet and dry, good and evil, joy and pain, et cetera? Or are you of one mind who gathers them into Oneness, wholeness. That may not be a good example insofar as free will or not free will.
A better example is death and life. If we are dead (no sign of life and no chance to be revived), we are not alive. If we are alive (breathing with a heartbeat), we are not dead. These are opposites. I am talking strictly about true death, not being kept alive artificially, which some would say is still life.
The examples you gave are relative terms.
It is wonderful to be able to overcome adversity. The only thing I’m trying to explain is that whatever a person chooses, is in actuality not done of his own free will. He does what he can to make his life better if he is able. Both are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction given their particular circumstances. Once again, the confusion over the meaning of terms is problematic. I see it over and over again.
Perhaps what philosophy needs to do then is to completely drop the word “free” from the situation. lol I think that I am only kidding here.
I don’t think that’s necessary as long as people know what they mean by “free”. The author said he uses the phrase, “I did this of my own free will” all the time which only means “I did this of my own desire.” But again this does not mean he was actually free in a free will sense to do what he did. I hope that makes sense.
But that doesn’t mean he is any freer (or that he could do otherwise) than a person who can’t make his life better, for whatever reason.
The fact that he is able to transcend what the other person cannot shows me that there is more a sense of freedom and will power motivating him.
Could be, but where is the free will? He may have a greater sense of freedom by transcending what the other person cannot but this has nothing to do with his ability to do this of his own free will. Don’t you think if the other person could transcend difficult times due to a strong motivation (which is also beyond his control) he would do it?
This person made a conscious decision based on reflection and what is it Nietzsche said - turning everything upside down, inside out, this way and that way. Free will takes over in these instances - at least to me they do. We need to be able to see ourselves as being able to push through that locked box (bad example) and crawling out. If we cannot envision the box being opened, there cannot be free will.
This is all well and good, but you are going back to a different definition of free will. Obviously if someone was given advice from Nietzsche and it made sense, he may turn everything upside down, inside out, this way and that way. Where does free will take over in these instances? He’s doing what he is compelled to do based on what he has learned. This way of thinking may lead to more freedom, which is a different term than free will. If we cannot envision the box being opened, we are trapped within our limited ability to think beyond the box, but in either case no one has the free will to choose other than what he chooses (based on his limitations) in the direction of greater satisfaction. This author was a voracious reader and thinker, and was able to think outside of the box. That is what allowed him to make this discovery, but he did it not of his own free will.
to be cont…
I’ve said this before that it’s okay to say I did this of my own free will, if it means I did something because I wanted to, but this doesn’t mean your will is free in the sense that you could have done otherwise.
But this is where consciousness comes in for me. Examination/investigation of who we are and how we are influenced, considering all aspects of a situation, thinking ahead and asking how this or that choice might influence a conclusion - there is free will in that. There is no shabby thinking or being lead by patterns or triggers. The more grounded we are, the more conscious and self-aware we are, the freer our will and choices are. We are not leaves in the wind.
AD: “Man is not fully conditioned and determined but rather determines himself whether he gives in to conditions or stands up to them. In other words, man is ultimately self-determining. Man does not simply exist but always decides what his existence will be, what he will become in the next moment.”
― Viktor E. Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning
That there shows the potential for free will depending on which path an individual chooses to take. Either way, it is his choice. An individual either makes the movement toward transcendence and transformation or he stays in the quicksand.
PG: I think what he meant by that is that human beings can overcome many atrocities, and that we can stand up to our oppressors. He can also be encouraged not to give in or give up, which may help him to fight the good fight, but this does not mean he has ultimate control or can pull himself up by the bootstraps if he does not have the wherewithal to do so. As individuals we are doing the best we can given our life circumstances, which only means given the hand we’ve been dealt we try to make the best choice we can (in the direction of greater satisfaction), even if to others it is the worst choice.
Why does “the direction of greater satisfaction” have to be devoid of free will?
I’m only trying to define determinism in a way that reconciles what we do “of our own accord” with the fact that our will is not free so that I can show how this changes our world for the better.
I may be misunderstanding you here. This can lead to a real slippery slope I think.
This might not lead to a better world but one where people offer excuses for the horrible things which they do or think that they have a right to do because, well, after all, “there is no free will and I live in an already determined world. I am like the Borg. What could I have done.”
But again I might be misunderstanding you here. Can you offer an example.
People often think determinism would reduce them to robots (which it doesn’t), and why they resist the truth. Determinism hasn’t shown how to overcome the problem of moral responsibility, which is what I’m trying to show.
How can your absolute thinking about there being no “free” will help the cause then?
AD:Carl Jung said: “Free will is the ability to do gladly that which I must do.”
PG: Doing that which you must do is not free will. It’s the compulsion to do that which you have no choice not doing.
This is just a suggestion. Maybe you can take Jung’s advice and incorporate “gladly” into some of your decision-making and see what happens, how it makes you feel. Does it make you feel any different, freer, like you were the one in control and autonomous? First you would have to withhold your belief in a lack of free will for a little while. Or not.
There are things which I know that I must do. They are practical things which have to be done. How does this take away from my free will in doing them? I still have a say in the matter. I can turn my back on them. Why do you associate “must” with not having a choice in the matter? I think it depends on one’s perception and frame of mind.
Of course, when it comes to mental illness; for instance, things like being bipolar or having OCD or tourettes, I can see your point. We ARE pre-determined in ways. But even there, things can be different or made better, with motivation and one’s will.
Did the stoics feel compelled to do things or were they free and easy about them because they decided it was intelligent and practical to do these things or to live in this way. Where is the compulsion there?
Determinism does not mean that our choices are pre-determined by something external.
This is what I’ve been trying to explain. This would mean we must make a particular choice because it’s been preset, even if that’s not what we want our choice to be. That’s not how it works. We have the final word as to what choices we permit and which one’s we don’t.
I may not be interpreting your words clearly with the above, but you seem, to me, to be refuting your own “belief” that there is no such thing as free will.
AD: We really are not born as tabula rasas ~~ we certainly are not ~~ but we do evolve as a process and come to a consciousness of mind where we are able to be/become self-determined entities capable of creating our own personal freedom through exercising conscious free will all through our personal journeys.
I think we agree with each other but we’re using the term “free” to mean different things. Language confusion especially with a topic as deep as this one, can be a problem.
I can certainly agree with that.
AD: I am not an absolutist. I can see where our minds, our wills and our beings are not always free but at the same time I can also “see” a world where people do “consciously” exercise their wills to come to freedom and to make their own choices and decisions. Does taking action based on the stark reality of necessity cancel out the reality of free will or that of our personal freedom to act?
PG: We are often able to make our own decisions, but what we do of our own free will, or what philosophers often call free will, is not free will in actuality (even though it feels free) because we are compelled to move in only one direction; the direction of greater satisfaction which only offers us one possibility each and every moment of time.
Some times the choices which we inevitably have to make do not necessarily bring us in the direction of greater satisfaction and we are quite aware of this. But we do choose to make the choice for the greater good. The only time, for me, when we do not choose freely is when we are all bound up with indecision, regret and obsession about it both before and afterwards.
Granted, perhaps I still am not sure what you mean by the direction of greater satisfaction. Maybe you mean what I mean when I say “for the greater good”.
No need to apologize. I’m glad you stopped by.
My pleasure. But where was my coffee?
Maybe you will desire to read the first three chapters of the book Decline and Fall of All Evil. If you request it, I’ll post it for you.
I already found it through your italicized words above. I will give it a shot as I can.
[/quote]