But only organic life, Biology, has “Will”. Non-living things, mass, matter, earth, water, air, fire, none of these have “Will”. As Promethean already admitted to himself, to say otherwise is an Anthropomorphic Fallacy, which I agree with. Only Life has Will. And because of this, only Life has Agency.
You can posit abstractly that “only life is free” insofar that “only life has will and agency”, but I don’t necessarily think or agree with that. Freedom is a characteristic of Nature. The heavier/denser/massive an object is, the less ‘free’ it is conceived to be.
Thus Freedom is metaphysical. “Will” is not. Will is biological, hence this thread…
That’s not true. Organisms that can move of their own accord, have Agency, and therefore Choice. You can step left, right, forward, back. You can do a back flip. None of these actions are ‘choices’ or possible to non-living matter. A rock can never ‘choose’ to go left, right, forward, back. It is completely un-free, by comparison. Neither does water, or air, or fire “Choose” where to go. Only in life does ‘Choice’ appear.
It seems to me you’re conflating the organic quality of life, Will, with the elemental forces of existence. You can claim that a rock and a human are subject to “all natural and universal laws, of causality”, but that doesn’t help your position here. Humans still have Agency, and Choice, thus exponentially more ‘freedom’ than any non-living thing or object.
That’s the whole point though, that these conversations have been heading… Silhouette couldn’t endure this far.
You can claim that humans or life in general is on some pre-determined ‘path’ or Fate. But it’s not based on Science. Your belief in Pre-Determined Fate is no different than a belief in Free-Will. This is why I explicitly repeat myself, many times now, that the next step is to figure-out, understand, or “determine” all of the ingredients involved that lead one individual to believe this way, and another individual to believe that way. What is the qualification for these beliefs?
For the answer, I point to Master-Slave Dialectics. Some people are freer than others. Freedom is rarer. Most people are happy and content to be Un-free/Determined/Controlled by others. And furthermore, such Controls are representations of the Will-To-Power. Power directly corresponds to “Freedom”. Thus the “Freeing of the Will” can be compared to an “Empowering of the Will”.
Except in 20 moves, my pawn will clear a path and become a Queen… perhaps you can’t see it yet.
There are no inherent causes in existence. You seemed to have slipped in the past. Haven’t you admitted before, or would now, there is no “inherent purpose” to life???
If you agree there is no “inherent purpose” to life then you must also admit that life is as Un-determined as anything and everything else.
I don’t believe in a priori truths. Every “truth” is a Choice, and you always, always put up a risk with every Choice. There is no absolute truth. And so, Existence is Un-determined.
There is no Universal Law. There is no ‘force’ that applies to all matter. So you can interpret that as “many different categories of matter” if you like.
The Periodic Table of Elements essentially disproves Spinoza’s Monadology, and has disproved Ontological arguments, for centuries now.
I’m very specific when I use ‘Will’ as a verb and as a noun. Obviously, “Will” is a verb first, and a noun last.
What is meant by “Will” as a Noun, as a thing, as a “Soul/Spirit/Self”, is a a long and complex set of moral, ethical, and political values by which every specific individual human consider, evaluates, and then determines the choices they make throughout life.
Thus if you know somebody’s Will, then you understand their moral-values, and can begin to predict the more complex choices they make throughout life. Some people choose to lie. Some people choose to cheat. Some people choose to steal. Some people choose this vice over that one. Some people choose this virtue over that one. Etc.
All that combined, added together, summed-up, is what embodies their “Will”.
However, the greatest simplification of “Will” is that, Will = Desire/Want/Need.
Is a “Want”, a Noun??? Is it an adjective? Is it a description of what a person is, or who a person is???
There is no Universal Law. There is no ‘force’ that applies to all matter. So you can interpret that as “many different categories of matter” if you like.
This means that two objects will reach the ground at the same time if they are dropped simultaneously from the same height. … When air resistance plays a role, the shape of the object becomes important. In air, a feather and a ball do not fall at the same rate.
Course with my uncertainty., principle factored in , I may be seen pernicious, or ok I may be wrong.
Conscious valuing/values i’d say. This is where semantics gets tricky as well, one can have values but the values not being aligned with them deep down, for example. A child being brought up a certain way to have certain values, if they don’t align with that individual, which a lot of times they don’t, then those values become an entrapment of their identity. We call that byproduct of indoctrination through environment… which we all have to get out of to understand ourselves as individuals, the disassociation of what is not necessary to the identity one wishes to portray themself as.
So it is very important to be fully conscious of oneself and ones values and attribution.
Matter without will is still alive, only in primitive form of instinctive behavior that may interact with other matter and overlaps to become complex, which manifested will and life. It’s just a different aspect to consciousness, one we came through and of and now we may manipulate/transmute it as well
Where Will is defined as a value system this system will not be absolutely set in stone
There are two variables here : the system itself and the psychology of the individual
There are basically three variations :
A weak value system with a weak individual
A strong value system with a weak individual
A strong value system with a strong individual
There are also more subtle variations as well :
The strength or weakness of an individual changes over time although they may predominantly be only one of these
The value system may have some principles added or removed or modified or it could even be discarded for another one
All of these variables are what we have to deal with in order to become the best version of ourselves we can possibly be
They are our eternal attempt to understand the nature of existence in the here and now as it applies to us both collectively and individually
To understand the human condition which guarantees that there will be suffering and then how to rationalise and contain it as a consequence
I think the single most dominant factor here is psychology
A strong individual will have greater control over their options - this is not the same as saying they have more options
A weak individual will have lesser control over their options - but it also depends on what their particular choices are
A strong individual is more likely to think rationally and a weak one is more likely to think irrationally - but not always
And none of this is set in stone - multiple of all the possible outcomes for all free will choices by the total number of people making those
choices and you are none the wiser and this is why psychology is regarded as a soft science - too many variables and not enough constants
Artimas - the difference between natural and unnatural values is as between life and death.
What value-prisoners need is to rebirth their will into their own natures proper values. This is a cathartic and long lasting process, probably related to what the yogis call the kundalini, the fiery snake which, if awakened at the bottom of the spine, begins to burn through all the falsehoods on a slow and painful but more than that liberating process of rebirth through consecutively more exalted value systems, from root to crown.
I think my realization that valuing is the core of things would have been an Anahata type insight. It felt like it. Nearly died before I could jump to the conclusion. Anyway, all or nothing values, this is what triggers us the most, if a value is so hot that we would die in our approach - get rich or die trying is expression of this in a primitive sense, sacrificing oneself in the saviour of ones nation is a higher sort - but this is how we see that will is superior to mere desire or want or need: we relate most to seeing others overcoming their needs and desires and wants in service of something that truly matters - the valuing of which is ones very soul.
Selling ones soul, selling ones will - letting go of the highest values for “realistic” ones.
A funny metaphor occurs to me;
a car and a ravine, and a ramp, and two sets of fuel.
Fuel 1 is ones natural valuing, which might or might not be strong enough to drive the car up the ramp and across the ravine.
Fuel 2 is ones conditioned valuing, which is sure to be weak enough for the car to never even reach the ravine.
Most people run on 2. Its only natural. But Fuel 1 is what drove human accomplishment, and evolution itself.
Universal truth, ignorance and intent is what plays a role in those values in being more or less free. Not the values alone. Conscious values, not just values.
Nature, is the judge by trial and error. Psyche as well.
Agree, that’s what I called a sacrifice of the present for the future, in my thread “Impossibility of a possibility, why?” Thread. It’s all value attribution and most are not conscious of it, which is the main issue. For if one or most were conscious of it, most would see how little or meaningless(self destructive) such is and how much time they have wasted for the present alone instead of for the future or something greater than oneself
Freedom is relative to an individual. For a devoted and loyal soldier, deserting is not a choice. And for a supermodel watching her weight at a restaurant, desserting is not a choice.
I have to disagree twice, then. Not only do values have nothing to do with freewill, but value statements are non-cognitive and incapable of expressing truths. Attitudes, preferences, tastes, opinions, yes, … but these are what non-cognitivists call ‘non-declarative speech acts’. Such statements are equivalent to and amount to something like exclamations. A couple examples:
‘Killing is wrong’ = ‘boo you suck, you murderer!’
'Loving your neighbor is good = ‘hurray you are so awesome!’
(See the ‘hurray/boo theory’ or what’s formally called ‘emotivism’)