Faust wrote:Free will is also a religious term. You're right, N doesn't believe it obtains. The free will/determinism nexus is a fiction.
Nietzsche thinks we do not have will, but that we are will, insofar as that term means anything.
That is, we do not control will, it controls us.
We are not determined by "the universe", but by our own biology. That biology was not necessarily determined at the inception of the Universe. He believes is causation, but not in an endless string of causation.
Shit - I don't have the energy right now.
We have obvious limits - biological limits, physical ones. Within those limits, "we" have freedom - but "we" are not our "minds". We are all of us. Our brains have a certain amount of control - but we have voluntary and involuntary physical responses - and good thing we do, or we might forget to breathe.
Nietzsche's Theory of Human Nature is a theory of the obvious, the mundane, and the commonsensical.
More or less.
Impenitent wrote:nietzsche was as much a determinist as hume... and for the same reasons...
Nietzsche wrote:Freedom of the will"-that is the expression for the complex state of delight of the person exercising volition, who commands and at the same time identifies himself with the executor of the order-who, as such, enjoys also the triumph over obstacles, but thinks within himself that it was really his will itself that overcame them. In this way the person exercising volition adds the feelings of delight of his successful executive instruments, the useful "under-wills" or under-souls-indeed, our body is but a social structure composed of many souls-to his feelings of delight as commander. L'effect c'est moi: what happens here is what happens in every well-constructed and happy commonwealth; namely, the governing class identifies itself with the successes of the commonwealth. In all willing it is absolutely a question of commanding and obeying, on the basis, as already said, of a social structure composed of many "souls".
xzc wrote:You wanting to fly is nature working through you. You are not separate from nature.
I can accept the phrase 'nature works against me' as being meaningful when it's a figure of speech, but I think taken literally it implies a dichotomy between 'me' and nature and this I do not think is right. To be literally true, it necessarily requires that 'me' be something that comes participating in nature, but not be an effect of nature.
There has to be some distinction. Otherwise, I am everything. The Moon, the Sun, the closest galaxy, you, are all me.
xzc wrote:The distinction is not something substantially fundamental, and when I say that I am nature, and nature is me, or that nature works through me, I don't mean that I am all of nature in all of it's manifestations; just one manifestation of this stuff that makes up everything.
xzc wrote:It could be taken as saying that these other things limit a capacity that doesn't exist...
xzc wrote:There's a difference between free will, which stipulates that we have the capacity to cause things while in nature all the while without being caused, and what I call 'unhindered will' which refers to the capacity to satisfy some desire. The latter works within a deterministic paradigm, while the former doesn't.
When I said "...a capacity that doesn't exist," I was speaking of free will. I think, when speaking of nature limiting us, we can only meaningfully speak of our capacity to carry out some desire we have, i.e., unhindered will. It doesn't make sense to say that nature limits our free will, granting the fact that we're a part of nature precludes free will in the first place.
Users browsing this forum: Lump