I ask them, do you think your life has a purpose, a reason for being?
They say yes. They say there is a reason for everything that happens.
Then I ask, do you think you have free will, or choice in what you do?
They say yes again. They cant imagine not having control.
Isn’t this a clear contradiction. I’m mean, If my purpose in life is to do such and such, then How can I choose otherwise.
How can I choose to do other than my purpose, and still say theres a purpose? Does purpose change, as do all things?
I dont think these people give much thought to their answers. And so, I start wondering . . . what’s the difference between answering and thinking you’re right, and knowing your answers are right after diliberation?
Well, time for one.
The person who just answers, lives in spontaneous time. The person who diliberates allows time to pass while they watch themselves live. The intelllectual, who thinks he right, maybe even knows.
We’ll which is better, the intellectual, who is right, but watches his substitute life? Or the person who is wrong, but lives in the moment of true being?
They could believe their purpose is a part of having free will. They could also have a different definition of free will than you (it seems like there are a lot).
As to your concluding question, neither is absolutely better; some people are more fulfilled being an intellectual, some people are more fulfilled being spontaneous.
Well, it depends on how you view purpose/meaning. The “meaning” of their actions might not be something concrete, it might be something much more akin to potential. The “meaning” of the lives of the people you speak of might be something more like actualizing their potential, reaching the “goal” of their life. They might view every action they take as a step towards their summit, towards their goal, either helping them reach it or deterring them.
You’ve just deliberated.
Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote: “If there were a verb meaning ‘to believe falsely’, it would not have any significant first person, present indicative.”
We have to believe our own beliefs, otherwise we really don’t believe them, do we?
what if potential is striven and driven, but never actualized. Would it still be purpose?
Example: I think I could be a great writier. I try to be. But theres is a chance that I wont be published. Is that my purpose then. I think it is. But that doesn’t guarantee that I get published. Can I choose to do something other than what i truly believe is my purpose: writing fiction.
Yes, the claim to have freedom of the will is always contradictory when placed alongside any other definitive claim about oneself. But freedom of the will is a total nonsense anyway.
One might assume so, but nonetheless if someone isn’t chosen then it isn’t chosen, no matter how much someone might fashionably bleat about being free.
Almost everyone who believes in freedom of the will is a moron who is wasting your time. It’s a bullshit concept for weak minded fools and losers. Usually, those who claim to have free will are those listening to mainstream music, watching mainstream TV, wearing middle of the road fashions, having the most boring and ordinary lives ever conceived.
Be a rebel, buy this mass-produced, mass-marketed punk/rock/hiphop album!
That’s about it. I’ve pondered this one for 5 years, and the only formal answer I have is time. If someone takes longer to come to a decision then it is assumed that they thought ‘more deeply’ (metaphor) or ‘on different levels’ (metaphor) or just ‘more rationally’ (metaphor) about it.
The fact that it takes a really stupid person 10 times as long to answer puzzles, if they get an answer at all, doesn’t seem to occur to most people. Of course, most people are morons.
Nope, just takes longer. That in itself doesn’t justifiably predicate anything, let alone claims to reason or knowledge.
I don’t think either is actually taking place - just more or less stupid people making up more or less inaccurate stuff and taking various amounts of time to do it. What defines the success or failure of a knowledge isn’t the internal validity of that knowledge, but rather how it flatters our social mores and helps maintain convenient dynamics of power.
I agree with the negativity of this post, especially the last paragraph. I haven’t believed in free will for a while. But when I consider the cause of my belief I realize that I dont like responsiblity. This realization is causing me to want challenge free will and become more reponsible. I dont know if this will prove anything, but the trying is what I’m after.
i assume we are not talking about biological purpose, but rather about existential purpose - something similar to ‘meaning’ in life.
if so, the ideas of purpose and free will are fully compatible, whether we mean purpose imposed by some external source, or purpose created by the individual. purpose does not have to be realised; if it is, this is due to the free activity of the will.