Free will?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Does external influence negate free will?

If one is influenced in such a way to help shape who they are later, do they actually get to choose anything for them self?

Is it really anyone’s fault for their own actions? Yes I guess they somehow get a choice in determining their actions, but then what about the influence? does the influence not play a role in the choice? If so then how can it be complete free will in that choice if it was influenced from the beginning?

Does influence not shape a person? and if a person is shaped does that not partially play a role in one’s choices they make?

How can there be self-determination if influence shapes ones determining?

and I apologize if this seems like a dumb question, or thread. I am just curious on how exactly it can be free will if a choice is already helped shaped from the beginning.

2

It’s good that you bothered to state that, because… I was tempted to say … :icon-rolleyes:

What is commonly known as “maturity” is actually the balance between influence and personal responsibility.

It is unquestionable that literally every single thing in the universe is merely the result of whatever came before it. Yet that doesn’t actually resolve the issue of what to do about it.

The very popular, and even very predominate amongst the leaders, mindset is that, in order to maintain order, we must BLAME each individual for anything unacceptable associated with that individual. That is the reality. It doesn’t actually matter much as to why. That is just the way it is … currently.

In an actually mature society (as if such a thing has ever existed), the thing called “fault” is only relevant when it is something that can be changed by the knowledge that it was Response-Able and that there is something that could be said or done to alter the former response (is the accusation and/or condemnation actually going to fix anything?).

In most cases, by far, punishment does not help to fix the response problem, with the exception that others watching the punishment (or at least believing that it took place) become more frightened, and thus more leery/insecure, of potentially perceived violation of ordained protocol. It is a manipulation tool to prosecute, even the innocent, so as to frighten the average into compliance. And it isn’t going to stop merely because you state it publicly. It never has, for thousands of years and hundreds of generations.

The simple truth is that it is impossible to be free from causality, yet it is immature to not attempt to get reasonably intelligent people to conform to common respect. It doesn’t really matter if your intentions are good or totally malevolent. What matters is really only whether they cooperate or not (something that you, amongst many, do not do well enough) … regardless of any reasoning involved.

Blame and punishment are only inspired by the effort to get people to cooperate in a way that certain kinds of people wish to take place. Other kinds wish for cooperation yet do not punish people for not seeing their wisdom or desiring to participate at that time.

Is it really the existence of “freewill” that you question, or is it the condemnation that comes from the belief in it that you abhor? In the extreme analytic sense, “freewill” has never existed. In the social condemnation sense, the blame for misusing your freewill is the only thing that the mindless apes governing your world can use to control you… other than chemicals and military action.

What has been called “The Devil” is whatever it is that causes you to behave contrary to your own wisdom. By the disbelief that there is a “Devil”, you have invited the condemnation to fall upon yourself, else who else is there to blame?

Solution:
Fully believe in, and fully promote the accurate understanding of, “The Devil”. Then the condemnation will fall a little differently … and real progress might begin.

3

Speaking personally, the latter of course.

4

OP, external influence doesn’t negate it. It’s not an either/or. It may attenuate it a bit, as in, a guy who’s handcuffed can’t use his free will to raise his hands. But if someone is talking shit to him while he’s handcuffed, he still has the freedom to choose whether to spit in the person’s face or not.

5

But doesn’t the influence have a part in whether or not he -does- or -doesn’t- spit in the persons face talking shit to him? Doesn’t the influence mold him into a person that would or wouldn’t do that type of thing?

6

My take on free will:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=186334&p=2488121#p2488121

(Points are elaborated in future posts throughout thread. With more of my patented emotional shit.)

EDIT: But I primarily agree with all that James said in his response to you.

7

Thanks, brilliant example.

8

A part, but maybe the external thing just causes him to consider it. Hell, maybe 2 guys are in the same situation, all things equal, and the external stimuli is the same for both, and they both think of spitting in the face, but one chooses not to and the other goes ahead and spits.

9

I guess the problem with it here is that we wanna be scientific when we think about things, and when we see handcuffs we can observe without any lack of certainty that it’s not a matter of his will whether to raise his hands. But when we talk about behavior that’s influenced by something less binding, as in, something not as influential as a set of handcuffs, then we have to speak about his mental workings and they, while observable to an extent, cannot be seen such that we can determine a causal link between things like someone being talked shit to and an ensuing brain state which prevents them from being able to contain their spit…because of course another person under equal circumstances may actually contain their spit and then it’s like the narrative would work for both examples, which would rule out the whole being talked shit to thing as the cause of the behavior.

10

There are cases when a mature person is not just influenced but even dependent on someone else. This is obvious a case when free will is doomed. It has no chance unless the dependency is destroyed. I guess that the famous words in John’s Gospel saying that “…the truth will set you free” are fine illustration of that case. For example if someone knows something compromising about anybody else the former can control the latter. But if the controlled one is capable to face the ugly consequences of disclosure - it may then help the free will re-establishment. So even there, at least theoretically there is a chance and a choice.

It is completely another matter where there is no dependency.
In such cases I think it is proper to say that no will is [genuinely] free - without sufficient information to back the liberty up. In order to act freely one should know at least approximately the most natural sequences that will follow his/ her certain decision and related specific course of action(s). In such circumstances influence of others is mostly a reflection of their attempts to manipulate the information which we cannot collect entirely on our own.

Other people’s influence, including other authority figures influence on our own decisions work in the process of our decision making to help us (or obstruct us) in seeing the right picture or as much of it as it can be perceived.

But it may be that we are facing a choice and no alternatively foreseeing outcome make us happy. Yet the choice await us. And in such cases (i.e. lose-lose situations; but not only) we are nonetheless making one choice or another. Not making a choice is also a choice of course. For things will happen as a result of that passiveness. It is not quite sure in such situations (and sometimes in others) if the decision is a result of our logical analysis and rationality or it came after the dictate of our feelings. But even if these are feelings towards somebody else, I believe that these are the result of our own personality and not just following the “influence” or manipulation of that someone over us. What I was trying to say is that I cannot [for example] fall in love with someone unless I want it. And that is more or less my free will (although irrational as the case may be). Other person in my position could not bide the bait of the same magical influence.

11

Everything is external influence to the soul, but the spirit is the self-drive which learns from and utilises those influences. However if those influences become tarred with negatives and evolutionary desires/drives, then the spirit can become swamped and unable to break free. Such things are like our arms and legs in movement, you can only move properly with healthy limbs, same internally with external influences on the inside of the mind.

Free will is i think an important notion for humans to work towards socially as well as individually. There has to be the right conditions for free will to thrive, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have free will. The walls of a prison will physically restrain the will even though it is still present, many aspects of the world will do the same without the presence of physical walls.

I feel that we are all in an individual and societal battle to procure freedom for the will, ~ for all.

_