Free - Will

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Philosophy debates in the recent decades pit Determinism against Free-Will, with an overwhelming majority of participants and believers siding with the former against the latter. It’s obvious true that most people, nowadays, do not believe in Free-Will or Individual Autonomy. This coincides with rise of Far-Leftist, Neo-Liberal Marxist ideologies, all of which focus on victimhood and “Oppression” of the Western masses by a wide selection of ‘Elite’ institutions and groups. Incidentally, even when these Far-Leftists are or were in charge (Obama-Biden Administrations), they are STILL oppressed. No matter how much political power they seem to achieve–even if they had total power–then they would still NOT be free, and thus would be no closer to having or attaining any semblance of Free-Will.

So the political notion of Free-Will closely aligns with the socio-political notion of Libertine values (of Freedom) in Western Civilization …and also the mass religions of Christianity and Judaism, “Protestantism” pervasive throughout Western Civilization. In Protestant ideologies, the argument betweeen and against, Free-Will or Determinism, are muddled. Most Protestants seem to believe in Free-Will, a little bit, but only under the premise that it is granted and a “Gift from God”. So most of those who argue on behalf of Free-Will, in the West, do so under the presupposition of a mystical, mythical foundation. It is only “through God” that a human can possibly have Free-Will. Is this not contradictory?

And finally, most ‘Determinists’, whether secular (Leftist) or religious Protestants (Rightist), also base their deterministic-beliefs in a mystical and mythical, superstitious bases: “Physics, Science, Trust the Experts!” These types, the majority faction, believe that all Causes or ‘Causation’ in general, all spawn from (religious) Creationism or (scientific) The Big Bang. Either of these are required for a Prime Cause, First Cause, First Catalyst that ‘triggers’ all subsequent chains of cause-and-effect, up to now. And that, if a person were to follow any chain of events in existence, back to their “original cause”, then it would all recede back to the ‘One’, ‘Universal’, ‘Singular’ event:

Conception of the Universe.

So where do you stand on all this?

2

Motive is decisive.
Motive is objective.

The definition of the terms is what determines the outcome relative to your motives.
If you wish to nullify a concept you define it as they’ve defined ‘fee’ and ‘will’…essentially making them supernatural or metaphysical with no reference to anything experienced.
They define the concept in a way that makes it impossible to exist.
They begin with a Platonic ideal. An absolute no mortal can ever match.
The unreal.

If, on the other hand, truth is your objective, then you begin by anchoring your definitions to perceptible actions…actions that can be independently falsified and verified.
Actions that are independent from all subjective interpretations.

In the case of free-will we have ‘will’ which refers to actions…intentional actions.
Experienced actions.
‘Free’ is a qualifier of these actions…as is the concept of ‘strength’ or ‘power’ or ‘beauty’ …‘life’ etc.

If, like many of the hypocritical cowards on this forum you still wish to negate the concept by claiming it is an ‘illusion’ then you must do the same with all concepts. You must be consistent if you wish to preserve the “ILLUSION” of your integrity.
Then you must explain what is NOT an illusion.

So, the act of will is NOT an illusion.
We interpret all interactivities, in the way ( a priori) we’ve evolved, and it has proven to be successful, so it is not an illusion but an interpretation.

So, we BEGIN with a choice… a choice between options determined by our power and our previous choices.
How do we define the words we use?
Many have freely chosen to adopt a definition that satisfies their motives …which are deceitful… They are not interested in truth; they are interested in contradicting it… concealing themselves from it, because nobody can conceal the truth when it refers to reality.
Their motives are based on their weaknesses, their insecurities, their fears.
This is why this type always accuses their adversaries of fear.
Their passions dominate them, and this they experience as a lack of freedom, a lack of strength, the power of will to change, to supress their emotions, their self-interests, their egos, and attain a higher level of objectivity.

They hide in their subjectivity, in their collectivized support groups - their intersubjectivity.

3

Briefly
Will is perceptible…and experienced by all in themselves, in their every action.
No need to mystify it.

All qualifiers, like ‘strong’, ‘beauty’, freedom’, etc., are not metaphysical…Platonic…but based in reality they are an evaluation of degree - a relationship.

So, not ‘free-from’ - a slave’s objective - but ‘free to’ - a masterful agency’s movement towards an objective.
Never absolute freedom, always relative.

We can never be free from the past, free from causality, free from need…we are not omnipotent gods…but we are free to…to the degree of our awareness and srength…our will-power.

4

I see you.

5

Is that even true? How do you know that an “overwhelming majority” do that?

If we’re talking just professional philosophers, as in, people who publish papers, people who work in philosophy departments at universities, then it seems to me the majority are compatibilists.

https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4838

Not an overwhelming majority, just a majority.

6

Based on my experience of arguing against Determinists; there’s not many who believe in Free-Will, let alone that Free-Will and ‘Determinism’ could be compatible. They usually concede, inevitably, that those who believe in “Free-Will” were also (Pre)determined to do so. I don’t see the compatibility in that…

7

They contradict their own beliefs with their actions.

Quotation-Stephen-Hawking-I-have-noticed-even-people-who-claim-everything-is-predestined-12-67-33
Quotation-Stephen-Hawking-I-have-noticed-even-people-who-claim-everything-is-predestined-12-67-331200×640 74.6 KB

They claim they have no choice, that their will is trapped in causality, and they are not part of it… yet, they accuse, blame, carefully judge and choose, regret, correct themselves and try again…and come to philosophy forums.

Self-deceit is a survival strategy.

If it helps them cope, then it has been naturally selected into their psyche.

8

Ah so your “majority” is in reference to people on forums, not professionals or academics. I see.

9

Most people don’t seem to be aware of their own Motives though. Or worse, they act and invest into belief-systems which are, on the front, directly contradictory to their motives. So they outwardly present one set of beliefs, while internally operating on a different set of beliefs. Let’s take reflexes and instincts, genetics, as an example. Pacifists may claim to be non-violent, or take oaths of non-violence, but when confronted by actual violence, their reflexes demonstrate otherwise. Another example, a loud-mouth braggart may claim to be courageous and great everywhere he goes… but when danger actually occurs, he becomes cowardly and indolent, directly opposite of what he previously attempted to convince everyone around him, about his (false) demeanor.

These degrees of self-deception apply to philosophical beliefs and concepts too. People may spout praise and regale Determinism at every turn… but then act as-if he or she, or others, had a ‘choice’ to begin with, when concerning day to day actions, events, and consequences. In our Postmodern civilization, the masses tend to leave it up to ‘the courts’ or ‘The Law’, when doling out Justice and assigning Blame. These Determinists simultaneously cannot explain–how it is that the courts, lawyers, Judges–are or ought to be the one assigning blame, from Causes, whereas the rest of society does not or cannot, or should not. Nevermind the fact that people point-blame at each other on the daily, if not hourly. They are not acting in accord with their stated, defended, ‘Deterministic’ beliefs.

10

Where in Academia, Intelligencia, and “Professionals”, do you see numerous arguments in defense of, or pushing forward an agenda, of “Free-Will”?

11

Did you not see the link I gave above?

12

Compartmentalization…
Slef-induced schizophrenia.

To simultaneously hold two contradictory opinions without suffering any immediate consequences.
But they do suffer…dissonance…

Their minds believing what their bodies are constantly contradicting.

13

As I’ve said before… all nihilists must self-cotnradict… otherwise they will not survive a world they selectively nullify with their word-games.

14

I see the poll; do you honestly believe it’s that simple and straight forward though? Are you immersed in Academia? Do you work for or at a University? If “Compatibalism” is the majority belief, then do you see that being reflected online or on this forum?

15

Who said it’s simple and straight forward?

No

Compatibilism is extremely unpopular among people who participate in philosophy forums as a hobby. It’s more popular among professionals and academics.

16

Nihilism requires a confrontation against Fear, if it is to be battled or overcome.

Free-Will implies that humanity can choose wrongly, not only wrongly, but devastatingly and torturously. Driving drunk can ruin a life and many other lives. A broken back and spine is permanent. Determinism implies that people cannot make ‘choices’, really, and so the drunk driver “could not have chosen otherwise”. It implies that people are blameless of the damage they inflict, on others and themselves.

Is that the crux of it? To be blameless, perfectly innocent, an eternal victim of Life?

17

Why are we rehashing?

(If libertarian free will JUST IS self-determination, and not random & totally bizarre & unexplainable… then my saying it doesn’t exist is false.)

18

Because we chose to.

1 Like
19

Who are “we” (you)?

20

What does this comment mean? You think that because you wrote something, it’s settled for everyone else?

1 Like