That’s exactly why you don’t choose them even though you could if you wanted to. But you don’t want to because it gives you less satisfaction in comparison to the choice not to, since, according to your way of thinking, they are wrong and suck. Free choice is a realistic mirage because you can’t choose what you prefer less. The word choice just means you have options that are under consideration, but how can you have free will when it is impossible to choose what you consider worse under your particular circumstances? I know you will balk at this because religion preaches will is free, and you are religious, right?
Only those who want to abdicate responsibility or control others are in denial their will is free. They live quite the opposite when they are making decisions they already proved they know are wrong by trying to distance themselves from responsibility. They know. They lie to themselves. We probably all do at various times.
[quote=“Ichthus77”]
Not all religious believe in free will, no.
I do, yes.
Peacegirl: Calvinism is the only one know of, but they still hold some aspect of free will. I don’t know what your idea of free will is when we are under a compulsion to choose what gives us greater, not less, satisfaction each moment in time. Free will means we are under no compulsion; we could choose any of the options equally. That is what FREE will means; that our choices are equal in weight; we could choose to do good or bad FREELY. But that is false for if there are meaningful differences, our nature compels us to pick the more preferable option regardless of our reasons that drive our choice.
Ichthus77: Only those who want to abdicate responsibility or control others are in denial their will is free. They live quite the opposite when they are making decisions they already proved they know are wrong by trying to distance themselves from responsibility. They know. They lie to themselves. We probably all do at various times.
Peacegirl: I’m in disagreement that people who deny free will want to abdicate responsibility or control others. I wish, for a moment, you could let go of the definition of determinism that you are using. What I just explained to you about the compulsion to choose what is the most preferable in your eyes has nothing to do with control or abdicating responsibility. If you can do that then we have a basis for communication, otherwise there IS no basis.
Definitions are important but they can be false. They are not written in stone if they do not symbolize reality. When it comes to the definition of determinism, there is a problem because of the idea that if we are not caused by antecedent conditions or the past, our will must be free. This is a misunderstanding. This definition needs to be corrected for us to see how we can reconcile these two opposing ideologies which increases moral responsibility within a deterministic framework. This new understanding opens the door to a whole new world of peace and brotherhood.
Free: self- (will-) determined… but we’re all wanderers here
Determined: realized distinctly from among available [in the case of will: conceivable/imaginable, actionable/workable options — as opposed to bare/pure action/reaction … mathematized physics (happenstance)] options
In walks Kant:
Blue: act/choice (do) without purpose/law
Red: purpose (end) without a law/choice
Yellow: law (be) without purpose/choice
That’s the wanderer’s dialectic…^^
…like an incomplete puzzle that needs contact with the eternal/perfect (and others who are in contact with the eternal) to be unlocked (and unlock each other).
This is the eternal/perfect dialectic:
Blue: act/choice (do) “unlocked”*** by purpose/law
Red: purpose (end) “unlocked” by law/choice
Yellow: law (be) “unlocked” by purpose/choice
It has nothing to do with having any kind of free will, so how can it be compatibilism? Just because we are able to choose “freely” (when nothing is stopping us like a gun to our head), does not mean will is free in any sense of the word.
Compatibilism states that even though you couldn’t do otherwise (no free will), you still have the free will (i.e., you were free not to do what you did if you didn’t have a gun to your head or if you did not have a condition like OCD) to do otherwise. It’s a complete contradiction.
Compatibilism is also a way of discussing moral responsibility in a determinist framework. This whole quote here is word for word compatibilism: “reconcile these two opposing ideologies which increases moral responsibility within a deterministic framework”
She doesn’t quite realize – she understands it up to a point – that compatibilists use the word “free will” differently and that probably has to do with the fact that she doesn’t quite understand what definitions are.
It’s interesting to see the development of ideas over time, especially from those who were/are inventors, or discoverers of stuff others couldn’t understand/imagine.
Inventors … discoverers … if this began complete … as a whole co-creative thought/imagining … they’re the same thing.
