The problem of free-will results from asking the question. Let me demonstrate:
To seek an understanding of some phenomenon is to seek an explanation.
To seek an explanation is to seek a causal account.
To seek a causal account is to expect for that account to fit into a deterministic framework.
To seek an understanding of free-will is to expect it to fit into a deterministic framework.
In other words, what I’ve concluded is that the whole problem of trying to understand how free-will works or what it is is that we’re trying. To ask the question itself (“What is free-will?” or “How does free-will work?”) is to expect for it to be deterministic. The nature of freedom in the will makes it completely opposed to understanding.
Hmmm. I agree that all “problems” arise from asking “questions”… but this argument-from-determinism is too general to explain why the problem of free will is insoluble, or in other words: this doesn’t tell me WHY we can’t “figure out” if we do or don’t have free will–if this is what you’re asserting. Causality itself is not an objection.
How about this: we can’t determine whether we have “free will” because “freedom” is an ideological social construction, and “will” is still rather poorly understood even taking into account the “discoveries” of neurobiology. Your point seems to be that we can’t point to something and say “THIS is the cause of willing.” But this doesn’t (necessarily) willing is a-causal; but the presumption of explanation on the basis of causality DOES eliminate the point of asking the question. I guess my point is that as soon as we’re asking the question of free will, we’ve already got a axe to grind about the nature of human society…
But honestly, I think I’m more interested in grinding axes than proving it impossible to ask the question of free will! What got you thinking about this? Why would it matter if we had a free will or not? If it doesn’t, should we just stop asking the question?
I don’t believe that you’re refuting freedom–you seem to opening up towards some new anti-systematic explanation for the Will. Is this just Nietzsche, i.e., some kind of ontological claim that what EXISTS is forces, and the coming-to-be of forces is a kind of urging that is analogous to the ways humans use their power?
Not quite. My point is that even if we could point to something, the fact that we’re calling it a “cause” defies the very nature of the thing we’ve identified.
This seems to be what my point leads us to, although for me it’s not a matter of whether or not we really do have free-will; it’s a matter of trying to understand it.
I don’t know about Nietzsche, but you’re right that I’m not refuting freedom. I’m refuting any possibility that we can understand it. This says nothing of whether or not we have it. Does this lead us to a “new anti-systematic explanation”? Well, it wouldn’t be an “explanation” since that reverts us back to understanding, but I guess it suggests a “new way” of dealing with the problem. If free-will does exist, maybe the correct course of action is to use it, not understand it.
Sure, but as long as we’re just doing things without knowing we’re doing them, or not understanding why, we’re acting ideologically, under a false consciousness. You can’t approach your own will in bad faith: Nietzsche would probably say something like you can’t allow resentment to tinge an affirmative will (and therefore lifestyle.) But maybe you’re closer to Marx here, saying the point of philosophy is not simply to understand the world, but to change it
Well, I wouldn’t quite say that. We can act freely even with a clear understanding of our reasons for doing so. It’s just that our reasons don’t force us to act, they only justify our actions. Note that I’m not saying that it’s our reasons for chosing certain courses of action that we can never grasp - it’s the mechanics behind the phenomenon of free-will, what makes it work, why it exists. This is different from the question of why Smith did X.
I don’t agree that to seek to understand something is to seek a causal explanation of it.
Infact, I think this is the underlying (incorrect) assumption of all so-called social sciences.
Let me pose a brief example for you…
If I sought to understand why you made the post that you did, and a scientist gave me an explanation in terms of the neural processes in your brain (synapses firing or whatever) would I understand your reasons for posting any better?
That depends on what you mean by “cause”. I don’t necessarily mean a physical or scientific cause. I just mean some kind of account that is more or less deterministic, something that makes you think “Ah, I see that it could be no other way” or “Ah, I would do the same if I had those reasons for posting”.
Also, there’s still the difference between understanding the justifications for a choice and understanding the causes of that choice. Both seek deterministic pictures, but the former looks for it in what grounds the justification, while the latter looks for it in free-will itself. The former can be done, the latter can’t - that’s my point.
Again, I disagree that understanding necessarily requires a causal picture. Of course, if it does, then free will is impossible. But you have assumed that in your premises - if they only form of understanding is a causal, deterministic sense, then of COURSE there is no free will. But that premise is also your conclusion, you have assumed that free will is impossible at the outset.
Another example…
If Rob kill Bob because Bob was sleeping with Rob’s wife, I can understand the action (by my knowledge of Rob’s motivation by jealously). That isn’t to say that every time some one is jealous or finds a man sleeping with his wife (or even that Rob would do this every time he came in this situation) they will kill someone.
Again, I have understood Rob’s action without recourse to causal mechanisms. I want to say that jealousy was WHY Rob killed Bob, but not that it caused his action.
Of course if you assume a causal explanation (premise 2 assumes this) then any other account will seem unsatisfactory. However I deny your right to assume such a premise.
Not so. My conclusion is that we can’t understand free-will. This does not mean it can’t exist. It just means there is at least one thing which is beyond human understanding (which means it not petitio principii).
This is a good example of what an understanding is, but I think you’ve misunderstood what is being understood in this case. What’s understood is why Rob’s actions were justified, not what forced Rob to commit murder. So what you’ve understood is the motives behind Rob’s actions, not how he could do it freely.
My thoughts on the the subject of freedom and free will is quite simple.
Civilization creates illusion,vice and corruption that is detrimental to freedom. Freedom is being amongst simplicity therefore to rectify the problem deattach yourself from society.
If you should remain attached to society in all it’s fixtures you then become detrimental to your own freedom. Freedom and freewill does exist but is human beings who suppress it.
free will is very tricky. at first glance, it appears to be possible because of the mere fact that we have control of our own actions, choices are made by us entirely. After all, isn’t that what people percieve as free will?
But on the contrary, if the statement ‘god is all knowing’ is true, that he knows what choices we’d make in the future, then it is sensible to say that we are predestined. so if god already knew that i was going to go to the beach tomorrow, i would not choose to go elsewhere at that moment because i am already made to make that decision even before i was born. so that choice has already been made for me.
thus, genuine free will is non-existent. it is simply one of lifes mirages.
The way I see it natural law is the first law of all things and there will always be some dependency however even with that it doesn’t negate freedom in my own opinion as ultimately freedom falls on the personal will.
free will exists like a facade, but looking deeper into it, free will does not exist because we are simply predestined since the beginning of the world.
that is exactly how we are made to think. that we are in completely in control of all our choices. but see, even before we were born, our choices have already been made by god.
if he is all knowing, he knows now what my future children will choose as a career. or if i will choose to marry or not.
so when the time comes that i need to make those choices, i will choose what i am made to choose.
its like the world and peoples lives have already been mapped out and we are all just playing the role.
I think the biggest illusion of freedom that man has for himself is that freedom should be unregulated. There will always be imposing limitations or structure to even that of the subject that we call freedom.
A man who has no limitations easily falls into vice which enslaves him to self destruction therefore regulation comes in the essence of moderation to keep man from his own ends in that he may exist lively.
Does any of that make sense? ( I am not good at explaining things sometimes especially my own opinions.)