A free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Do human beings have a free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?

Free will.
1
10%
Relatively free will.
7
70%
Unfree will.
2
20%
I do not know.
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 10

A free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?

Postby Arminius » Wed Jun 17, 2015 1:40 am

Do human beings have a free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: A free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?

Postby Zoot Allures » Wed Jun 17, 2015 1:59 am

None of the above? Are those even real questions? I think causality removes any possibility of anything being by philosophical definition 'free', but I also think posing the alternative answer in deterministic terms is also confused.

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:My summary [of my ideas on 'determinism']; but comrades should not expect a water-tight solution to such a knotty problem in a few paragraphs. I am only posting this because I was asked to do so.

This issue has always revolved around the use of terminology drawn from traditional philosophy (such as "determined", "will", "free", and the like), the use of which bears no relation to how these words are employed in ordinary speech.

For example, "determine" and its cognates are typically used in sentences like this "The rules determine what you can do in chess", "The time of the next train can be determined from the timetable", or "I am determined to go on the demonstration" and so on. Hence this word is normally used in relation to what human beings can do, can apply, or can bring about.

As we will see, their use in traditional thought inverts this, making nature the agent and human beings the patient. No wonder then that the 'solution' to this artificial problem (i.e., 'determinism' and 'free will') has eluded us for over 2000 years.

To use an analogy, would we take seriously anyone who wondered when the King and Queen in chess got married, and then wanted to know who conducted the ceremony? Or, whether planning permission had been sought for that castle over in the corner? Such empty questions, of course, have no answer.

To be sure, this is more difficult to see in relation to the traditional question at hand, but it is nonetheless the result of similar confusions. So, it is my contention that this 'problem' has only arisen because ideologically-motivated theorists (from centuries ago) asked such empty questions, based on a misuse of language. [More on this below.]

When the details are worked out, 'determinism', for instance, can only be made to seem to work if nature is anthropomorphised, so that such things as 'natural law' 'determine' the course of events -- both in reality in general and in the central nervous system in particular -- thus 'controlling' what we do.

But, this is to take concepts that properly apply to what we do and can decide, and then impose them on natural events, suggesting that nature is controlled by a cosmic will of some sort. [Why this is so, I will outline presently.]

So, it's natural to ask: Where is this law written, and who passed it?

Of course, the answer to these questions is "No one" and "Nowhere", but then how can something that does not exist control anything?

It could be responded that natural law is just a summary of how things have so far gone up to now. In that case, such 'laws' are descriptive not prescriptive -- but it is the latter of these implications that determinists need.

Now, the introduction of modal notions here (such as 'must', or 'necessary') cannot be justified from this descriptive nature of 'law' without re-introducing the untoward anthropomorphic connotations mentioned above.

So, if we say that A has always followed B, we cannot now say A must follow B unless we attribute to B some form of control over A (and recall A has not yet happened, so what B is supposed to be controlling is somewhat obscure). And if we now try to say what we mean by 'control' (on lines such as 'could not be otherwise', or 'B made A happen') we need to explain how B prevented, say, C happening instead, and made sure that A, and only A took place.

The use of "obey" here would give the game away, since if this word is used with connotations that go beyond mere description, then this will imply that events like A understand the 'law' (like so many good citizens), and always do the same when B beckons, right across the entire universe --, and, indeed, that this 'law' must exist in some form to make things obey it. Of course, if it doesn't mean this, then what does it mean?

Now, I maintain that any attempt to fill in the details here will introduce notions of will and intelligence into the operation of B on A (and also on C) -- and that is why theorists have found they have had to drag in anthropomorphic concepts here (such as 'determine', 'obey' 'law' and 'control') to fill this gap, failing to note that the use of such words does indeed imply there is a will of some sort operating in nature. [But, note the qualification I introduce here, below. There were ideological reasons why these words were in fact used.]

If this is denied then 'determine' (etc.) can only be working descriptively, and we are back at square one.

Incidentally, the above problems are not to be avoided by the introduction of biochemical, neurological, and/or physiological objects and processes. The same questions apply here as elsewhere: how can, for example, a certain chemical 'control' what happens next unless it is intelligent in some way? Reducing this to physics is even worse; how can 'the field' (or whatever) control the future? 'The field' is a mathematical object and no more capable of controlling anything than a Hermite polynomial is. Of course, and once more, to argue otherwise would be to anthropomorphise such things -- which is why I made the argument above abstract, since it covers all bases.

This also explains why theorists (and particularly scientists who try to popularise their work) find they have to use 'scare quotes' and metaphor everywhere in this area.

As I noted earlier, this whole way of looking at 'the will' inverts things. We are denied a will (except formally) and nature is granted one. As many might now be able to see, this is yet another aspect of the alienating nature of traditional thought, where words are fetishised and we are dehumanised.

And this should not surprise us since such questions were originally posed theologically (and thus ideologically), where theorists were quite happy to alienate to 'god' such control over nature and our supposedly 'free' actions'. Hence, we too find that we have to appropriate such distorted terminology if we follow traditional patterns of thought in this area.
Zoot Allures
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2607
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:50 pm

Re: A free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?

Postby Arminius » Wed Jun 17, 2015 2:57 am

By definition there are merely three possiibilities for the will: (1) to be free, (2) to be relatively free, (3) to be unfree. Most humans know that there is a will, and even those who do not know it but know the word "will" ask themselves or others whether the will is free, relatively free, or unfree.

This is my answer:
Arminius wrote:The so-called "free will" is merely a relatively free will. The whole history of philosophy is full of that topic. According to it there have always been philosophers of determinism, philosophers of indeterminism, philosophers of a mixture of both determinism and indeterminism, and all of them have always taken turns.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: A free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?

Postby Orbie » Wed Jun 17, 2015 4:55 am

I can only support my vote of 'unfree will', by the claim of logical incongruity between freedom and will.

The choice is always there, and the will always has to be paired with some action or thing, where even not to will becomes a choice. The will is nothing unless a 'to' is attached to it, whether it be to power,mot love, to murder, or whatever. that whatever becomes that by which the will is bound. Even if, that , call it X, has a potential of either / or, or a 50% opportunity of expression. A pure will, without representation, is an existential nothingness. Nietzhche perhaps saw this coming, a nihilistic duality unexpressed, still harbors that existential choice: to be, or not. being or nothingness. That is the most founde mental choice, pre existing the will. This is why the most basic tenet here is the will to exist, or will to be.

It is a basic given, prior to that the question. An not be given, guessed , or even entertained. At some point of our existence, we can ask the question about the will to live, whether we have it , it superceeds, the question of whether we want it. Our will is bound
by modal schema of pre-existence, and is moved toward it. The basic modality of the will to exist is unfree to overcome this modality. It is bound and trapped by it. Hence the problems of overcoming the either/or, by the power of a will, a will defanged by its own modality.

Therefore I voted 'the will is unfree'.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: A free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?

Postby zinnat » Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:32 am

The will is almost unfree but it will be always almost, not completely. There will always be a hint of free will in it.

Having said that, the ratio of the freeness in the will be very seriously minor. I cannot put on my finger to a precise number but my guess is that cannot be in the double digit percentage.

With love,
Sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3650
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: A free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?

Postby Amorphos » Wed Jun 17, 2015 12:56 pm

Free will is a learned thing.

We have the ability in our subjectivity to observe, and to make a thing become the object to the observation.

Meanwhile causality is happening and its trying to drive the will. As we grow up that drive becomes part of us as its our knowledge-base, and infants require the ability to evade predators and danger generally. This has to be pre-programmed, and only through a process of observation [growing-up] can free will be attained. I think for most of us full free will doesn’t fully occur until late in life ~ we have to ‘know’ what it is. Maybe e.g. the buddha achieved it at 35yrs [his spiritual liberation], and jesus around a similar age, but compared to now i didn’t know jack shit when i was 35yrs. so i don’t know how much any human can know in that time?

Answered ‘relatively free will’.
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7052
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: A free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?

Postby Amorphos » Wed Jun 17, 2015 12:59 pm

Orbie

on the tone of will-to-power.. what do you think of my last post on the matter here...

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=188106&p=2546186#p2546186
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7052
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: A free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?

Postby James S Saint » Wed Jun 17, 2015 1:45 pm

It depends on which kind of "free" you are talking about. Free from what? Free from oppression? Free to make life choices? Free from social manipulation? Free from causality?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: A free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?

Postby Amorphos » Wed Jun 17, 2015 3:10 pm

free choice I'd say. decision making ~ irrespective of concerns to make a thing happen in the world. inner decision making we could say.
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7052
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: A free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?

Postby Orbie » Wed Jun 17, 2015 3:54 pm

Amorphos wrote:Orbie

on the tone of will-to-power.. what do you think of my last post on the matter here...



viewtopic.php?f=1&t=188106&p=2546186#p2546186








--------
---------
I am just out the door as i caught this, Amorphos, but my reply would not give justice to the above blog, in which I did not participate.

Just off the cuff, I would say, there has been a shift away from cognoscenti toward behavior , consequentially, what we do, seems to predicate how we think we excercised our will. In this sense, the effect predisposes the affect, as to how we prejudice out thoughts on this matter.

it may very well be the case, that we would like to think we have the freedom of will, and put back man's consciousness back on the pre-existential pedestal, but , it doesn't work this way.

In reply to Zinnatt inbound say, the odds are very much tilted away from our conscious decision making, toward it's built in applied conformed link to it's doing. A few degrees of difference between the one and the other, make it effectively a doing process.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: A free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?

Postby Arminius » Wed Jun 17, 2015 4:01 pm

James S Saint wrote:It depends on which kind of "free" you are talking about. Free from what? Free from oppression? Free to make life choices? Free from social manipulation? Free from causality?

Free from all, so that you can say: "one is free, because one can do what one will".

But you can also do what Kant did: divide the world into two parts, one for the senses and one for intelligibility. According to the first part humans have an unfree will, thus no free will, because they are slaves of the causality; but according to the second part humans have a free will.
Last edited by Arminius on Wed Jun 17, 2015 4:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: A free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?

Postby James S Saint » Wed Jun 17, 2015 4:27 pm

Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:It depends on which kind of "free" you are talking about. Free from what? Free from oppression? Free to make life choices? Free from social manipulation? Free from causality?

Free from all, so that you can say: "one is free, because one can do what one will".

Nothing is free from causality (else you are stuck with the "something from nothing" theory).
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: A free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?

Postby Arminius » Wed Jun 17, 2015 4:35 pm

James S Saint wrote:Nothing is free from causality (else you are stuck with the "something from nothing" theory).

Arminius wrote:But you can also do what Kant did: divide the world into two parts, one for the senses and one for intelligibility. According to the first part humans have an unfree will, thus no free will, because they are slaves of the causality; but according to the second part humans have a free will.

So Kant also said that nothing is free from causality, thus also human beings are not free from causality; but he said humans have an intelligible freedom, thus they have a free will according to their intelligibility. In other words: Kant was both a determinist and an indeterminist, because he said humans have an unfree will because of the causality, but they have a free will because of their intelligibility. Therefore he demanded: "You shall because you can!" (loosely translated).
Last edited by Arminius on Wed Jun 17, 2015 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: A free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?

Postby James S Saint » Wed Jun 17, 2015 4:47 pm

Arminius wrote:So Kant also said that nothing is free from causality, thus also human beings are not free from causality; but he said humans have an intelligible freedom, thus they have a free will according to their intelligibility.

What he seems to be calling "intelligible freedom" can only refer to a greater degree of freedom to decide on life choices (intelligence and available opportunities), freedom from oppression (legalistic traps), or freedom from social manipulations (disinformation, limited information, hypnosis, chemicals/medications, radiology,...).

What many people seem to believe is that the human will is free from causality. That is entirely irrational.

So;
A) there is never freedom from causality
B) other types of freedoms are circumstantial.

SAM provides the greatest degree of stable social freedom.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: A free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?

Postby Orbie » Wed Jun 17, 2015 5:28 pm

I concur, Kant did try to blend the two ways of determinism with the opposite, the major theme recurring here, imbues the political-social philosophy from him and unward. That Nietzche tried to nihilize the attempt at resucecting a proto idealism, and as
was observed in another blog, he was notman existentialist. Existentialism was the cure for a failed attempt at that type of resurrection. A political tour
de force, to to undercut the failed synthesis, by
destroying the ideal. That it was a reversely psychological attempt, to furnish impetus, to avoid that, makes his attempt ironic, an act of sophistry. Niertzche wanted the opposite, he wanted a reaction
to prevent the very thing he was advocating.

I am taking this opportunity to express this thought,
because i think it is of significance vis a vis, our

discussion about Kant, and the question of the will, and freedom thereof.



The French needed a method, the way of Descartes,
a saving grace, and it once try to dominate the
intellectual focus of Europe. The method was phenomenological, and not ontological, exhibiting the very reversal Nietzche was wrestling with, but via a
transcendental poesy. Niertzche was reversing, in

order to liberate the will, by an apriori approach, while Sartre was reversing by way of method.



The Schopenhaurian representation was put before
the will, reduced to the basic of social contract. The
war was lost after all, the ideal was not liberated, as
France was , that being an irony in its self. There could not be an apology, only some reason could be
found, ideologically speaking, to butress the
reduction from sinking into total annihilation.

The will was supported by social reinterpretation of
the social contract, another French idea, and
communism was embraced, a winner in the conflict.

As this had also failed, leads back into another kind
of nihilism, the material taking over and replacing the
ideologically possible. The ongtologiclly valuable. At seems Kant lost the battle, Arminius, facts speak louder then words.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: A free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?

Postby Amorphos » Wed Jun 17, 2015 5:54 pm

Orbie

Just off the cuff, I would say, there has been a shift away from cognoscenti toward behavior , consequentially, what we do, seems to predicate how we think we excercised our will. In this sense, the effect predisposes the affect, as to how we prejudice out thoughts on this matter.


Doesn’t there first come a time of consciousness, prior to doing or even thinking? Or otherwise is the subjective observer not primary to experience? The very act of being subjective draws the focus of the perception to an extended viewpoint, thus making the objective world and its respective thought informations, into the object in its eye or field of view.
The consciousness and all its functions are at work too ~ in decision making.

for me it's a 50/50 balance in adults. but one has to learn how the causal info is working in order to subjectively see it.
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7052
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: A free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?

Postby Arminius » Wed Jun 17, 2015 6:55 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:So Kant also said that nothing is free from causality, thus also human beings are not free from causality; but he said humans have an intelligible freedom, thus they have a free will according to their intelligibility.

What he seems to be calling "intelligible freedom" can only refer to a greater degree of freedom to decide on life choices (intelligence and available opportunities), freedom from oppression (legalistic traps), or freedom from social manipulations (disinformation, limited information, hypnosis, chemicals/medications, radiology,...).

Yes, and according to Kant this is because of the second part of the human world, the "intelligible world" of the humans.

James S Saint wrote:What many people seem to believe is that the human will is free from causality. That is entirely irrational.

Yes, and that is what Kant said as well.

James S Saint wrote:So;
A) there is never freedom from causality
B) other types of freedoms are circumstantial.

Let's say that they are embedded in causality, but beings like the human beings tend to power, thus they want to dominate the nature with its causality as well, The accent here is on the word "tend", because they never can be free of causality. But according to their thoughts (=> intelligibility) they are capable of doing anything what they will, although they are not capable of doing anything what they will when it comes to causality.

Therefore the conclusion must be that humans have a relatively free will.

James S Saint wrote:SAM provides the greatest degree of stable social freedom.

Okay, but providing and holding a promise are not the same.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: A free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?

Postby Orbie » Wed Jun 17, 2015 7:19 pm

Amorphos wrote:Orbie

Just off the cuff, I would say, there has been a shift away from cognoscenti toward behavior , consequentially, what we do, seems to predicate how

we think we excercised our will. In this sense, the effect predisposes the affect, as to how we prejudice
out thoughts on this matter.








Doesn’t there first come a time of consciousness,
prior to doing or even thinking? Or otherwise is the
subjective observer not primary to experience? The very act of being subjective draws the focus of the perception to an extended viewpoint, thus making
the objective world and its respective thought
informations, into the object in its eye or field of view.
The consciousness and all its functions are at work
too ~ in decision making.


for me it's a 50/50 balance in adults. but one has to
learn how the causal info is working in order to

subjectively see it.


Of course, Amorphos, however primal consciousness does not preclude shifts between ideologies. In the evolution of consciousness, it is once ideology, or its revision or nihilization whichn predominates. Some political pundits can nihilize prior impressions by disregarding prior convictions. They just leave it out of practica political agendae. What happens then, is no longer an ontologically certainty, suc as the will toward some systematic application of reasonable machinestions of power man ipulation in the formr regard, but shaking and moving via manipulation by way of impressing power motives as a way of defanging social values. Of course the primordial origon of ontological values is there, butmit has been revised by onticm considerations. The will has always been a tool, a political tool to implement certain so called inalianable rights to pursue personal power.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: A free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?

Postby Orbie » Wed Jun 17, 2015 7:22 pm

Sorry, due to tech. problems, can't correct misspelled words.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: A free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?

Postby James S Saint » Wed Jun 17, 2015 7:32 pm

Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:SAM provides the greatest degree of stable social freedom.

Okay, but providing and holding a promise are not the same.

??? "holding", means what here??
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: A free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?

Postby Arminius » Wed Jun 17, 2015 7:49 pm

Orbie wrote:At seems Kant lost the battle, Arminius ....

No. Kant did not lose the battle.

Orbie wrote:... Facts speak louder then words.

The facts speak in the sense of Kant, at least more than in the sense of the representatives of the total nihilism.

It is a fact that all human beings are not free from causality, and it is also a fact that humans are spiritually or intellctually free from everything they can think and imagine, because thoughts and imaginations are also facts. We have two parts of the world, at least for humans, and the first part is one of the unfree will because of the causality, whereas the second part is one of the free will because of the intelligibility. Because of the fact that the first part dominates it is impossible that humans have a free will; because of the fact that humans can partly control causality it is possible that humans have at least a relatively free will (you may also call it relatively unfree will). So the position of a determinism that includes an indeterminism is correct. This means: The human will is determined, and this can never be changed, and indetermined, and this can be changed.
Last edited by Arminius on Wed Jun 17, 2015 7:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: A free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?

Postby Arminius » Wed Jun 17, 2015 7:51 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:SAM provides the greatest degree of stable social freedom.

Okay, but providing and holding a promise are not the same.

??? "holding", means what here??

Keeping.

If the greatest degree of stable social freedom is promised, then this promise should also be kept / held.
Last edited by Arminius on Wed Jun 17, 2015 8:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: A free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?

Postby James S Saint » Wed Jun 17, 2015 8:04 pm

Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:??? "holding", means what here??

Keeping.

"Providing" means establishing the means or method. If the means are not established, then they were not provided. There is no promising involved.

When you fully understand SAM, there is no need for promises.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: A free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?

Postby Orbie » Wed Jun 17, 2015 8:08 pm

James, i find meaning theory, to supplant indeterminancy inadequate, for the same reasons why hermenautics trump signs in representing meaning in terms of the will.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: A free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?

Postby James S Saint » Wed Jun 17, 2015 8:11 pm

Orbie wrote:James, i find meaning theory, to supplant indeterminancy inadequate, for the same reasons why hermenautics trump signs in representing meaning in terms of the will.

Did anyone have any idea what that meant? :-s
... anyone ?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Next

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users