Free will an absurdity
- This topic has 199 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 10 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
If you choose to believe you don't have free will that's up to you. Lot's of people try to convince themselves that they don't, I used to be one. Even those that think they don't have free will still spend time delibirating and giving blaim and praise to other people according to how they act to themselves and others.Imagine what a world would be like if we thought all human action was the equivolent of a reflex. Very odd indeed.
John Oswald wrote:What is your need to hold on to it, when just "will" is shorter?In effect they are both the same thing that's why..
No they are not.The adjective 'free' says that the will is its own first cause, not compelled by any internal or external factors.'Will' suffices to indicate choice, without 'free' saying it acts independently of persuasion.Why do we publish literature, talk about socialism etc., if people's wills are not subject to persuasion?And yoy haven't answered my other questions at all.
It's all been said before. This is probably one of the most over done areas of philosophy. I'm freely choosing to end my contribution to this discussion now.
No, you only think you are. You're actually going because my annoying nature makes you.Plus, you've still not answered my questions, so I assume you cannot, and that your clinging to the term is human prejudice and self-importance.
John Oswald wrote:Plus, you've still not answered my questions, so I assume you cannot, and that your clinging to the term is human prejudice and self-importance.He is exercising his free will.
Vin wrote:John Oswald wrote:Plus, you've still not answered my questions, so I assume you cannot, and that your clinging to the term is human prejudice and self-importance.He is exercising his free will.
..or he wills it so. or freely wills it so. or jeez.
The Western Socialist carries no weight with you lot, I see.You are silent because you have no answer.You have no philosophical discipline, and your materialism is a muddled mess:"Loose thinking leads to the loose use of words, but the loose use of words also leads to loose thinking." Orwell.
Free will linked to human chauvinism: "i'm not a butterfly, fluttering about with no reason."Not only is there a reason, which you are blind to, but you contradict yourself; if you have a reason, then your will is compelled.
If you want to choose to argue that you have the same mental capacities as a butterfly, go ahead. I'm not sure why you'd want to do that though and I'm not sure if you'll get many takers.So to return to the topic. All that has been said is:A: "Free will" means to be an uncaused causer. There can be no such thing as an uncaused causer so "free will" does not exist.B: Yes you are right there can be no such thing as an uncaused causer, it's a self contradictory concept like "square circle". But if you look at how people actually use the concept of "free will" in their everyday lives and how they act and react towards each other as moral agents, the concept is wider than that, so there certainly still is a meaningful way in which the phrase can be used.And that's about all that can be said…
Unlike you, I don't despise butterflies.And such prejudice is why you want to cling to an outdated term which, by being used wrongly by you and others, serves to break with materialist vocabulary and heritage, leading to a free for all looseness in communication.
Recognising a difference does not equal despising."Free will" isn't an all or nothing kind of thing, that's the rub. It turns out to rest on social facts, not metaphysical claims about the nature of reality.
The forum has shown again the essential link between "free will" and human chauvinism, whereby one pretends that Man, an animal, is above material laws, by which others, I.e. butterflies, are bound.Universal cosmic laws of cause and effect bind everything that exists, but human chauvinism, while having to accept the dethronement of God, clings desperately to Man as an entity above material reality, a law unto himself, not subject to cause and effect.The mental capabilities of a butterfly are thus contrasted with the complex ones of a human, as though mental capabilities are relevant at all. Both are the subjects of cause and effect. Neither are above and beyond.If anything, the very complexity of the human mind makes free will even more of an absurdity, as THE WESTERN SOCIALIST writer points out, there are that many more complex and invisible internal motivating factors to consider, compelling the will.You are either idealists or materialists; you can't pick n' mix!
OK. So you've just repeated "A" but in a more verbose manner.What do you think Engels was going on about in the quote I put in the first reply?Idealism / materialism is irrelevant to the question since the realm of ideas follows causal laws or it doesn't, neither of these options allow for "free will" as defined in "A".Determinism doesn't give us "free will" as defined by "A" because all causes have antcedent causes.But indeterminism doesn't give us free will in sense "A" either because things just happening at random is not being a cause.
Knowledge of laws enables us to use them, I.e. the principles of cause and effect to a perceived advantage. We have the capacity to make decisions, but that does not mean our will is free to will, but to act pursuant to the motives which impress upon it, and in accordance with that motive he must necessarily act. Our control of phenomena is likewise determined by the motives that impress upon us. How would you reply to THE WESTERN SOCIALIST writer's statement, seeing that he was also conversant with Engels, but rejects the term "free will."?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.