Does the idea of 'free will' defeat the Epicurean Paradox?

[Unfathomable Tao]

I was referring to the atomism of say Epicurus or Democritus.

 

[idav]

I was referring to the atomism of say Epicurus or Democritus.

All that makes sense to me but the explaining away of qualia through purely physical means is no easy task. I think the only thing they didn't realize without having the science at the time is how much atoms go beyond simple cause and effect when in quantum states which gives an easier out for the philosophy. So to me qualia is explained more in terms of quantum mechanics rather than the simpler notions coming from Newtonian physics.

 

[Unfathomable Tao]

I'm not even sure I accept the common notion of qualia, because its typically based on traditional mind-body dualism, including the idea that our brain is solely responsible for forming impressions. I'm more interested in what Phenomenologists like Merleau Ponty said about consciousness. He posited that when we're in a union with other bodies in the world (gestalt), like engaged in an activity hands on- we can't be separated out as a distinct mind, because we're fixed in what we're doing, and so we don't create meaningful impressions on our own. I might use qualia very playfully at best.

 

[idav]

I'm not even sure I accept the common notion of qualia, because its typically based on traditional mind-body dualism, including the idea that our brain is solely responsible for forming impressions.

I understand what your saying about qualia, people try to use that term to make consciousness something ineffable and unattainable by the brain alone, especially for claims where a special soul is supposed to be involved.

 

[Aiviu]

I am of the opinion that the idea of free will has problems to begin with. That said, Abrahamics often claim that evil needs to exist for free will, and thereby they believe the problem of evil is nullified. I do not believe it is. I would put forth that an omnipotent deity who could not create choice without evil is in fact not omnipotent.

That's enough to get this discussion rolling. Let's chat friends

You can decide to do the right or you can decide to do nothing. While "doing nothing" wont evidence who you are, then being evil will at least evidence you had lived at all.
From not doing the right (doing nothing) to being evil, free will is a direction of one's choice and a meaning for him who he is.

But why you put free will higher than doing good?

 

[Unfathomable Tao]

You can decide to do the right or you can decide to do nothing. While "doing nothing" wont evidence who you are, then being evil will at least evidence you had lived at all.
From not doing the right (doing nothing) to being evil, free will is a direction of one's choice and a meaning for him who he is.

But why you put free will higher than doing good?

Aren't you being a little arbitrary here in how you define 'doing nothing'? We're always doing something. Idleness is doing something, even if its not a productive thing. I don't see how that ties into the Problem of Evil though. As to your other question, it is not I that places free will as higher than good- it is those worldviews this question was addressed to.

 

[Aiviu]

Aren't you being a little arbitrary here in how you define 'doing nothing'? We're always doing something. Idleness is doing something, even if its not a productive thing. I don't see how that ties into the Problem of Evil though. As to your other question, it is not I that places free will as higher than good- it is those worldviews this question was addressed to.

No. Doing something with others. Doing something good for others. I assumed that to understand under a decision of free will regard to religion. I do not care about the decision "do i take a shower or a bath?" ... these are on personal taste and wont shown to be evil. Merely could be stupid.