Heh... but what does that mean?
It sound like you're saying that a completely constrained choice could be "free" as long as it's a "something" and not a "someone" that imposes it on you. Do you agree?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Free will deniers
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
Heh... but what does that mean?
It sound like you're saying that a completely constrained choice could be "free" as long as it's a "something" and not a "someone" that imposes it on you. Do you agree?
Yeah... that's where a lot of approaches to "free will" break down, since they require us to be able to differentiate between things that didn't happen and couldn't have happened, and things that didn't happen and "could" have happened. I have no idea how someone is supposed to do that.
One of my math teachers liked to say that the odds of something has already happened is 100%. The flipside of this is that the odds of something happening that didn't happen are 0%... and I'd say that "0% odds of happening" is a pretty reasonable definition of "impossible."
Do you know that there are people who deliberately choose to live on desert islands because that's the only place in the world where they can feel really free? Free from others.
Things cannot impose anything on us.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
You can never prove that a person could have chosen otherwise either. So?
What I can do is substantiate my position and elaborate on why I see the other position as being weak (and not even making sense).
I have no idea what point you're trying to make.
I am using logical arguments here.
Schopenhauer was a great philosopher who said the same things I am saying.
But what he said made so much sense to countless people, across history.
But it doesn't make sense to you, apparently.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Can you give me an example of a completely constrained choice?
Most murderers justify themselves by saying It had to happen.
As if murder was inevitable and was not their choice.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Free will cannot be proven, not any more than determinism can be proven.
Let's say that John chose to wear a blue shirt when he went out on a date last Monday. Is there any way to prove that John could not have chosen to wear a red shirt instead of a blue shirt at the moment of the choice? Is there any way to prove that John could have only chose the blue shirt and that it was predetermined that he would choose the blue shirt?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
That won't work in any court of law because the entire justice system is predicated on free will.
Free WIll, Determinism, and the Criminal Justice System
Koldo
Outstanding Member
I think you didn't understand what I said. Because I have absolutely no idea on how this relates to what I have said.
You should stop saying this because it is irrelevant on this topic. There is no one saying you didn't choose/decide, is there?
No. I have also no idea how this relates to what I have said.
Okay. You deny free will exists.
I say it does exist.
I respect your vision. But your examples were not that very logical, with all due respect.
They strengthened my convictions.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
How do you choose between two different alternatives if not by figuring out what you want to do that most?
What was the last time you chose what you want to do (rather than choosing what to do)?
Yes but not necessarily until the point of making a choice. As I see it there is the point at which a choice is before me prior to any motivation considered. At this point what choice I make is not yet determined. The "ultimate" motivation is developed though the consideration process, not before.
Ok, then that certainly shouldn't be part of the criteria of what free will is.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Okay. You deny free will exists.
I say it does exist.
I respect your vision. But your examples were not that very logical, with all due respect.
They strengthened my convictions.
I don't think you even understand what 'free will' means and entails in philosophical debates. I genuinely see you still being stuck into believing that merely being able to make choices without coercion entails having free will... even though you have already been explained that you are completely misguided...
I'd say your professor is delusional.I had a mentor in the past whom I met again after 10 years. A philosophy professor. He told me something about free will: there are several kinds of people. Those with enormous volition that use their willpower to do either good things or bad things; and there are people with scarce volition who are too scared to use their own free will, for they don't want to commit mistakes. There are so many shades of individualistic cases inbetween.
He also told me that free will deniers are usually people with a big volition who use their prepotency to destroy other people's lives.
They deny free will exists because admitting it does exist would make them feel guilty of all that they have done unto others.
It's a self-defense mechanism not to feel guilty.
What do you think, guys?
Men do that all the time. Having sex.
They choose what they want to do.
It's not choosing what needs to be done.
Nobody forces you to have sex.
You didn't answer my questions about sex.
When you have sex, you have it because someone forces you to do that?