Freewill or Fate

[The Sum of Awe]

Which do you believe in and why?

What's the difference between these two? Are they really opposites?

 

[Skwim]

Which do you believe in and why?

Fate, by default. Free will has yet to be defined well enough to merit comparison.

 

[Reptillian]

There is a distinct difference between fatalism and determinism. One can be a fatalist and not a determinist. Fate implies a sort of purpose or meaningfulness...something is meant to happen. A fatalist can believe that they were meant to marry a certain person, but that the date wasn't necessarily set in stone. Determinists think that every event that happens follows uniquely from the causes that precedet it. Not all determinists are fatalists and not all fatalists are determinists. Free will on the other hand isn't necessarily incompatable with determinism. I don't think they're the polar opposites most people think they are. The opposite of determinism would be randomness or things being uncaused, and I don't think that is what people mean when they invoke the idea of free will. The idea of free will was invented in order to all one to be morally responsible for one's decisions. I don't think the idea of choice and moral responsibility is incompatable with determinism necessarily.

 

[Skwim]

There is a distinct difference between fatalism and determinism. One can be a fatalist and not a determinist. Fate implies a sort of purpose or meaningfulness...something is meant to happen. A fatalist can believe that they were meant to marry a certain person, but that the date wasn't necessarily set in stone. Determinists think that every event that happens follows uniquely from the causes that precedet it.

You can assert whatever definitions you please, but I've never see fatalism defined in terms of purposefulness. Got any credible grounds for this view?

Free will on the other hand isn't necessarily incompatable with determinism.

Well, determinism has always been the nemesis of free will, therefore I fail to see how they can be compatible.

I don't think they're the polar opposites most people think they are. The opposite of determinism would be randomness or things being uncaused, and I don't think that is what people mean when they invoke the idea of free will. The idea of free will was invented in order to all one to be morally responsible for one's decisions. I don't think the idea of choice and moral responsibility is incompatable with determinism necessarily.

So what is your definition of "free will"?

 

[Thief]

Old philosophical problem....
If Man is so smart...having freewill....
how do his efforts end so badly?

Yes you have freewill.
What you don't have is absolute control.

Even so....we all die.
And we die in one of two fashions.
You will die prematurely...by incident.
Or you will die by disease....
having lived long enough for your chemistry to fail.

Fate should be thought of as events pending, and there is no escape.
Or events gone astray, as you don't have the absolute... in your hand.

Freewill is for you, as this life is a learning experience.
Learn all you can.
Back to God you will go.

 

[Twig pentagram]

Which do you believe in and why?

I don't believe in any of them, but I think about both. Sometimes I think there is no fate but that which we make and other times I think that everything is predestined.

 

[Willamena]

Fate, by default. Free will has yet to be defined well enough to merit comparison.

Oh? :areyoucra And "fate" has been well-defined?

 

[Skwim]

Oh? :areyoucra And "fate" has been well-defined?

Fate: The inevitable result of cause/effect at any particular time in the future.

 

[Willamena]

Fate: The inevitable result of cause/effect at any particular time in the future.

Free Will: free and independent choice; voluntary decision.

 

[Skwim]

Free Will: free and independent choice; voluntary decision.

Free and independent of what?

 

[Willamena]

Free and independent of what?

Of the world. The "free" refers to it being personal. Just as you are a person, who in turn enjoys a personality, so you are free. "Voluntary" lends the same context: brought about of one's own volition.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Free and independent of what?

I suppose anything.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Twig: I kinda agree, I wasn't really sure if I knew the full definition of Fate, but I read Skwim's definition that it is the result of a cause/affect, so I agree with you.

You have freewill to choose what you do, sometimes the affect. But sometimes the result doesn't go according to plan.

 

[Skwim]

Of the world. The "free" refers to it being personal.

You said free will is "free and independent choice." Without explanation, a choice free of the world makes no sense. And that the freedom intrinsic to free will is personal in nature is assumed.

Just as you are a person, who in turn enjoys a personality, so you are free.

Free of what?

I suppose anything.

So free will is a will free of bananas? Gotta be a bit more specific.

 

[Willamena]

You said free will is "free and independent choice." Without explanation, a choice free of the world makes no sense. And that the freedom intrinsic to free will is personal in nature is assumed.

Have you made a decision that had an impact on the world? Have you ever affected the world? Monistically speaking, you are the world, and rather than affecting it, you bring it about. Dualists hold that they are not the world, and run around exercising their verbature wherever they can, in demonstration that they exist.

Are you the world?

Re the last part, I didn't mean to suggest that the freedom was personal, but rather that "free" was "personal."

Free of what?

Of the world.

I suppose anything.

So free will is a will free of bananas? Gotta be a bit more specific.

Are you a banana?

 

[Skwim]

Have you made a decision that had an impact on the world?

Everything I do has a result; however, I don't know if anything I've done has ever made "an impact on the world," whatever that may consist of.

Have you ever affected the world? Monistically speaking, you are the world, and rather than affecting it, you bring it about. Dualists hold that they are not the world, and run around exercising their verbature wherever they can, in demonstration that they exist.

So free will is a choice that is free of oneself, monistically speaking. Is that existence monism or priority monism? Truth is, I've never heard of free will being dependent on either. And how about pluralistically speaking?

But never mind those questions, just explain how free will is a choice that is free of oneself.

 

[Willamena]

Everything I do has a result; however, I don't know if anything I've done has ever made "an impact on the world," whatever that may consist of.

So free will is a choice that is free of oneself, monistically speaking. Is that existence monism or priority monism? Truth is, I've never heard of free will being dependent on either. And how about pluralistically speaking?

But never mind those questions, just explain how free will is a choice that is free of oneself.

Haha . Whether or not a monist incorporates a concept of free will into their philosophy isn't my concern. I brought up the subject to contrast the image of the person who is the world with the person who stands in contrast to the world. To me, a free will is a person when they stand in contrast to the world and affect the world with acts of volition. (The Dharmic concept that takes "self" out of the picture can radically alter this image, in lovely ways.)

A choice made freely of will depends on there being that "oneself" to make a choice. That there is a person that posseses an ability to choose, and does so of its own volition, is all that's required to identify the presence of the thing we call "free will." Heck, all that's really needed is you and a verb of volition, together in a sentence.

The result of actions is a suitable "impact on the world," suitable to make my point. That there is that "you" to make actions of "your own" volition, that "result" in changes in the world is the indicator of a will freely expressed. It's how we determine responsibility. It's not dependent on physical limitations or restrictions, types of actions, or ethical concerns --all that's required for there to be free will is a you, choosing to do things.

 

[Skwim]

To me, a free will is a person when they stand in contrast to the world and affect the world with acts of volition. (The Dharmic concept that takes "self" out of the picture can radically alter this image, in lovely ways.)

To be clear here, volition is nothing more than the exercise of choosing.

A choice made freely of will depends on there being that "oneself" to make a choice.

Just as there needs to be an object of any function, be it entirely random or caused.

That there is a person that posseses an ability to choose, and does so of its own volition, is all that's required to identify the presence of the thing we call "free will."

But that's what we are in disagreement about. I don't agree such a person exists; one whose actions are not caused.

Heck, all that's really needed is you and a verb of volition, together in a sentence.

But the crux of the issue is, can an act of volition (choosing) be other than what it is? If not, then no freedom to choose existed. If so, then there must have been some agency that prompted the choice that was made, and because this agency existed there was no true possibility that anything other than what was chosen could have arisen.

The result of actions is a suitable "impact on the world," suitable to make my point. That there is that "you" to make actions of "your own" volition, that "result" in changes in the world is the indicator of a will freely expressed.

Absolutely not. All it says is that Y is the result of X.

It's how we determine responsibility.

Immaterial.

It's not dependent on physical limitations or restrictions, types of actions, or ethical concerns --all that's required for there to be free will is a you, choosing to do things.

Of course it takes a thinking entity, but just because such an entity exists does not automatically confer existence on free will. No more so than the existence of a thinking entity confers the ability to flap ones arms to fly. I readily agree that if free will were to exist it would require an entity within which to reside. Your problem is to demonstrate the existence of free will, which so far I understand to be a "choice that is free of oneself." Something that remains a mystery, particularly in contrast to its opposite, fate: The inevitable result of cause/effect at any particular time in the future, and the topic of the OP.

Show how free will negates the operative agency of fate, determinism, and you'll be on track to showing me wrong.

 

[Koldo]

Something that remains a mystery, particularly in contrast to its opposite, fate: The inevitable result of cause/effect at any particular time in the future, and the topic of the OP.

Is that how you define 'fate'?

 

[Willamena]

To be clear here, volition is nothing more than the exercise of choosing.

Volition is a person exercising choice. It's them choosing.

Just as there needs to be an object of any function, be it entirely random or caused.

Are you making an analogy? Then I agree.

But that's what we are in disagreement about. I don't agree such a person exists; one whose actions are not caused.

Fair enough, but I don't suggest their actions are uncaused, I suggest their actions are owned. It's all about possession --their actions are their actions. "By my choice" is a taking of possession, and the responsibility that goes with it.

But the crux of the issue is, can an act of volition (choosing) be other than what it is? If not, then no freedom to choose existed. If so, then there must have been some agency that prompted the choice that was made, and because this agency existed there was no true possibility that anything other than what was chosen could have arisen.

Nothing can be other than what it is. Choice is what it is. Freedom is what it is. Volition is what it is. Depends on what you think it is...

Absolutely not. All it says is that Y is the result of X.

You've made it clear that you are looking at free will as uncaused, and this context your objection makes sense.

Immaterial.

Not at all.

Of course it takes a thinking entity, but just because such an entity exists does not automatically confer existence on free will. No more so than the existence of a thinking entity confers the ability to flap ones arms to fly. I readily agree that if free will were to exist it would require an entity within which to reside. Your problem is to demonstrate the existence of free will, which so far I understand to be a "choice that is free of oneself." Something that remains a mystery, particularly in contrast to its opposite, fate: The inevitable result of cause/effect at any particular time in the future, and the topic of the OP.

Show how free will negates the operative agency of fate, determinism, and you'll be on track to showing me wrong.

I'm not the one who has a problem with demonstrating free will.