If you can't clearly and comprehensively define "free will", why do you use the phrase?

[CarlinKnew]

About a year ago I made this thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...-you-cant-clearly-comprehensively-define.html

Having stumbled back upon this forum and reading my old threads, I noted that I never really got a coherent explanation from those who believe in a very specific and popular concept of free will. I found out that this extremely widespread belief had a name: Libertarian free will. Please remember that I am not concerned with debating compatibilism which is self evident:

In compatibilism, free will is affected by human nature and man will never choose contrary to his nature and desires. Man will always do what he desires most at any particular moment - even when there are competing desires.

Yes, everyone knows we make decisions. What is of importance, particularly for the Abrahamic religions, is:

Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. All “free will theists” hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called a free choice. Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one’s nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise.

The objections are:

\1) Causality —If causes are understood as conditions prior to an effect that guarantee an effect, and all events have causes, then it follows that all events were preceded by conditions that guaranteed those events. But this is the same as saying all events are determined. Since the choices of humans are events, it follows that the choices of humans are determined.

\2) Responsibility —Rather than salvage human responsibility, some maintain that libertarian freedom destroys it. If our choices have no causes, in what sense are they our choices? Is it any more agreeable to reason to hold humans responsible for choices they didn’t cause than to hold them responsible for choices that were caused and thus determined?

And so now that I've found a source that defined my same argument more clearly, perhaps the proponents of Libertarian free will (the only type of free will that is controversial) can coherently defend their position here.

 

[1137]

Free Will is just that. Outside things can influence our Will but ultimately any choice we make is our own. There are some things that we do not freely choose, such as getting murdered or raped, but this does not threaten the theory of Free Will. Also, one may say that since we do not have wings, we are not free to fly. Also not threatening, just plain silly. Free Will applies only to what we can do. Naturally, we cannot fly.

Our choices do not directly cause anything, but they can severely influence other things. Any decision one makes is their own choice, not the cause off someone else's actions. Obviously there are exceptions to that, but remaining logical we find these criticisms are no problem.

 

[Me Myself]

Art, God are other examples of words that cannot be completely confined or comprehended in any given moment. They are more poetic and subjective in many regards to most people.

I use free will with two pillars of salt. I mostly belivein determinism, but can understand "limited" free will (with ends up being a relative position). It´s like saying something is not moving. It may not be moving from Earth´s perspective, but when you take on account that the earth itself is moving, then this thing is moving. Actually, nothing completely "static" exists, yet we talk about something not moving as if that was posible. It is merely a way of expressing relative realities.

 

[Iti oj]

since when are theist ever clear about anything...since when can they agree on something..since when can/did they define things...religion is meant to be unclear... something to do with faith or what ever...

 

[Skwim]

Free Will is just that.

Just what?

Outside things can influence our Will but ultimately any choice we make is our own. There are some things that we do not freely choose, such as getting murdered or raped, but this does not threaten the theory of Free Will.

What is this theory of free will?

Our choices do not directly cause anything,

So when you choose to turn the steering wheel of a moving car the car doesn't turn?

Any decision one makes is their own choice, not the cause off someone else's actions. Obviously there are exceptions to that, but remaining logical we find these criticisms are no problem.

I suggest you reread the OP. and note the following.

"Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination"

This means that free will (how ever you choose to define it) is not free from the determining influence of prior events. You do X, and only X, because you could do no differently.

 

[Scott C.]

And so now that I've found a source that defined my same argument more clearly, perhaps the proponents of Libertarian free will (the only type of free will that is controversial) can coherently defend their position here.

I believe that free will is our ability to will what we want, independent of any outside force, even God. God did not give us our will, but it is something that is inherently ours. We can develop a new will, if we will to do so. When we yield our will to God, unlike any other thing we may give to God, we are giving something that was truly ours in the first place. Everything else we give to God, is a give back.

In our church we talk about agency. I used to see agency and free will as the same thing. I now see agency as the ability to act according to our will. God grants us the ability to act according to our will. He grants us agency.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

"If the soul’s actions are not controlled by rules, that can only mean the soul acts randomly. On the other hand, if your soul is guided by rules, which in turn guide you, then you have no free will. You are programmed. There is no in between; your life is either random or predetermined. Which is it?”

 

[1137]

Just what?

Free will is just that- Free Will. The name says it all.

What is this theory of free will?

The philosophy of determinism, compatiblism, and libertarianism are not new concepts, and the theory of free will is the basic philosophical argument for libertarianism (as they are the exact same thing).

So when you choose to turn the steering wheel of a moving car the car doesn't turn?

I'm sorry, I did not realize a car was a conscious being capable of making choices. This changes things greatly. (I forget to be super specific as I usually debate in a philosophy class with other philosophers haha.)

I suggest you reread the OP. and note the following.

"Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination"

This means that free will (how ever you choose to define it) is not free from the determining influence of prior events. You do X, and only X, because you could do no differently.

OK... I know it says that. What exactly is your point? First of all, libertarianism = Free Will. They are the same philosophical concepts. Second, I said nothing that would go against this definition. I already explained this: if you cannot possibly do something / do something different, then it is not a matter of will. By analogy, you are suggesting that since you cannot jump of a building right now and fly away, we have no free will. If we jump off a building, we die. Jumping off the building was a decision we freely made. Death is something we have no say in.

 

[Skwim]

I'm sorry, I did not realize a car was a conscious being capable of making choices. This changes things greatly. (I forget to be super specific as I usually debate in a philosophy class with other philosophers haha.)

"Ha ha" is right." But I get it . . .

In biology class you're a biologist,

In art class you're an artist.

In gym class you're a gymnast.

And in algebra class you're an algebrain.
​

"Other philosophers" :biglaugh:

 

[1137]

"Ha ha" is right." But I get it . . .

In biology class you're a biologist,

In art class you're an artist.

In gym class you're a gymnast.

And in algebra class you're an algebrain.
​

"Other philosophers" :biglaugh:

Right.... You know me well enough to decide I am not a philosopher. If you have no further criticisms to my argument, logical fallacies are not an acceptable alternative.

Also, if you MAJOR in biology youre a biologist. If you do gymnastics professionally you are a gymnast. And if you are trying for a PhD in philosophy, general consensus is you are a philosopher.

 

[Willamena]

Right.... You know me well enough to decide I am not a philosopher. If you have no further criticisms to my argument, logical fallacies are not an acceptable alternative.

Also, if you MAJOR in biology youre a biologist. If you do gymnastics professionally you are a gymnast. And if you are trying for a PhD in philosophy, general consensus is you are a philosopher.

Don't mind him. We are each philosophers, scientists, writers, master chefs, plumbers, chauffeurs, and architects in our own right.

 

[Me Myself]

Don't mind him. We are each philosophers, scientists, writers, master chefs, plumbers, chauffeurs, and architects in our own right.

I agree with this. If you love to seek wisdom, you are a philosopher. Everyone is a philosopher in one degree or another. Not everyone is aware though.

 

[1137]

Don't mind him. We are each philosophers, scientists, writers, master chefs, plumbers, chauffeurs, and architects in our own right.

I agree with this. If you love to seek wisdom, you are a philosopher. Everyone is a philosopher in one degree or another. Not everyone is aware though.

I agree also. Such things just irritate me greatly. He will be ignored.

Back to the thread, I just though of an interesting criticism to free will: the subconscious. If everything conscious stems from our subconscious mind, we are not in control of it as we cannot control our subconscious. Would this more support compatibalism?

 

[Skwim]

Also, if you MAJOR in biology youre a biologist. If you do gymnastics professionally you are a gymnast. And if you are trying for a PhD in philosophy, general consensus is you are a philosopher.

I wasn't aware mail-order colleges granted their students a degree just for declaring a major. Boy, have things changed since I went to college---I had to go to one of those old brick and mortar ones. Could one just declare a major, say philosophy, not attend any classes, but still call oneself a philosopher? Or is there a minimum number of days one has put in to qualify? And another question. If you change majors do/can you refer to yourself as a former philosopher, or ex-philosopher, or ex-whatever? Or is it a matter of once a philosopher always a philosopher + whatever other majors one may have switched to?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

We don't technically have freewill, it's all just a reaction to stimuli, we have no conscious choices, our neurons are what make us make decisions, and our emotions follow.

-Credit goes to Gjallarhorn for teaching me this -

 

[1137]

I wasn't aware mail-order colleges granted their students a degree just for declaring a major. Boy, have things changed since I went to college---I had to go to one of those old brick and mortar ones. Could one just declare a major, say philosophy, not attend any classes, but still call oneself a philosopher? Or is there a minimum number of days one has put in to qualify? And another question. If you change majors do/can you refer to yourself as a former philosopher, or ex-philosopher, or ex-whatever? Or is it a matter of once a philosopher always a philosopher + whatever other majors one may have switched to?

You went to college? Here they don't allow children to attend. ZING!!

Seriously though I plan on teaching, so I can practice educating. None of the above are correct. It's a matter of being in the program, attending the classes, doing the homework and papers, and eventually writing a dissertation, which I am not excited for haha.

As stated, technically we can all be philosophers in our own ways. But theres a process to it beside debating, and you'd be surprised at how much is involved in actual philosophy.

 

[Skwim]

You went to college? Here they don't allow children to attend. ZING!!

I was quite precocious, but all the jibes stopped when I graduated at the age of 12.

As stated, technically we can all be philosophers in our own ways. But theres a process to it beside debating, and you'd be surprised at how much is involved in actual philosophy.

For awhile it was my minor, so I'm familiar enough with it.

 

[Willamena]

Back to the thread, I just though of an interesting criticism to free will: the subconscious. If everything conscious stems from our subconscious mind, we are not in control of it as we cannot control our subconscious. Would this more support compatibalism?

I think this just misapplies the terms 'conscious' and 'subconscious'--do you have some support for the idea that "everything conscious stems from our subconscious mind"?

 

[1137]

For awhile it was my minor, so I'm familiar enough with it.

I started straight out of high school and was definitely surprised how much is involved haha. But anyways, lets not derail this thread.

 

[1137]

I think this just misapplies the terms 'conscious' and 'subconscious'--do you have some support for the idea that "everything conscious stems from our subconscious mind"?

My knowledge of psychology is rather vague, so I may be using the wrong terms. What I mean is that perhaps there are urges, wants, needs, beliefs, etc etc that we are not consciously aware of, and maybe they interfere with our will. Again, I have only a basic understanding of human psychology.