Free Will

[blase6]

An autonomous will neither cannot nor will not will anything. It’s no different than a rock which is never moved, the same laws of inertia apply.

Autonomy necessarily includes being autnonmous from that which the will desires. But the will necessarily is ordered towards things, both sensible and rational, therefore your assertion about autonomy doesn’t follow.

You can seek autonomy and emancipation from God all you like, the problem is that that is not what you were made for, you’re acting contrary to your nature.

“…for you have made us for Yourself, Oh Lord. And our hearts are restless until they rest on You.”

An autonomous will must be in some sense an object which is not moved but moves. Since in some degree or way we believe only God meets that description, an autonomous will other than God’s will is a contradiction.

In a similar way, nor would willing in accordance with God be free. Because the will does not move itself but is moved by God who is goodness, it is not ultimately the choice of the will. It is God’s choice to move that will.

 

[Amandil]

An autonomous will must be in some sense an object which is not moved but moves. Since in some degree or way we believe only God meets that description, an autonomous will other than God’s will is a contradiction.

According to whom? Even God’s will is contingent in the sense that He can’t do certain things, such as lie, because they contradict His goodness. So God cannot be said to have an “autonomous will”.

You seem to be asserting that God can in fact make a rock too heavy for Him to lift because He must have an “autonomous will”.

It doesn’t follow.

In a similar way, nor would willing in accordance with God be free. Because the will does not move itself but is moved by God who is goodness, it is not ultimately the choice of the will. It is God’s choice to move that will.

Still missing the point. God’s willing us to will is not done by any coercive force, rather the power that our wills possess to will what God wills is natural and voluntary.

God’s “choice”(I don’t hold to some concept that God makes ‘choices’ since His providential will is eternal, while choices are a temporal exercise) to will us to will is not a contrary to freedom because we were created to will; willing is good and it’s part of our nature. Same with our willing to will good; since our wills are ordered to know goodness rationally and to obtain it, to act for those particular goods that the will desires which are good are free and voluntary because God doesn’t force us to this good or that good by irresistible necessity.

“A good will should not therefore be seen as less free because it is ‘confirmed in the good’. On the contrary a will confirmed in the good is a will to ultimate goodness, fullness of being, perfection and power. For Thomas the will that is detached from the ultimate good, the will that is not aimed at fullness of being and ultimate perfection, is powerless. It is a feeble force that defies reason, lashing out in the dark, asserting independence…The will that is confimed in goodness, OTOH, freely choses fullness of being and perfection…In the present life, the human person is significantly limited in the powers of intellect and will, not because of union with the divine intellect and will, but because of it’s distance from the divine intellect and will.”

God willing us to will the good is the most certain path to true freedom and individuality.

 

[blase6]

According to whom? Even God’s will is contingent in the sense that He can’t do certain things, such as lie, because they contradict His goodness. So God cannot be said to have an “autonomous will”.

You seem to be asserting that God can in fact make a rock too heavy for Him to lift because He must have an “autonomous will”.

It doesn’t follow.



Still missing the point. God’s willing us to will is not done by any coercive force, rather the power that our wills possess to will what God wills is natural and voluntary.

God’s “choice”(I don’t hold to some concept that God makes ‘choices’ since His providential will is eternal, while choices are a temporal exercise) to will us to will is not a contrary to freedom because we were created to will; willing is good and it’s part of our nature. Same with our willing to will good; since our wills are ordered to know goodness rationally and to obtain it, to act for those particular goods that the will desires which are good are free and voluntary because God doesn’t force us to this good or that good by irresistible necessity.

“A good will should not therefore be seen as less free because it is ‘confirmed in the good’. On the contrary a will confirmed in the good is a will to ultimate goodness, fullness of being, perfection and power. For Thomas the will that is detached from the ultimate good, the will that is not aimed at fullness of being and ultimate perfection, is powerless. It is a feeble force that defies reason, lashing out in the dark, asserting independence…The will that is confimed in goodness, OTOH, freely choses fullness of being and perfection…In the present life, the human person is significantly limited in the powers of intellect and will, not because of union with the divine intellect and will, but because of it’s distance from the divine intellect and will.”

God willing us to will the good is the most certain path to true freedom and individuality.

Actually, I’m not so sure that I can fairly say that even God is autonomous. God’s actions are not free, they are determined by his divine nature. Because God is omniscient, his will always points to the object of greatest goodness. It is not fair to say that God is capable of anything other than his eternal act. Because those actions do not exist, saying that they are a free “choice” for God is meaningless.

And you are still holding some assumption that after God moves the will, somehow the will is then free from coercion to choose an object. I simply don’t see that this is correct. The will is immediately determined by whatever object appears most good to it. The will moving towards what appears most good is the only reality. Saying there is a choice involved is meaningless, because no other choice is a reality in the grand scheme of things.

Before I come to a choice of action there is one choice predetermined that I will go with because it will appear most good to my will. The fact that I don’t know what my choice will be, does not make it free.

 

[Vico]

And that is with the assumption that the will can move itself, which requires autonomy.

That was not the teaching of Aquinas who rejects the will’s autonomy. His analysis is that the will chooses when the intellect presents the will with something as good and thus the intellect moves the will as its final cause.

 

[fhansen]

An autonomous will must be in some sense an object which is not moved but moves. Since in some degree or way we believe only God meets that description, an autonomous will other than God’s will is a contradiction.

In a similar way, nor would willing in accordance with God be free. Because the will does not move itself but is moved by God who is goodness, it is not ultimately the choice of the will. It is God’s choice to move that will.

We’re drawn to the greatest good, which is only reasonable. We are not the greatest good, as it turns out, so it’s only logical to look elsewhere for the fulfillment/satisfaction/happiness which can only be realized as we commune with God, the greatest good, as it turns out. We’re not forced to turn to and love Him, however.

 

[blase6]

That was not the teaching of Aquinas who rejects the will’s autonomy. His analysis is that the will chooses when the intellect presents the will with something as good and thus the intellect moves the will as its final cause.

And according to that, the will is determined by that which is external to the will (the intellect). So this makes no point for free will.

 

[blase6]

We’re drawn to the greatest good, which is only reasonable. We are not the greatest good, as it turns out, so it’s only logical to look elsewhere for the fulfillment/satisfaction/happiness which can only be realized as we commune with God, the greatest good, as it turns out. We’re not forced to turn to and love Him, however.

Please go back and read through my later posts.

 

[Vico]

And according to that, the will is determined by that which is external to the will (the intellect). So this makes no point for free will.

Not really external sin the will is a rational appetite.

 

[blase6]

Not really external sin the will is a rational appetite.

And? The fact that you perceive what you desire does not change that it is external forces which move your will.

 

[fhansen]

The statement can be simplified to saying, “God willed things to happen apart from his will.” That is a contradiction.

But ‘God willed things to happen free from His will’ is not a contradiction.

 

[Vico]

And? The fact that you perceive what you desire does not change that it is external forces which move your will.

Are you are referring to rational appetite?

Man has natural, sensitive, and rational appetites.

• The term* natural appetite* is certain tendencies, affinities, and forms of activity.
• The sensitive appetite in man is under the control of the will, but influences the will through passions.
• The* rational appetite* is will, which is a faculty of the spiritual soul, *following *intellectual knowledge. That is what tends to the good as such and not mainly to concrete objects.

 

[blase6]

But ‘God willed things to happen free from His will’ is not a contradiction.

Show how it is not a contradiction.

 

[blase6]

Are you are referring to rational appetite?

Man has natural, sensitive, and rational appetites.

• The term* natural appetite* is certain tendencies, affinities, and forms of activity.
• The sensitive appetite in man is under the control of the will, but influences the will through passions.
• The* rational appetite* is will, which is a faculty of the spiritual soul, *following *intellectual knowledge. That is what tends to the good as such and not mainly to concrete objects.

This still doesn’t show me how the will freely moves itself.

 

[blase6]

I think I should clear something up. It may sound like I am arguing against free will to disprove it. I do not intend to disprove free will, I am only searching for an explanation of what it is that is not contradictory or incoherent.

I read that the CCC states that God and other persons possess free will. However, the CCC does not elaborate any further on what free will supposes.

So far every explanation of free will given by philosophers here is not convincing, because they are either incoherent or contradict another presupposed truth.

I do not want to abandon a facet the Catholic faith, but it is strange to believe in “free will” when one does not even know what that entails. So far, the idea of freely acting, at least for creatures, seems contradictory to the obvious quality of the world, being that possibility is meaningless. There is no “can be” or “cannot be”, there is only “what is” or “what is not”. Possibility is just the way of making a statement about something where the result is not known. Therefore, since the decisions of the will are not possibilities, but only actualities, freedom becomes a meaningless concept.

Maybe someone who is more knowledgeable about this kind of stuff can help me. But I still do not know what “free will” means.

 

[fhansen]

Show how it is not a contradiction.

Its like a parent who refuses to control every action of their children, endeavoring to draw them into responsible behavior rather than force obedience on them, so that, once, right choices are freely made, they’re “owned” by the indiviual, who’s thereby contributed to their own moral integrity IOW. The parents don’t will the mistakes the children may make, but they value their freedom enough to allow for the mistakes.

 

[blase6]

Its like a parent who refuses to control every action of their children, endeavoring to draw them into responsible behavior rather than force obedience on them, so that, once, right choices are freely made, they’re “owned” by the indiviual, who’s thereby contributed to their own moral integrity IOW. The parents don’t will the mistakes the children may make, but they value their freedom enough to allow for the mistakes.

The parents did not create the child. God creates the child. And if God’s will ultimately determines what happens to the child, the child has no responsibility for its actions.

 

[fhansen]

The parents did not create the child. God creates the child. And if God’s will ultimately determines what happens to the child, the child has no responsibility for its actions.

Yes, so instead He allows them to be self-determining. Are you saying that humans should not be held accountable for their actions?

 

[blase6]

Yes, so instead He allows them to be self-determining. Are you saying that humans should not be held accountable for their actions?

If the actions of persons are predetermined, they cannot be responsible in the deepest sense.

 

[blase6]

I think a self-determinant will apart from God doesn’t work, because:
Knowledge is infused into the intellect from an external force; the will is moved by the intellect, towards what appears most good; the person acts according to the movement of the will.

Thus, the will is determined by an external force.

 

[fhansen]

If the actions of persons are predetermined, they cannot be responsible in the deepest sense.

Yes, so I suppose that, based on this “if”, we should free all the rapists, murderers, thieves, etc. After all, God made them do it. I’d submit that regardless of some superior being’s foreknowledge, or the lack of such a being, humans are simply morally responsible beings.