G
glowingembers
Guest
They don’t give any argument, just assert that we obviously have free will.
- Status
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Actions are not the result of a desire if by that you mean to say that a desire forces us to actualise a particular chain of events despite other possibilities. Actions are motivated by desires. We are presented with desire and we “choose” to act on them.
I don’t understand what you mean? We might begin with a desire, and we may very well require desires in order to motivate us, but we evidently have the power to act meaningfully for or against a desire. There is no good reason to doubt freewill in this sense of freewill.To say that there is a desire behind every choice does not add up to us not having freewill, once you understand that freewill is only meaningful in the context of desires and takes place within that context.
So some chemical reaction in your brain told you that you don’t have freewill?
Let me rephrase. If there is no sun and no moon, and you have never experienced a sun or a moon or anything like it and cannot see anything because you do not have any eyes, you are not going to see an illusion of a sun or a moon. In-order to identify a fake moon with a real moon you would have to have a meaningful experience of a real moon. Secondly to have an illusion of a moon is not the same as having the illusion of freewill. Nobody can show you freewill. You have to experience freewill in order to know about it. You have to know about freewill before you can consider the possibility that you don’t have it. In order to know that you are a slave you would have to have some understanding of being free; and you can’t have those experiences if such things don 't exist meaningfully in your experience. There is no more information in your mind than what we can sense, and what we fantasise or hallucinate about are created out of the things that we have already experienced. Out of nothing comes nothing; so where does this concept of freewill come from? It doesn’t come from you experiences and it certainly doesn’t come out of nothing.
Freewill is self evident.
You know that you have freewill; otherwise you would not be trying to convince people that they don’t, since you would not know anything about it.
What do you mean by other processes? either way you are talking about blind physical unintentional actions.
Believe what you want, but you have provided no evidence to support that. You cannot freely prove that you have no freewill. Your actions are beyond the control of your mind. and thus don’t see any reason to take you seriously. You are just an object like any other object.
G
glowingembers
Guest
It depends how you define intellect. I thought that John Damian includes desires under intellect, so if you move your hand away from the hot pan because of a desire to stop pain, it is driven by intellect. But I don’t think it’s relevant whether you categorize desires under “intellect” or under “will”. The relevant thing is that if a choice is not determined by a desire (or intention) then it cannot be free no matter what.
J
JohnDamian
Guest
It is obvious that “to deisre” is an equivocal term. It implies a bias or pull which when applied to a causal agent or active potency such as our will. Natural inclinations or desires of the will are as such a bias; but in the same way as the predication of natural to volition, the predication of natural to will effectivelly negates the sense of the will; and instead leaves that which is propositionally sensible in its relationshiip to its proper perfection; that is, the inclination of the will naturally is really distinct from the will.
Certainly, there is an active potency in the inclinations both natural and conceived; and it is true that there is a real distinction between the natural inclinations of the will and those of the intellect (the latter being contingent to the predicated entity). Yet, the intellect as showing the object to the will, functions as a partial cause enabling it to elicit a positive act in regard to the object in question.
Therein, the relationship between intellect and will is that both are essentially (not accidentally) ordered causes. In the case of volition or nolition; the will is the principle and prime cause and the intellect the less important function or cause. For that reason, the elicited act will always be free and is not determined by knowlege or desires; but instead by the will itself.
As this will is only formally distinct from our souls it is certain that we are determining our own actions.
NB: Drawing on William of Alnwick OFM here.
G
glowingembers
Guest
If a choice does not follow from intention then it cannot be a free will choice no matter what.
G
glowingembers
Guest
And why would we choose to act on them? Because we are driven by the desire, and so the action is determined by the desire. If, on the other hand, we act contrary to this desire, then (1) our action is driven by the desire to act contrary to the first desire, or (2) our action is not driven by the desire to act contrary to the first desire, which means that we act without an intention to act so.
Yeah? And you have to see Santa Claus in order to know about him. You know about Santa Claus, hence Santa Claus exists. Otherwise, who could ever come up with the idea of Santa Claus, if Santa Claus didn’t exist? Is that what you meant to say?
I mean any logical processes in general, not just physical.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
What do you mean by logical processes?
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
bub
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
It is evident that you can choose either to do the right thing or the wrong thing. It is evident to me that I can choose not to act against something that I want to do because I know that it is wrong. I choose something “because” I desire the good of it, but “I” am choosing it never the less; not the desire. The desire does not choose anything. I don’t see why desire stops us from freely choosing what is right just because the choice is motivated by some kind of desire? Like I said before, I do not know what you mean by freewill.
Since you are so good at making straw-men, you tell me. Is that what i really meant?
G
grannymh
Guest
Here, there is the implication that desire and intention are the same. In the practical world, desires can exist subjectively without ever becoming an intentional willed choice. Note that the adjective form of intention can be applied to the willed choice but is not the same as the choice itself.
On the other hand, through the rational processes of the soul’s intellect, one can will a choice between actions, choose non-action or choose not to choose. Once the choice is made, one can make the word intention as representing the choice.
:newidea:
As I am working through all this, I have begun questioning if the opening post takes into consideration the Catholic position regarding the non-material spiritual soul.
The conclusion “choice X is never free**”** can describe the actions of a sentient being consisting of only a material anatomy which eventually decomposes in some form. Point 1. could easily describe my cousin Chilly Chimp who is essentially and substantially different than a human being.
Granted that the OP is written in the first person. Yet, in my humble opinion, the non-material spiritual soul is not included as the deciding factor.
Blessings,
granny
Human nature is sacred.
R
rvilbig
Guest
The Catholic Church indeed recognizes that there is conflict between an individual’s desires and freedom. As Saint Paul wrote:
“For I do not do the good I want, but I do the evil I do not want. Now if (I) do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. So, then, I discover the principle that when I want to do right, evil is at hand. For I take delight in the law of God, in my inner self, but I see in my members another principle at war with the law of my mind, taking me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Miserable one that I am! Who will deliver me from this mortal body?” (Romans 7:19-24)
This is why true freedom consists in recognizing one’s dependence on God, as John Paul the Great wrote:
"[T]he Church has always considered the act of entrusting oneself to God to be a moment of fundamental decision which engages the whole person. In that act, the intellect and the will display their spiritual nature, enabling the subject to act in a way which realizes personal freedom to the full. It is not just that freedom is part of the act of faith: it is absolutely required. Indeed, it is faith that allows individuals to give consummate expression to their own freedom. Put differently, freedom is not realized in decisions made against God. For how could it be an exercise of true freedom to refuse to be open to the very reality which enables our self-realization? (JPII, Fides et Ratio, page 21)
Hope this helps,
Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com
G
glowingembers
Guest
Any process that is logically possible. This is the level on which I argue against free will because I don’t think that free will is logically possible.
G
glowingembers
Guest
But if your choice follows from your desire (which is given to you), what else can you do than what follows from the desire? You can imagine that you control your action - because you perceive your desire as a visceral part of yourself while lacking or suppressing perception of how the desire originated - but in reality you are only an intermediary between the desire and the action.
I am aware that it is kind of difficult to see how a choice can follow from a desire (be determined by a desire) because in a given situation we may have a number of conflicting desires, plus there may be other factors that contribute to the choice (various physical and mental conditions other than desires), and there is a feeling that we are in control of the choice.
There are basically two kinds of factors that determine your choice:
Group 1: desires (intentions)
Group 2: all other factors
When all these factors are present, then the choice is fixed - it will be materialized as it logically follows from these factors and there is nothing that could change it. Regarding Group 1, the different desires are like different forces that influence you in different directions and when you add up all their influences you get a resulting force and direction, which means that the direction of the strongest desires will prevail but it may be modified by the weaker desires. The Group 1 factors give your choice intentionality, unless Group 2 factors thwart the direction of the Group 1 factors (in that case we don’t say that our choice was intentional but that our intentions were thwarted, resulting in a different action than the one we intended/desired). Group 2 factors are anything you can imagine (other than desires/intentions) that influences the choice but the important thing about them is that they definitely don’t make your choice a free one, because they are unintentional - they are the unintentional contribution to your choice.
So your choice is determined by your desires (intentions) and possibly by various other factors (which are unintentional). In order to control your choice you would need to control these factors. But how would you control them? They themselves are determined by other Group 1 and Group 2 factors (in a preceding choice), and so on.
I should add, in the light of quantum mechanics which suggests that some events are not determined by causes (that is, they are at least partly uncaused), that maybe even all the Group 1 and Group 2 factors will not definitely determine your choice. That means that your choice contains an uncaused component. This component, however, cannot make your choice a free one either, simply because it is not caused by anything, including you.
G
glowingembers
Guest
If you don’t think that desire and intention are basically the same thing then I recommend that while you read my OP you simply substitute the word “desire” with the word “intention”.
G
glowingembers
Guest
Whatever this freedom is, it cannot be a freedom in the sense of having ultimate control over your choices.
G
grannymh
Guest
In that case, it is very doubtful that the OP pertains to human beings, in my humble observation.
R
rvilbig
Guest
I think you’ve confused freedom with pride: the desire for “ultimate control.” We’re contingent beings, and as such, we rely on God for the actualization of our full potential. "For how could it be an exercise of true freedom to refuse to be open to the very reality which enables our self-realization? (JPII, Fides et Ratio, page 21) Your desire for “ultimate control” is what has taken away your freedom.
Hope this helps,
-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com
G
glowingembers
Guest
By “not having ultimate control” I didn’t mean lacking some God-like power but that ultimately your choice is not determined by you at all. So whatever freedom we have, it is not a freedom of choosing our actions, because they are ultimately chosen by something else over which we have no control. That’s the point of my argument.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
What is a logical process?
G
glowingembers
Guest
As I said, any process that is logically possible.
- Status