Self-sustainability and free will

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

STT

Guest
We define a being self-sustain if it could exist independently otherwise it need a sustainer. We discuss that self-sustainability is necessary condition for having free will. We define free will as ability to choose among a set of options. There are two basic elements in any decision, namely the time of decision and what we choose. This means that the act of decision is self-caused. This however minimally requires a self-sustain being since otherwise the very existence of the being depends on another being therefore the being cannot perform a self-caused act and cannot have free will.
 
STT said:
…the very existence of the being depends on another being therefore the being cannot perform a self-caused act and cannot have free will.
Click to expand...
I don’t hang out in the philosophy forum, as a rule. The OP looks like an exercise in logic, with some assumptions or predicates and then a conclusion, which seems to arrive at a contradiction. Am I right so far?

Certainly the Christian point of view is that we have a mind and free will (as a given). So, it is impossible to arrive at a contrary conclusion except by some contradictory assumption that sneaks in. What the argument in the OP seems to be is the idea of an infinitely regressing lack of free will. Having an existence that depends on another doesn’t seem to justify the idea of a lack of independence of will, as seems to be implied.

The only lack of independence is the fact that one has come into existence. But, when the child grows up, there is a continual presentation of options for free will to operate on.
Every moment, as most parents know, is a child’s opportunity for right and wrong decisions.
 
STT said:
We define a being self-sustain if it could exist independently otherwise it need a sustainer. We discuss that self-sustainability is necessary condition for having free will. We define free will as ability to choose among a set of options. There are two basic elements in any decision, namely the time of decision and what we choose. This means that the act of decision is self-caused. This however minimally requires a self-sustain being since otherwise the very existence of the being depends on another being therefore the being cannot perform a self-caused act and cannot have free will.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure if you have a question here exactly, but this sounds remarkably like Molinism. If you haven’t read Molina, do so; his system of thought, and particularly his critiques of Thomism, attempted to reconcile the problem of divine grace and free will.
 
STT said:
We define a being self-sustain if it could exist independently otherwise it need a sustainer. We discuss that self-sustainability is necessary condition for having free will. We define free will as ability to choose among a set of options. There are two basic elements in any decision, namely the time of decision and what we choose. This means that the act of decision is self-caused. This however minimally requires a self-sustain being since otherwise the very existence of the being depends on another being therefore the being cannot perform a self-caused act and cannot have free will.
Click to expand...
Why not? The being could be sustained in existence with the very purpose of being self-directing during that existence.
 
:twocents:

A being that is given individual existence and the capacity to give of that existence to what is other, is able to love. That capacity that allows for love, is called free will. We have the free will to commune with the Love that underlies creations.
 
psalm90 said:
I don’t hang out in the philosophy forum, as a rule. The OP looks like an exercise in logic, with some assumptions or predicates and then a conclusion, which seems to arrive at a contradiction. Am I right so far?
Click to expand...
No, there is no contradiction in the conclusion. I am sorry but I cannot help you if you don’t tell me that why you think that there is a contradiction.
 
STT said:
Because the very existence of the being depends on another being.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t mean that the dependent being cannot be created in such a way as to be self-willed, for some good purpose.
 
fhansen said:
That doesn’t mean that the dependent being cannot be created in such a way as to be self-willed, for some good purpose.
Click to expand...
Which pretty much I believe sums it up. God created us and willed us to do good. But he did give us free will to do his will AND HOPEFULLY our will is the same as God. Or we can choose to disobey the will of God, which we could not do without free will.👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top