P
PEPCIS
Guest
"PEPCIS:
wiktionary calls free will, “The doctrine that human beings (and possibly other beings, such as angels or higher animals) are able to choose their actions without being caused to do so by external forces.”
The understanding in these definitions include the understanding that any outside influences (powers) which would cause your actions to be nullified or otherwise altered, would render your will less effective. This means that the agent must be able to not only perform his desires, but to overcome any external forces that might rise against his will.
In other words, the agent must not only be free in intellect and will, but must carry the power to effectualize the will. The agent has no will without power to effect his desires. He must also have the power to prevent other influences from altering his choices.
An example might be if my child of 5 years old might want to go out into the street to play, but he lacks the power and authority to make such an autonomous decision. He is not free to do as he chooses, regardless of how strongly he wills it to be so.
Another example would be a prisoner who is bound in chains and resides within a cell. His freedom is limited entirely to the limits of his imprisonment, and how far his captors will allow him to exercise such freedoms. He is not free to do as he chooses, regardless of how strongly he wills it to be so.
If the will were limited to the functions of the mind, the body would never realize any actions. You certainly would have “will”, but it would not be free.
This is also classic/traditional Christian doctrine. The Bible teaches that man is totally incapable of choosing good, and that he is in desperate need of salvation. Without the aid of God reaching down and effecting man’s salvation, he would end up in hell.
The Bible teaches that man is BOUND by Satan, and even though he thinks himself a free agent, and that he could choose God on his own, he cannot. That is why Ephesians 2 says, “and he has made you alive, even while you were dead in your trespasses and sins. You used to walk according to Satan, and according to the course of this world.”
Here’s the “rub”: you are right to say that " The fact that our athletic abilities are limited does not limit or change our freedom to choose an unattainable goal." But all you can mean by this is that the will is not free. As soon as you combine the term “free” with “will”, you begin to express a totally different concept. “Free will” is not the same as “will.” Everyone has a will, but not are all equally free.
This is not “my” definition you’re disputing. I share it with many others. WordNet Search says that free will is “the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies.”
wiktionary calls free will, “The doctrine that human beings (and possibly other beings, such as angels or higher animals) are able to choose their actions without being caused to do so by external forces.”
The understanding in these definitions include the understanding that any outside influences (powers) which would cause your actions to be nullified or otherwise altered, would render your will less effective. This means that the agent must be able to not only perform his desires, but to overcome any external forces that might rise against his will.
In other words, the agent must not only be free in intellect and will, but must carry the power to effectualize the will. The agent has no will without power to effect his desires. He must also have the power to prevent other influences from altering his choices.
An example might be if my child of 5 years old might want to go out into the street to play, but he lacks the power and authority to make such an autonomous decision. He is not free to do as he chooses, regardless of how strongly he wills it to be so.
Another example would be a prisoner who is bound in chains and resides within a cell. His freedom is limited entirely to the limits of his imprisonment, and how far his captors will allow him to exercise such freedoms. He is not free to do as he chooses, regardless of how strongly he wills it to be so.
Indeed. However, you only acknowledge that you do not have the power to effect your will, therefore your will is not “free will”, it is simply “will” with no “free” attached to it. If you were paraplegic, you could wish to jump all day long, yet your lifeless limbs would imprison your will and limit your actions.
If the will were limited to the functions of the mind, the body would never realize any actions. You certainly would have “will”, but it would not be free.
This is also classic/traditional Christian doctrine. The Bible teaches that man is totally incapable of choosing good, and that he is in desperate need of salvation. Without the aid of God reaching down and effecting man’s salvation, he would end up in hell.
The Bible teaches that man is BOUND by Satan, and even though he thinks himself a free agent, and that he could choose God on his own, he cannot. That is why Ephesians 2 says, “and he has made you alive, even while you were dead in your trespasses and sins. You used to walk according to Satan, and according to the course of this world.”
Here’s the “rub”: you are right to say that " The fact that our athletic abilities are limited does not limit or change our freedom to choose an unattainable goal." But all you can mean by this is that the will is not free. As soon as you combine the term “free” with “will”, you begin to express a totally different concept. “Free will” is not the same as “will.” Everyone has a will, but not are all equally free.
I didn’t mean to imply that they were two. I often compartmentalise things in order to create a device or method to describe them. However I see the error of my writing method.