What is wanting?

[STT]

Think of a situation that you have two options which you can only choose one. Suppose that you study the situation well and realize that one option is good and another is bad. It seems rationally reasonable to choose good instead of bad but we know that we sometimes choose bad. There are two scenarios available here: (1) We have free will and (2) There is a underlying reason for choosing bad, curiosity or another deep reason that we are not consciously aware of it. In first case, it is interesting to note that there is no point in having free will whether we are created being or the result of evolution. It is just absurd. In the second case we are simply a machine and we are not consciously aware why we want bad.

 

[bardegaulois]

You err, though, if you think rationality is at the basis of all our decisions. Look into what psychologists and game theorists say about that. Read up on the prisoner’s dilemma if you haven’t.

 

[fhansen]

Why is there no reason to have free will in the first case? Can we not learn to make the right choice?

 

[USMC_Convert]

Why is there no reason to have free will in the first case? Can we not learn to make the right choice?

I hate to use a Clintonish phrase here but it depends on what your definition of the word “we” is.

If “we” is defined as an individual person then yes we can but often times we choose not to, why is that?

If “we” is defined as humanity I caution you on this, you are falling for the trap that most who believe in reincarnation fall into.

 

[fhansen]

I hate to use a Clintonish phrase here but it depends on what your definition of the word “we” is.

If “we” is defined as an individual person then yes we can but often times we choose not to, why is that?

If “we” is defined as humanity I caution you on this, you are falling for the trap that most who believe in reincarnation fall into.

I have no idea how that follows. Humans simply have the freedom to choose, and to have a change of heart. And this possibility, for change, a change in the will, is a central aspect of our faith.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . If “we” is defined as an individual person then yes we can but often times we choose not to, why is that?
If “we” is defined as humanity I caution you on this, you are falling for the trap that most who believe in reincarnation fall into.

I don’t think it is only those who believe in reincarnation. Any societal structure that swallows the individuality of the person, replacing it with the will of the group usurps the person’s conscience. We see in Fascism, Communism and “Zealotism” (I would add Consumerism.) how their “we” behaves in accordance to its own beliefs. Within the “we” of the Church, each of us is, in contrast, encouraged to maintain and grow our conscience. We chose individually to love one another, thereby forming the body of Christ. We do not exist alone in the Beatific Vision, but participate together - a wedding feast.

 

[STT]

You err, though, if you think rationality is at the basis of all our decisions. Look into what psychologists and game theorists say about that. Read up on the prisoner’s dilemma if you haven’t.

I don’t understand how what you said is related to the topic.

 

[STT]

Why is there no reason to have free will in the first case? Can we not learn to make the right choice?

I meant that there is no good reason to have free will. I missed “good”. What is the point of having free will when it could lead to bad?

 

[bardegaulois]

I don’t understand how what you said is related to the topic.

“(2) There is a underlying reason for choosing bad, curiosity or another deep reason that we are not consciously aware of it.”

I bring this up to assert that not simply classical philosophy or theology, but even the contemporary sciences, have ample argument that we are not mere rationalistic automata like computers. Indeed, a sense of subjectivity has always had a bearing on any major philosophical writing. In the Catholic theology of the soul as developed by Augustine and Aquinas, for instance, we see our souls as comprised not merely of intellect, but of will and memory as well.

Perhaps I’m confused as to what you’re looking for here, as you have no question in your original post and your purpose seems very unclear.

 

[fhansen]

I meant that there is no good reason to have free will. I missed “good”. What is the point of having free will when it could lead to bad?

So that we can participate in goodness. The level of goodness that we know and experience and even exist in or possess is directly related to the extent that we choose it. And that level of goodness is directly related to the level of happiness we will know.

 

[Wesrock]

Think of a situation that you have two options which you can only choose one. Suppose that you study the situation well and realize that one option is good and another is bad. It seems rationally reasonable to choose good instead of bad but we know that we sometimes choose bad. There are two scenarios available here: (1) We have free will and (2) There is a underlying reason for choosing bad, curiosity or another deep reason that we are not consciously aware of it. In first case, it is interesting to note that there is no point in having free will whether we are created being or the result of evolution. It is just absurd. In the second case we are simply a machine and we are not consciously aware why we want bad.

People choose what they know as morally bad because they want something good out of it. That may be some type of sensual or emotional pleasure, for example. Such pleasure is good in itself, but incredibly perverse if it sacrifices other goods in order to obtain it.

For example, if I get my rocks off on torturing and murdering innocent people, I’m doing incredible evil, but in terms of my twisted priorities, I’m doing it for that emotional rush of pleasure/satisfaction. That feeling by itself is a good thing. That feeling associated with the actions I’m taking? That’s when it becomes an evil, when my ability to prioritize goods is incredibly disordered. But I am still seeking a good, even if it’s not the moral good.

 

[Wesrock]

I meant that there is no good reason to have free will. I missed “good”. What is the point of having free will when it could lead to bad?

Because creation is closer to perfection (God) when there exists free will as opposed to not, where things better represent their source (Summa Contra Gentiles, Book II, Chapter 49). God is a creature of voluntary will, and creation is more like God (fullness of all perfections) when it exercises free will. That there are multitudes of types of creatures also allows a greater fullness of perfection, because to have one finite creature is less representative of the infinite being of God than having many types of finite creatures which can express existence in different ways. Furthermore, that there exist differences in grades of perfections among created beings of free will better exemplifies God and the fullness of perfection because God Himself is engaged in an outpouring of goodness (being) towards other things. A created thing more closely approaches God when it is not only just good, but can also act for the good of other things (SCG, Book II, Chapter 45). But no created thing could act for the good of another unless there existed plurality and inequality among created things.

A creation without free will, even if it is of good things in themselves, is further away from representing God’s goodness and perfection than a creation with beings of free will who are capable of acting for the good of another. That God is Intellect and a voluntary will means that for creation to better represent God it must also have intellectual beings with voluntary will. Even if it means the permission of deficiencies.

And we see this in Christ. Christ didn’t come initially to heal us of every ill. He came to teach and to show us how to be more like God through his total giving of self for us on the Cross. A Christian’s goal should be to conform himself to that type of giving of self, for that is exactly what it is to be Good and to better imitate the action of God. But I drift from philosophy to theology.

 

[Wesrock]

To address the initial post of this topic, wanting is a drive to seek God. That is, to seek the fullness (satisfaction) of our being, the Truth, and the Good. Our will is driven to seek these things, and the only completion of these wants is found in God Himself.

Christians see the disordered pursuit of goods (commented on in my first post of this topic), the pursuing of animal appetites over the higher goods that our rational mind can discern, as evidence of original sin – that there is something wrong with humanity, an illness. Furthermore, that illness is essentially representative of a severe disunion with God. We have a drive for goodness, for truth, and many of us seek to fill this with goods that are finite, perishable. And sometimes we choose something lesser over something greater, sometimes we find a lesser good when we intentionally thwart a greater good, and that is when we deal with evil. Ultimately, that wanting and lack of satisfaction keeps us restless. To quote Saint Augustine, "You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.”

 

[Nogginer]

I meant that there is no good reason to have free will. I missed “good”. What is the point of having free will when it could lead to bad?

Free will is what gives us the ability to love. Yes,with free will we are capable of choosing bad, but without free will we wouldn’t be able to choose good either. We would just do stuff because we are compelled to, with no meaning to it. A robot cannot choose good (which is basically the definition of loving), because it cannot choose at all. God did not want to make machines. He wanted to make creatures which are capable of loving and choosing good, even though they may end up choosing evil. Either way, He wants us to be capable of choice.

Also, your two scenarios in the original post seem to be compatible: One may experience a subconscious pull toward a choice that does not seem rational. This pull may be exhibited by a “feeling”. People must still exercise free will in order to choose between the “gut feeling” or the rational reason.

Also I don’t understand how free will could come about as a product of evolution. How does free will help a creature survive better? And how could an inherently anti-cause-and-effect reality be produced from purely cause-and-effect natural mechanisms?

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Ooops - that nails it, and written while I was trying to say essentially the same: Without free will we would not really be conscious beings, I think! Without free will we would be but computers, and what would it matter whether good or ill occurs to a computer?

Of course, proving free will exists is as about as hard as defining consciousness, other than to say that we feel we have it, at least until we’re taught to believe we don’t… :hypno:

… of course, you might argue it’s the other way round? :hypno::hypno:

 

[STT]

“(2) There is a underlying reason for choosing bad, curiosity or another deep reason that we are not consciously aware of it.”

I bring this up to assert that not simply classical philosophy or theology, but even the contemporary sciences, have ample argument that we are not mere rationalistic automata like computers. Indeed, a sense of subjectivity has always had a bearing on any major philosophical writing. In the Catholic theology of the soul as developed by Augustine and Aquinas, for instance, we see our souls as comprised not merely of intellect, but of will and memory as well.

Perhaps I’m confused as to what you’re looking for here, as you have no question in your original post and your purpose seems very unclear.

What are the evidences or arguments that show that we are more than a rational being?

 

[bardegaulois]

What are the evidences or arguments that show that we are more than a rational being?

What is your favourite colour? What are your favourite foods? Is the fact that you fancy these colours and foods, and not others, a rational and objective fact, or a non-rational (not irrational, but having nothing to do with rationality) and subjective one?

If you say the latter, then you see the role of subjectivity within human psychology. For all your pretenses toward learning in philosophy, it would be difficult to believe that you have completely ignored any writings or ideas about subjectivity.

 

[STT]

So that we can participate in goodness. The level of goodness that we know and experience and even exist in or possess is directly related to the extent that we choose it. And that level of goodness is directly related to the level of happiness we will know.

We can participate in goodness without having free will too. Free will just allows us to perform bad. So my question is why, from evolution point of view or religious point of view, we are given this ability? For example, performing a bad thing is bad for a species from evolutionary point of view so free will does not grant any useful advantage for a species. You can free will a bad trait and I will agree with you. The same argument applies to religious point of view.

 

[STT]

People choose what they know as morally bad because they want something good out of it. That may be some type of sensual or emotional pleasure, for example. Such pleasure is good in itself, but incredibly perverse if it sacrifices other goods in order to obtain it.

For example, if I get my rocks off on torturing and murdering innocent people, I’m doing incredible evil, but in terms of my twisted priorities, I’m doing it for that emotional rush of pleasure/satisfaction. That feeling by itself is a good thing. That feeling associated with the actions I’m taking? That’s when it becomes an evil, when my ability to prioritize goods is incredibly disordered. But I am still seeking a good, even if it’s not the moral good.

The example you are providing is not a pure evil because it is good for the agent and evil for others. It is kind of mixed.

Think of a person who knows the answer to a question. He persist to give the answer and get a bad mark. His act is of course bad. Why he did so? Because he has free will. This is of course absurd. He could act accordingly for an underlying reason. This means that we are a machine.

To make the long story short, we are either machine or free which both cases are absurd.

 

[STT]

Because creation is closer to perfection (God) when there exists free will as opposed to not, where things better represent their source (Summa Contra Gentiles, Book II, Chapter 49). God is a creature of voluntary will, and creation is more like God (fullness of all perfections) when it exercises free will. That there are multitudes of types of creatures also allows a greater fullness of perfection, because to have one finite creature is less representative of the infinite being of God than having many types of finite creatures which can express existence in different ways. Furthermore, that there exist differences in grades of perfections among created beings of free will better exemplifies God and the fullness of perfection because God Himself is engaged in an outpouring of goodness (being) towards other things. A created thing more closely approaches God when it is not only just good, but can also act for the good of other things (SCG, Book II, Chapter 45). But no created thing could act for the good of another unless there existed plurality and inequality among created things.

That is not correct. The creation is perfect when there is no bad in it or there is no capacity for bad in it.The free will just allows bad therefore it is a deficiency.

A creation without free will, even if it is of good things in themselves, is further away from representing God’s goodness and perfection than a creation with beings of free will who are capable of acting for the good of another. That God is Intellect and a voluntary will means that for creation to better represent God it must also have intellectual beings with voluntary will. Even if it means the permission of deficiencies.

This makes no sense. So perfect God allows bad happens in order to make His creatures free. Why do you think that a creation where agents in it have free will is perfect? To me a perfect creation eventually becomes imperfect when an agent perform a bad thing.