What is wanting?

[Wesrock]

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.

He did so because it pleased him in some fashion to get a bad mark, obviously.

 

[fhansen]

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.

From the Christian point of view, the more man wills the true good, the greater his justice; the more man’s will aligns with God’s will, the greater man’s own goodness -as he becomes more like God. This, divinization and the boundless happiness it entails, is God’s telos or purpose for man. But it doesn’t happen outside of man’s will. Adam willfully forfeited this end-moving further away from it-by opposing God’s will even as he may’ve *thought *he was pursuing a greater good. Man’s choice, ultimately, is God or no God.

 

[STT]

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.

So what is the advantage of having free will when you could do bad? You can do good without having free will because you are an rational agent which is perfect therefore having free will is a deficiency.

We would just do stuff because we are compelled to, with no meaning to it.

That does not follow. How having free will leads to meaning? What is meaning by the way?

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.

We can love and do good always without free will. Free will is just a door to bad.

Either way, He wants us to be capable of choice.

That is against God goodness when we could perform bad.

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.

I wanted to show that the creation is absurd whether we are machines or have free will.

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?

These are very good questions but they are beyond the subject of this thread.

 

[Wesrock]

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.

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.

But a creation with no bad in it would not be closer to God. For one, it could not be perfect, because it is finite. Two, because then there would be no need to give of self to others, which is a much better mirror of what it is to be good than simply to be a robot that does no evil, and there would be no need (or possibility) for rational creatures to conform themselves to the image of God . Thus, a universe with no inequalities leaves no room for people to conform themselves to God’s image. It also means that some manner which of beings are left out, meaning less plurality in creation, which means less representation of the infinite.

A creation without free will and the ability to give of itself to others would be a much worse image of God.

 

[STT]

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.

We of course following our nature when it comes to what are our favorite.

 

[STT]

From the Christian point of view, the more man wills the true good, the greater his justice; the more man’s will aligns with God’s will, the greater man’s own goodness -as he becomes more like God. This, divinization and the boundless happiness it entails, is God’s telos or purpose for man. But it doesn’t happen outside of man’s will. Adam willfully forfeited this end-moving further away from it-by opposing God’s will even as he may’ve *thought *he was pursuing a greater good. Man’s choice, ultimately, is God or no God.

I know your view. The problem is that your view is problematic since in one had you claim that God is perfect and in another hand claim that creatures within creation are free and that eventually leads to bad which this is against perfection.

 

[STT]

But a creation with no bad in it would not be closer to God.

Of course a creation without bad is closer to God.

For one, it could not be perfect, because it is finite. Two, because then there would be no need to give of self to others, which is a much better mirror of what it is to be good than simply to be a robot that does no evil, and there would be no need (or possibility) for rational creatures to conform themselves to the image of God . Thus, a universe with no inequalities leaves no room for people to conform themselves to God’s image. It also means that some manner which of beings are left out, meaning less plurality in creation, which means less representation of the infinite.

A creation without free will and the ability to give of itself to others would be a much worse image of God.

To give yourself to other is a rational thing therefore there is no need for free will. This is related to prisoners dilemma.

 

[bardegaulois]

We of course following our nature when it comes to what are our favorite.

Is that nature rational, though? We know human subjects can think and behave rationally, but is the very nature of a subject to be rational? Or is that nature rational, but not only, containing other attributes as well? Or is it non-rational, though possessing the capacity to reason?

And, moreover, considering that, in some other responses, you seem to drawing a false dilemma between Divine Grace and free will, have you taken up my suggestion on one of your other posts of looking into the theological system developed by Molina, all of whose work was based around reconciling the two?

 

[Wesrock]

Of course a creation without bad is closer to God.

Or course a creation with free will and a giving of self to others is closer to God. That just transcends a world without intellect, free will, or giving of self entirely. God is an actor, not a passive thing, and to give of oneself to another is a much higher good and closer to perfection than just existing passively in a way devoid of deficiencies. To be an intellect, to have a free will, and most importantly to give of oneself to another is to be in the image of God. A creation absent that is not like God at all. Creation is finite, and so cannot exist exactly as God does, and it is through these qualities that the finite can approach God.

To give yourself to other is a rational thing therefore there is no need for free will. This is related to prisoners dilemma.

Reason is the basis of free will. In fact, I’d only say that those whose rationality is compromised by severe mental handicaps are those unable to choose on the basis of selecting the good. Why are you acting like it is opposed?

 

[Wesrock]

The Christian conception of a Triune God is Himself intrinsically engaged in love, the willing of God of another. For while God wills the Good of Himself, there is the interior dynamic of the Father willing the good of the Son, and the Son willing the Good of the Father. God is love in its truest, most purest form, of which human love is but a reflection in a pool of water. The image of God is best expressed among intellectual beings engaged in love of another, willing the good of another, and an outpouring of self for the good of another. That is what is going on within the Trinity, and that is what is going on between God and creation. Creation best exemplifies God when it wills the good of God, when it gives itself back to God as the Son gives Himself to the Father, and when it expresses that love with other intellectual beings that are part of creation (are these not the two greatest commandments that Christ gave us?). This is the highest good, this is what it means to conform oneself to Christ, this is what Christians see in Christ’s mission, not just to do something for us, but to demonstrate for us what it means for a human being to approach God and to be in the image of God, and to allow us to participate in that. And a creation absent this quality is much, much further removed from God than a creation of robotic beings simply existing without deficiencies.

Is a Triune God necessary for my overall argument in this topic to work? No, I don’t believe so. There is the relationship between God and Creation. There is the matter of him being an intellectual, free-willing being. But the Christian understanding has some extra poetry, at least to me.

 

[Wesrock]

The problem of evil will remain a tricky one until God reveals all, so I’ll try to refrain from going about in circles. But I find Saint Thomas’ considerations compelling, to say the least.

This topic was about wanting, though.

 

[PseuTonym]

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 the second case we are simply a machine and we are not consciously aware why we want bad.

How is free will connected with conscious awareness of your own motivations?

 

[STT]

Is that nature rational, though?

I would say that rationality is built upon our nature.

We know human subjects can think and behave rationally, but is the very nature of a subject to be rational?

I think that it is nature of subject that makes a subject rational.

Or is that nature rational, but not only, containing other attributes as well?

Other attributes?

Or is it non-rational, though possessing the capacity to reason?

I don’t think so.

And, moreover, considering that, in some other responses, you seem to drawing a false dilemma between Divine Grace and free will, have you taken up my suggestion on one of your other posts of looking into the theological system developed by Molina, all of whose work was based around reconciling the two?

I will look at them later. Thanks for the reference.

 

[STT]

Or course a creation with free will and a giving of self to others is closer to God. That just transcends a world without intellect, free will, or giving of self entirely. God is an actor, not a passive thing, and to give of oneself to another is a much higher good and closer to perfection than just existing passively in a way devoid of deficiencies. To be an intellect, to have a free will, and most importantly to give of oneself to another is to be in the image of God. A creation absent that is not like God at all. Creation is finite, and so cannot exist exactly as God does, and it is through these qualities that the finite can approach God.

Come on man. We most of the time follows our rationality when it comes to most of the situations. Free will enter the games only when we do bad so to me a believer shouldn’t believe in free will at all because it is contradictory to God’s wisdom when it comes to act of creation. What is really the point of having free will?

Reason is the basis of free will. In fact, I’d only say that those whose rationality is compromised by severe mental handicaps are those unable to choose on the basis of selecting the good. Why are you acting like it is opposed?

Morality follows rationality therefore giving yourself to other is good because it is rational.

 

[STT]

The problem of evil will remain a tricky one until God reveals all, so I’ll try to refrain from going about in circles. But I find Saint Thomas’ considerations compelling, to say the least.

This topic was about wanting, though.

There is no solution for the problem of evil. People has been discussing it for such a long time.

 

[STT]

How is free will connected with conscious awareness of your own motivations?

Free will is a self-caused conscious act.

 

[PseuTonym]

Free will is a self-caused conscious act.

When you vote in an election, isn’t there a difference between being conscious of which candidate you are selecting, and being conscious of your motivations for choosing the candidate you are selecting?

For example, people who support a particular political party and who also support a candidate associated with that party might under-estimate the role played by their own party preferences, and exaggerate the role of the policies or leadership qualities of the candidate.

You speak of a “conscious act”, but there seems to be a difference between being conscious of the act itself and being conscious of your motivations.

 

[PseuTonym]

You can do good without having free will because you are an rational agent which is perfect

What is the relationship between “rational” and “perfect”? For example, if one of your beliefs is false, then your state of mind isn’t perfect. How does rationality guarantee that what you believe is actually true?

If your goals aren’t good because some things that you believe to be good aren’t actually good, then you might do a little bit of a good and a lot of evil.

You can do good if you have resolved to flip a coin and do good if the coin lands on heads and evil if the coin lands on tails. After all, it is possible that the coin will land on heads. So, your statement “you can do good without having free will” isn’t very impressive. It sounds as though you are talking about the act itself as inherently good, even though you might lack the capacity to recognize that it is good.

 

[fhansen]

I know your view. The problem is that your view is problematic since in one had you claim that God is perfect and in another hand claim that creatures within creation are free and that eventually leads to bad which this is against perfection.

Only God is perfect by nature. All of creation is, by virtue of its necessary inferiority to its Creator, imperfect relatively speaking, but can strive for its perfection when free will is involved. Creation’s perfection can only be achieved as it willingly unites and comes into accord with God and His perfection.We must feed off of it, off of Him, or suffer becoming less perfect, less just IOW.

 

[PseuTonym]

It seems rationally reasonable to choose good instead of bad

Consider a military conflict between two governments. On both sides, the generals are involved in gathering information, planning, developing strategies, and making management decisions. The foot soldiers are closer to the action, obeying commands rather than trying to figure out what is rational and reasonable.

However, if the generals on one side are fighting against the generals on the other side, then how is it possible that all of the generals are choosing good? Does pursuing good create conflict?