Why is freedom a necessary attribute of a personal being?

[blase6]

Actually, you do will your heart to beat, your digestive tract to move, your chest to push out air and relax to inhale.

The soul desires life in its composition with its body, and moves all the body’s movements, every one, willfully, not just conscious thought or actions. Life is defined as a body that moves itself, whether in interaction with an outside stimulus from another body, or due to reasoned choice of a movement that is desired.

And you know how cliché’s often indicate a reality. That saying “He’s lost the will to live” is often followed by death of the body, the heart and breathing stopping.

Oh, and a person is simply an individual of rational being, whether free or not. And rational would require consciousness as one of the persons attributes.

Freedom is a sticky term. It is always relative to something else. But with rational creatures there is willingness and unwillingness in acts.

All animals are always “hungry”, always moving to satisfy hunger, including the individual rational animals (the human persons). The person has not only physical hungers but also rational understanding of what would be good to take into the self, and hungers for that. With that understanding is not just the understanding of one thing, but of many things, often contradictory things.

And there is the understanding that there must be some most desirable thing to consume. So, the movement to satisfy seeks to consume (to unite to) any and, if not contradictory, all desirable rational objects.

And if the ultimate rational thing is understood, that is sought for consumption to the exclusion of all that would be contrary (this would be God and contrary temporal goods).

Now, the nature of seeking to consume is not a matter of freedom - that is “programmed” (I program software). But, there is freedom in finding a best way to achieve the consumption. Lack of freedom would be some external interference forcing the consumer to unite to (consume) what is contrary to what is desired for satisfaction of the rational hunger.

The bolded parts are absolutely massive assumptions which do not have any support from science. There is nothing preventing the brain from performing all of those things apart from the presence of a soul. Cellular movement, due to its chemical and physical composition, would continue moving under the right circumstances, with or without the presence of a spiritual soul. I do not believe that living things require a soul to function.

And the will is dependent upon external influences for options in seeking the good. A poorly educated intellect or a poorly trained bodily passion predictably leads to poor decisions.

 

[Aloysium]

I see a difference between freedom and free will.
Freedom as far as I am concerned, is achieved when our will is consistent with the will of God.

Free will is a fundamental quality of the person.
We generally avoid situations which require the use of this faculty.
Lead us not into temptation, we pray.
Better life’s decisions boil down to which brand of toothpaste or toilet paper.

Probably more people in jail exercise their free will, than others day-to-day, in structured comfortable lives.

The sense that one’s destiny is controlled and determined might stem from the person’s having caged their spirit. Structure your life and the structure will mould you. The initial choice seeks its end.
Alternatively, it comes from a broken sense of self. Desires although disowned, will continue to exert their influence.
Then there are addictions. What was an inclination, is acted upon. With repetition, it becomes a habit and eventually takes over the will.

We are dealt the cards that we will play in this game of life - genetics, family dynamics, social position and the various gifts and talents. With those given, we choose whom we are to become in eternity. The only one with a clear view is God.

Take home message: Don’t sweat it; just do your best. Love one another.

 

[blase6]

And this eliminates freedom… how? An inability to prevent circumstances is not the same as the inability to freely choose responses to them. Sure, you can’t always have the best choices (even though the pervasiveness of such situations is absurdly rarer than most people think but that’s another topic). That doesn’t mean you are always 100% without a choice in anything that happens to you.

It’s unrealistic to say you’re being completely controlled by chance. More likely you grapple with it but the grappling is on your end too. If chance was in such complete control, there would be no need to fight, to choose. I’d dare say you’re just arguing for one side of the same coin.

This is not convincing when I look at how the will functions. The will seems to invariably choose the best option presented to it in a given situation. Thus sin and otherwise imprudent behavior are explained by unfortunate external circumstances.

Happenstance is not predetermination. No offense but what you’re implying is a rather overly simplistic (if not demeaning) view of life. A poor man may have been born into his status but that doesn’t take away his decision to either change that or stick with his sour lot. You might argue that his situation was ‘predetermined’ but whatever choice he makes in response to it cannot be called chance! It’s his own exercise of freedom!

Anything that is not deterministic can only be rationally explained as “chance”. Why can’t his choice to improve his situation or not be predetermined as well?

 

[TheSecondMile]

Your own actions are determined by your will. The question is about whether your will is predetermined, or random.

I have already said that if a person’s will is not predetermined, then it can be said to be “determined” by chance. So either way, you can see that your will is determined in some way outside of your person.

Why do you say “predetermined or random”? This strikes me as a false dilemma. How about determined by the person?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

This is not convincing when I look at how the will functions. The will seems to invariably choose the best option presented to it in a given situation.

What you fail to take into account is the subjectivity of what’s ‘best’ in a situation. I repeat: You’re not giving very realistic arguments here. What you determine to be the best may not be so in the eyes of the one actually making the decision. Furthermore, you seem to think the inability to know another person’s decision is somehow synonymous with chance.

The only element of chance I see in play here remains to be the encounters and random happenstance which, as I keep saying, do not even control your life completely.

Why can’t his choice to improve his situation be predetermined as well?

Because he can very well make the choice of staying poor. After all, people like that do exist and think their own poverty is their pathway to heaven. The fact that such choices of response even exist should be enough for you to prove that freedom is both real and necessary.

 

[blase6]

What you fail to take into account is the subjectivity of what’s ‘best’ in a situation. I repeat: You’re not giving very realistic arguments here. What you determine to be the best may not be so in the eyes of the one actually making the decision. Furthermore, you seem to think the inability to know another person’s decision is somehow synonymous with chance.

The only element of chance I see in play here remains to be the encounters and random happenstance which, as I keep saying, do not even control your life completely.

If I examine my previous choices, I always see that there was one option that appeared better than the others, and that’s why I chose it. I don’t think the “inability to know another person’s decision” is why it is bound by chance. Even my own choices, if I assume that they are not predetermined, feel like they were just bound by chance.

Because he can very well make the choice of staying poor. After all, people like that do exist and think their own poverty is their pathway to heaven. The fact that such choices of response even exist should be enough for you to prove that freedom is both real and necessary.

No, all it shows me is that thinking that being poor will be ultimately better for someone’s life is enough to cause them to choose to remain in poverty.

 

[blase6]

Why do you say “predetermined or random”? This strikes me as a false dilemma. How about determined by the person?

Because the person is moved by motives outside of itself. I don’t see how this doesn’t determine one’s choice.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

If I examine my previous choices, I always see that there was one option that appeared better than the others, and that’s why I chose it.

Yep. Because you have the freedom to do so.

I don’t think the “inability to know another person’s decision” is why it is bound by chance. Even my own choices, if I assume that they are not predetermined, feel like they were just bound by chance.

Why? Because you couldn’t control what life threw at you? Guess what, you can throw back. You have that choice too. If you’re right, that decision wouldn’t be available.

You’re not being bound when you have the option to choose what do about it. For freedom to cease, options should cease with it.

No, all it shows me is that thinking that being poor will be ultimately better for someone’s life is enough to cause them to choose to remain in poverty.

Rationalizing one’s own decisions doesn’t take away the fact that they’re freely made. That’s one more hole in your own reasoning if I might add.

 

[blase6]

Yep. Because you have the freedom to do so.

It is not freedom if it always follows a certain order. That is basically pure determinism, which is incompatible with freedom.

Why? Because you couldn’t control what life threw at you? Guess what, you can throw back. You have that choice too. If you’re right, that decision wouldn’t be available.

I am trying to show that the decision itself is either predetermined or random. That is the basis of the dilemma of determinism, which I recommended everyone read for this thread.

You’re not being bound when you have the option to choose what do about it. For freedom to cease, options should cease with it.

Rationalizing one’s own decisions doesn’t take away the fact that they’re freely made. That’s one more hole in your own reasoning if I might add.

No, because it is that rationalization which causes a particular choice to appear better than the others, and thus it is the chosen option.

 

[Aloysium]

Another way of looking at this is that we have a choice as to which master we will serve.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

It is not freedom if it always follows a certain order. That is basically pure determinism, which is incompatible with freedom.

What order? Define order. You can’t even contest the subjectivity of the word ‘best’ and now you’re switching to another subjective term?

That’s not even saying that whatever ‘order’ you seem to have dreamed up can be in direct opposition to the chaos of real life.

I am trying to show that the decision itself is either predetermined or random. That is the basis of the dilemma of determinism, which I recommended everyone read for this thread.

You’re making this problem pointlessly bigger than it need be. A decision can be neither as it involves a person’s own personal consent nor is it random by virtue of you being clueless about it.

No, because it is that rationalization which causes a particular choice to appear better than the others, and thus it is the chosen option.

You’re missing the point. Just because you can rationalize doesn’t take away your decision to go for that option. In fact, the very reality that people will contest your justifications (e.g. calling them excuses) is even more proof that freedom is real. For if it weren’t real, everyone would be on the same line of thought and there would only be one conclusion because you advocate for a single-minded line of reasoning.

The problem with this determinism you’re setting forth is just that: Single-mindedness. You argue as if everyone simply follows a singular line of circumstances ignoring that:

• They have various options in response to them.
• They will contest the justifications set forth by others outside them.
• Different decisions can ripple across in ways that are beyond human capacity to fully measure anyway.

 

[blase6]

What order? Define order. You can’t even contest the subjectivity of the word ‘best’ and now you’re switching to another subjective term?

**“Best” is only subjective when comparing persons. For one person, the “best” choice is the one that has the strongest appeal to the appetite of the person. It may appeal to either their bodily or spiritual appetites, or both. It seems better than the other options, so the will is compelled to choose it. If acting sinfully appears better than acting morally to some person, then they would be compelled to choose it.

If my proposition is correct, then one’s choices are predetermined by how motives present themselves to the will.**

That’s not even saying that whatever ‘order’ you seem to have dreamed up can be in direct opposition to the chaos of real life.

You’re making this problem pointlessly bigger than it need be. A decision can be neither as it involves a person’s own personal consent nor is it random by virtue of you being clueless about it.

**Saying that a person’s choice is personal, is a circular argument. It is because it is. Unless you can explain more specifically how it is a “personal choice”, then stop asserting it. By definition, “random” means not predetermined. My argument is very simple. Either my will is predetermined or it is not. Either way, I cannot ultimately act of my own accord with full responsibility. It just does not work.

And I bet you haven’t even read anything about the dilemma of determinism, which I have been urging you to do so. :banghead:**

You’re missing the point. Just because you can rationalize doesn’t take away your decision to go for that option. In fact, the very reality that people will contest your justifications (e.g. calling them excuses) is even more proof that freedom is real. For if it weren’t real, everyone would be on the same line of thought and there would only be one conclusion because you advocate for a single-minded line of reasoning.

People are different. They each come to different conclusions on what is best, and therefore everyone acts differently.

The problem with this determinism you’re setting forth is just that: Single-mindedness. You argue as if everyone simply follows a singular line of circumstances ignoring that:

• They have various options in response to them.
• They will contest the justifications set forth by others outside them.
• Different decisions can ripple across in ways that are beyond human capacity to fully measure anyway.

No, each person is different at least because they exist in different circumstances. This is enough to explain why everyone is different.

 

[John_Martin]

The bolded parts are absolutely massive assumptions which do not have any support from science. There is nothing preventing the brain from performing all of those things apart from the presence of a soul. Cellular movement, due to its chemical and physical composition, would continue moving under the right circumstances, with or without the presence of a spiritual soul. I do not believe that living things require a soul to function.

And the will is dependent upon external influences for options in seeking the good. A poorly educated intellect or a poorly trained bodily passion predictably leads to poor decisions.

Your first paragraph - I was telling you about the soul - science does not know the soul and can give no scientific evidence that there is such a thing, except to say that there is something real that it has not yet discovered (, and then asserting that this undiscovered thing will certainly be found to be materially present in the body). And as to the soul moving even the heart, etc., that is a Catholic assertion, that without the soul, all movement within a human body ceases and decomposition of joined elements begins. Human life is moved by the soul until the last breath (and heartbeat), and when the soul leaves, they discontinue, being no longer willed in that body by that now departed soul.

True, a poorly educated intellect (which is in that unknowable by science soul) makes poor decisions. That is why God did not leave the knowing of him to philosophers only, since they are so few and far between, and because so few of them actually seek truth instead of defining personal likes as the truth for all. Instead God came in the Revelation which is Jesus, and his Catholic Church that he established from Heaven by sending his Spirit into it.

You have never really stated, that I can see, the actual experience or situation you are personally facing that makes you feel “not free” in the things you do, where others say you have free will, but where you feel you are determined by “something”, random something or otherwise. What is it that awakened that question or realization of this type of “slavery”?

 

[blase6]

Your first paragraph - I was telling you about the soul - science does not know the soul and can give no scientific evidence that there is such a thing, except to say that there is something real that it has not yet discovered (, and then asserting that this undiscovered thing will certainly be found to be materially present in the body). And as to the soul moving even the heart, etc., that is a Catholic assertion, that without the soul, all movement within a human body ceases and decomposition of joined elements begins. Human life is moved by the soul until the last breath (and heartbeat), and when the soul leaves, they discontinue, being no longer willed in that body by that now departed soul.

If a soul is necessary to make physical things move of their own accord, then even machines need souls. Science shows that some bodily processes function to some extent after an organism dies. For example, a snake can still bite for a while after it is dead, as a reflex. In addition, reflexes can be triggered by electric shock in corpses. The only thing science can’t explain yet is memory, which does point to having a soul, even in animals, but it is not necessary to explain biological functioning otherwise.

True, a poorly educated intellect (which is in that unknowable by science soul) makes poor decisions. That is why God did not leave the knowing of him to philosophers only, since they are so few and far between, and because so few of them actually seek truth instead of defining personal likes as the truth for all. Instead God came in the Revelation which is Jesus, and his Catholic Church that he established from Heaven by sending his Spirit into it.

But if you don’t hear the right information to make good choices, then you’re out of luck.

You have never really stated, that I can see, the actual experience or situation you are personally facing that makes you feel “not free” in the things you do, where others say you have free will, but where you feel you are determined by “something”, random something or otherwise. What is it that awakened that question or realization of this type of “slavery”?

Because, if I examine the choice of the will, it is not like “I just want to choose this, just because”. It is like “since this option is the one I know to be best, I will go with that.” And if I go with what appears best to me all the time, since I do not get to choose which motives appear to me in a given instance, then I don’t really have a free choice.

 

[neophyte]

Peter Kreeft touches on this in his talk “Fated and Free”. I believe that its available at his website in the free download area.

 

[John_Martin]

On the soul:
Since no one pursues what one perceives is “not good to be united with” but instead would avoid it or ignore it while pursuing what he understands “is good for union with”, and since you are doggedly pursuing this notion that you have no freedom, no choice, but are determined to what you seemingly choose willingly, I find myself thinking that you want this to be or believe this to be somehow good that you have no freedom.

Now, if I had no choice (no freedom) and if I liked doing something that I was doing, I guess I would be satisfied in continuing to do it, even if Catholics were telling me I was sinning.

“I have no choice” I could argue with them and “God will not count it against me, and if he were to count it against me he would be unjust in his judgments”. So, while on the surface it sounds like “We are not free in what we choose” is not good, yet in my love of the activity I wish to continue, the “absence of free will argument” is a good “means to the end” of continuing to sin with a silencing of conscience. An excuse. “No free will” would be desirable as an excuse.

 

[blase6]

On the soul:
Since no one pursues what one perceives is “not good to be united with” but instead would avoid it or ignore it while pursuing what he understands “is good for union with”, and since you are doggedly pursuing this notion that you have no freedom, no choice, but are determined to what you seemingly choose willingly, I find myself thinking that you want this to be or believe this to be somehow good that you have no freedom.

Now, if I had no choice (no freedom) and if I liked doing something that I was doing, I guess I would be satisfied in continuing to do it, even if Catholics were telling me I was sinning.

“I have no choice” I could argue with them and “God will not count it against me, and if he were to count it against me he would be unjust in his judgments”. So, while on the surface it sounds like “We are not free in what we choose” is not good, yet in my love of the activity I wish to continue, the “absence of free will argument” is a good “means to the end” of continuing to sin with a silencing of conscience. An excuse. “No free will” would be desirable as an excuse.

Actually, after thinking about free will, I realized that it is incomprehensible. Everything else in the world is based on a “certain situation, certain outcome” system, which is determinism. It seems very strange to say that a person would be exempt from this rule, especially since the person would be part of one of these chains of causality, and since the person is a contingent being. Saying that a person chooses because “they wanted to” is like saying that the bridge collapsed because “it wanted to”. It may appear that there were several possible outcomes, but one outcome is necessitated by the situation.

I do not want to reject free will as an excuse to sin. I would be very happy if I could accept freedom as a non-contradictory reality. But I do not see that it really exists.

 

[John_Martin]

Actually, after thinking about free will, I realized that it is incomprehensible. Everything else in the world is based on a “certain situation, certain outcome” system, which is determinism. It seems very strange to say that a person would be exempt from this rule, especially since the person would be part of one of these chains of causality, and since the person is a contingent being. Saying that a person chooses because “they wanted to” is like saying that the bridge collapsed because “it wanted to”. It may appear that there were several possible outcomes, but one outcome is necessitated by the situation.

I do not want to reject free will as an excuse to sin. I would be very happy if I could accept freedom as a non-contradictory reality. But I do not see that it really exists.

You are “unique”; a bridge does not think. A rock if split in half is two rocks, but if your arm is cut off, there are not two you’s, and your arm is no longer human, but multiple elements slowly falling apart from each other.

The phenomenon of choosing is this, I want something and I get it for myself (if it is within my capacity, otherwise I go away frustrated). This choosing does happen. We know that we do it, and we want what we do, even if we regret afterwards that we wanted it or that we did it.

Certain situation / certain outcome implies the situation is the cause of the outcome in a mindless physical propulsion, where the caused movement was no movement until the cause impacted the moved object.

But with humans, or perhaps all animals, there is recognition of causal forces, and there is variety in the results based not on the cause, but on the object about to be moved.
If a rock is coming at me, I can step aside or stay and let it hit me or I can catch it, whatever I want, not what the causing rock wants. We are different than stars and planets and rocks and water and air and fire. They are all moving to cause other movement or to reach some location. But we can think about it and shape a reality based on an idea of where we want objects to be, and not just based on mindless trajectories. And morally, we can interact ideally (as much as we are aware) or selfishly so that our interactions are as we want them to be (or not).

 

[blase6]

You are “unique”; a bridge does not think. A rock if split in half is two rocks, but if your arm is cut off, there are not two you’s, and your arm is no longer human, but multiple elements slowly falling apart from each other.

The phenomenon of choosing is this, I want something and I get it for myself (if it is within my capacity, otherwise I go away frustrated). This choosing does happen. We know that we do it, and we want what we do, even if we regret afterwards that we wanted it or that we did it.

Certain situation / certain outcome implies the situation is the cause of the outcome in a mindless physical propulsion, where the caused movement was no movement until the cause impacted the moved object.

But with humans, or perhaps all animals, there is recognition of causal forces, and there is variety in the results based not on the cause, but on the object about to be moved.
If a rock is coming at me, I can step aside or stay and let it hit me or I can catch it, whatever I want, not what the causing rock wants. We are different than stars and planets and rocks and water and air and fire. They are all moving to cause other movement or to reach some location. But we can think about it and shape a reality based on an idea of where we want objects to be, and not just based on mindless trajectories. And morally, we can interact ideally (as much as we are aware) or selfishly so that our interactions are as we want them to be (or not).

This idea of freedom creates problems when we consider that every human choice is ordered towards what appears to be good. All creatures pursue what appears to be good. There is not freedom to “decide what to want”. All evil results from the fact that God allows disobeying him to appear good to creatures. Persons consult their intellect to determine how to act. If the intellect contains warped or false knowledge, then the choice predictably produces evil. If a person is so disturbed to see disobeying God as better than obeying him, why would that person not act upon their conviction?

Choices come from motives. At least in theory, how the motives present themselves to the will could be used to predict a person’s action.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

“Best” is only subjective when comparing persons. For one person, the “best” choice is the one that has the strongest appeal to the appetite of the person. It may appeal to either their bodily or spiritual appetites, or both. It seems better than the other options, so the will is compelled to choose it. If acting sinfully appears better than acting morally to some person, then they would be compelled to choose it.

If my proposition is correct, then one’s choices are predetermined by how motives present themselves to the will.

Will and motive are intertwined. I don’t see what point you’re trying to make here. You don’t even consider the fact that such differences are even more proof of freedom (same proof that you continue to deny). A person is free to decide what he/she wants in response to what is presented in the immediate environment and even beyond that. Therefore, your presumption that is is all predetermined is false. You cannot 100% ‘predetermine’ how a person will respond to a given situation. That is freedom right there. So far, your definition of predetermination just keeps running its course.

Because really, if predetermination was solid, there wouldn’t any such thing called choice. Period!

Saying that a person’s choice is personal, is a circular argument. It is because it is.

By your reasoning, the same accusation can be made on other commonly accepted doctrines about God being omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. After all, that is just the way God is too.

Unless you can explain more specifically how it is a “personal choice”, then stop asserting it.

Seeing as how you can’t even guess what I’m eating for dinner and why, I’ll let the evidence speak for itself.

By definition, “random” means not predetermined. My argument is very simple. Either my will is predetermined or it is not. Either way, I cannot ultimately act of my own accord with full responsibility. It just does not work.

And I’m telling you that’s not an argument against freedom. Take flaws in lock design. The moment someone finds the slightest opening in the mechanism, there will come a time when someone will exploit it. The moment you find a situation where choice diverges, you will find room for freedom. Just because you have no full control does not mean you have no control at all.

Another thing, ‘full responsibility’ is another subjective term. To what level should people hold themselves accountable before it’s considered ‘full’?

See, you never offer explanations for such nuances. You’re the one who just keeps insisting, “Read about the dilemma. Read about the dilemma.” That’s the problem with your dilemma staring right in your face. It’s completely ignorant of reality, specifically the reality that people still have a choice in response to their situations.

And I bet you haven’t even read anything about the dilemma of determinism, which I have been urging you to do so.

Everything you’ve posted so far doesn’t even diverge from the layman, Wikipedia definition of the dilemma. My response to you remains the same. Your dilemma is so out of touch with reality.

People are different. They each come to different conclusions on what is best, and therefore everyone acts differently.

This is more evidence of freedom staring in your face yet you continue to deny. But to just be clear, I would also add that their being different is not completely the result of anything you call ‘predetermined.’

I’m happy to tell you that we humans are for more complicated than that.