Why is freedom a necessary attribute of a personal being?

  • Thread starter Thread starter blase6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
blase6 said:
Nowhere in the entire chain of reasoning seems to involve an undetermined choice.
Click to expand...
“Indeterminate” or “undetermined” refer to the fact that the intellect is not “pre-configured” to only know what meets certain criteria, but that it will conclude something is known or true or good on its own. And the will does not have a pre-configured definition of what it will love (meaning what it will move toward to unite with), but will love whatever the reason “calls good to join to”.

“Determined” means that there is a master object of truth and goodness in the intellect and reason, and when the intellect and reason (through the senses) encounter a corporeal object that matches that intellectual object (what is pre-known) they will say, “this is true and good”. And the will shall then love only that thing and move to union with it.

Free will refers to being able to call “true and good” and then move to it, whatever satisfies our quest for truth and good (whether it be really true and good to some other observer or not - the main other observer or knower is God). So, we might agree with God or might not. He asks us to stop and re-think what we call true and good because he knows it is up to our thinking, yet he offers added speech to add to our reasoning.
 
John_Martin said:
“Indeterminate” or “undetermined” refer to the fact that the intellect is not “pre-configured” to only know what meets certain criteria, but that it will conclude something is known or true or good on its own. And the will does not have a pre-configured definition of what it will love (meaning what it will move toward to unite with), but will love whatever the reason “calls good to join to”.

“Determined” means that there is a master object of truth and goodness in the intellect and reason, and when the intellect and reason (through the senses) encounter a corporeal object that matches that intellectual object (what is pre-known) they will say, “this is true and good”. And the will shall then love only that thing and move to union with it.

Free will refers to being able to call “true and good” and then move to it, whatever satisfies our quest for truth and good (whether it be really true and good to some other observer or not - the main other observer or knower is God). So, we might agree with God or might not. He asks us to stop and re-think what we call true and good because he knows it is up to our thinking, yet he offers added speech to add to our reasoning.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but this doesn’t support freedom. It just sounds like you are bound to pursue goodness, and sin is the result of misinformation.
 
Vico said:
I do not know how you define “deterministic will” but what I posted is the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Click to expand...
My observation of the will is that the choice is predetermined by the way motives arise.
 
blase6 said:
Sorry, but this doesn’t support freedom. It just sounds like you are bound to pursue goodness, and sin is the result of misinformation.
Click to expand...
Yes, we are most definitely bound to pursue what is good, to take it in to ourselves and be one with it. No freedom there. It is our nature. And sin is to act contrary to nature by seeking a lesser good when we know of a greater good. This can happen because the “reason” that defines something as “good” works for both the Intellective Will and for the Appetitive Will but does not compare one good to another. It simply answers “Is this good” from whichever is prompting, and then goes on to the next “is this good”. It is the Intellect, seeking to understand the truth of what is good which asks “Will doing this specific good help to attain union the This Specific Good (God)?” This reasoning can be nurtured or numbed, since it is habitual rather than automatic.

Sin is not from mis-information, but from disregarding truth in order to have a candy bar; saying I don’t care about heaven, I want this pleasure or power or wealth right now and I want it all. Those are good things in themselves, but they are not the natural goal of human existence. They do not satisfy the intellective will but temporally satisfy the appetitive will.
 
John_Martin said:
Yes, we are most definitely bound to pursue what is good, to take it in to ourselves and be one with it. No freedom there. It is our nature. And sin is to act contrary to nature by seeking a lesser good when we know of a greater good. This can happen because the “reason” that defines something as “good” works for both the Intellective Will and for the Appetitive Will but does not compare one good to another. It simply answers “Is this good” from whichever is prompting, and then goes on to the next “is this good”. It is the Intellect, seeking to understand the truth of what is good which asks “Will doing this specific good help to attain union the This Specific Good (God)?” This reasoning can be nurtured or numbed, since it is habitual rather than automatic.

Sin is not from mis-information, but from disregarding truth in order to have a candy bar; saying I don’t care about heaven, I want this pleasure or power or wealth right now and I want it all. Those are good things in themselves, but they are not the natural goal of human existence. They do not satisfy the intellective will but temporally satisfy the appetitive will.
Click to expand...
This still doesn’t support freedom. It just sounds like whichever appetite is stronger determines the choice.
 
blase6 said:
This still doesn’t support freedom. It just sounds like whichever appetite is stronger determines the choice.
Click to expand...
Yes, it sounds like that. But the goal of the rational human is to never act in movement of the appetitive will, but only act as moved by the intellective will - only act from sound reason, and only act to benefit the rational person’s final end. The freedom finds expression in self-control of the appetites, which are automatic if the intellective will does not intervene. And with the infused habits of faith, hope, and charity in the baptized, it knows how to intervene.
 
John_Martin said:
Yes, it sounds like that. But the goal of the rational human is to never act in movement of the appetitive will, but only act as moved by the intellective will - only act from sound reason, and only act to benefit the rational person’s final end. The freedom finds expression in self-control of the appetites, which are automatic if the intellective will does not intervene. And with the infused habits of faith, hope, and charity in the baptized, it knows how to intervene.
Click to expand...
Well, you have never answered my original question: Why does a person have to be free? Why can’t a person just be a spiritually aware and conscious being? What is it about freedom that makes it a necessary quality of God and created persons?
 
blase6 said:
Well, you have never answered my original question: Why does a person have to be free? Why can’t a person just be a spiritually aware and conscious being? What is it about freedom that makes it a necessary quality of God and created persons?
Click to expand...
Love is what makes it necessary.
 
blase6 said:
Why does love have to be free?
Click to expand...
Without freedom there is no love.

CCC said:
1766 "To love is to will the good of another."41 All other affections have their source in this first movement of the human heart toward the good. Only the good can be loved.42 Passions "are evil if love is evil and good if it is good."43
Click to expand...
 
Sometimes my wife asks me if I love her because I want to or because I am bound to be faithfully Catholic.

Love gives the self to the beloved, which is what the beloved desires. Love is the movement of the will uniting to what is desired.

If I am not free, my beloved will not want me, because my gift is not a gift but a necessity of nature. I am then not a gift to my beloved but actually a necessary possession with no desire involved, no understanding of single goodness in her nor in me. Just a passive union of nature (like the beasts). I become a dead possession (and she to me). No enjoyment.

We are going around and around about freedom, but in the end, whether an agreement is reached or not does not really matter to me. The fact is that I understand or know myself as free. The fact that real people have the understanding of themselves as free is a type of proof of freedom’s reality. And, since freedom is a natural desire of rational beings, that is also a proof of its reality, since no one would desire something that was not part of their nature.
 
John_Martin said:
Sometimes my wife asks me if I love her because I want to or because I am bound to be faithfully Catholic.

Love gives the self to the beloved, which is what the beloved desires. Love is the movement of the will uniting to what is desired.

If I am not free, my beloved will not want me, because my gift is not a gift but a necessity of nature. I am then not a gift to my beloved but actually a necessary possession with no desire involved, no understanding of single goodness in her nor in me. Just a passive union of nature (like the beasts). I become a dead possession (and she to me). No enjoyment.

We are going around and around about freedom, but in the end, whether an agreement is reached or not does not really matter to me. The fact is that I understand or know myself as free. The fact that real people have the understanding of themselves as free is a type of proof of freedom’s reality. And, since freedom is a natural desire of rational beings, that is also a proof of its reality, since no one would desire something that was not part of their nature.
Click to expand...
So, you think desiring the end makes it free?
 
Vico said:
Why do you suppose that St. Thomas Aquinas does not agree with that idea?
Click to expand...
As far as I know, Aquinas assumed that an understanding of freedom existed, without explaining exactly how that worked. I don’t think Aquinas directly addressed the “dilemma of determinism”.
 
davidv said:
Without freedom there is no love.
Click to expand...
That depends on what you think love is. Under a different understanding, love does not have to be free. You are just thinking of free love, which presupposes freedom. An animal loves the object of its appetites necessarily, but that does not make it any less a love, or desire.
 
blase6 said:
That depends on what you think love is. Under a different understanding, love does not have to be free. You are just thinking of free love, which presupposes freedom. An animal loves the object of its appetites necessarily, but that does not make it any less a love, or desire.
Click to expand...
I gave you the definition of love that the Church uses. This is the love that God has for us and that we are expected to have for each other. This kind of love necessitates freedom of the will, because the will must be able to choose the other when the temptation to choose selfishly exists.
 
blase6 said:
I cannot understand how an indeterministic cause would not involve at some point a degree of randomness. A random will is in a sense, determined by chance. So either way, freedom cannot coexist with causality.
Click to expand...
Randomness or unpredictability? I don’t think they are the same thing.
 
davidv said:
I gave you the definition of love that the Church uses. This is the love that God has for us and that we are expected to have for each other. This kind of love necessitates freedom of the will, because the will must be able to choose the other when the temptation to choose selfishly exists.
Click to expand...
Well OK. You haven’t been able to address my problem with free will sufficiently. The teaching of the Church on freedom still contradicts my perception of how choices are made.

Why don’t I put it this way: even if freedom exists, why do all people have to be free? Why can’t there be intelligent creatures who know God and pursue him out of necessity?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top