Why is freedom a necessary attribute of a personal being?

[blase6]

Randomness or unpredictability? I don’t think they are the same thing.

That which is predictable is deterministic. All that is not predictable involves some degree of randomness: Someone may be biased by their personal disposition to favor one choice, but if the will is indeterministic, then it ultimately comes down to a random choice.

But for some strange reason, no one here except me gets that.

 

[davidv]

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.

I believe the problem is on your end and not the Church’s. I say your perception is wrong, for all the reason presented in this thread.

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?

I strongly suggest you ask God this question. I, for one, cannot speak for Him.

 

[Vico]

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”.

The view of Aquinas is soft determinism: there is freedom when option is considered and chosen. The choice involves options that may genuinely be considered. Whether it’s a possibility depends on whether one can really consider it.

Soft determinist: one is still free even with only one fixed outcome.

The will of a person does not makes a decision but the person acting by means of his will. People choose certain actions without an outside cause.

 

[Bahman]

Randomness or unpredictability? I don’t think they are the same thing.

Good. As determinism and necessary are not same.

 

[John_Martin]

So, you think desiring the end makes it free?

No, you are mixing sentences - desiring “freedom” is the proof of the reality of freedom (whether one is free at the moment or not), and proof of its necessity for the person to be at rest in his final end. Without satisfaction, the end is not yet. We would not be considering the question of freedom if it were not necessary nor even imagine it if it did not exist. The scripture reads that there is nothing new under the sun, and that includes freedom.

A person’s knowing of his last end is like knowing his “destiny” or “purpose”. Free will is his choice of roads that might best lead there or lead in that direction, even though the individual roads go to alternate and not final ends.

The sensitive appetites love or hate those “not final ends” and sometimes overwhelm a person so that he either stays on that sub-road or avoids that path. But the will, free will can order the direction because it is active (a mover of the passive sensitive appetites, since they are only moved movers of the body).

When my wife asks if I love her because I “want to”, she is asking about mean to the end of being united with her - she is asking because she sees me doing what to me are unpleasant or undesirable things, with her or our union being the recipient. She sees me choosing something undesirable (by my expressions as I do it, at times) and wonders how I would do this. She is seeing the dissatisfaction of my passive appetites at having to move down an un-appetitive path, but not seeing the satisfaction in my soul of having our union successful more fully. This IS freedom, fulfilling my purpose here via a choice of one movement of my actions over another. We do have a purpose, what we expect of life and what life expects of us. Our freedom is in making our purpose really happen. Lack of freedom is in frustration of attaining our purpose by some external mover of our passive appetites that then move our actions (in other words, not having recourse to our own reason and intellective will to judge and choose and move our appetites per the choice).

 

[Bahman]

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”.

I think he could not resolve the dilemma of freedom and determinism either being a hardcore causality believer.

 

[John_Martin]

…
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?

First, God himself affirms free will when he enjoins the people with “Choose this day whom you will serve…” through his spokesman.
Since “God tempts no one”, it is necessary to presume choice or he would not put a choice in front of us as if he were one of the classical gods of Greek legend in their playing with us. He is not one of them.

As to it not being determined choice, determined acts are motivated by the end sought by the appetite - I see a candy bar, my appetite is moved to desire by that object, I take it and eat it - my appetite was determined by the sight of what it looks for being present.
But Free Will is about choosing what has no desirable objective end. I choose to fly to Memphis without desiring to be in Memphis. I desire to be in Corinth, MS. I could get there either driving all the way or going to somewhere I do not want to go and renting a car to drive the rest of the way. So, I choose Memphis, then several hundred dollars to rent a car. Free will is about choosing acts that do not relate to the sensitive appetite motivators, are not determined by the appetite’s natural desires at seeing a naturally desired object. I “choose to love” (desire) something that has no intrinsic value as an end in itself (although some choices may also end up allowing a modicum of satisfaction to a sensitive appetite).

 

[John_Martin]

A note:
Free Will cancelling determined will is especially noticeable when you are doing something contrary to an appetite that is screaming for satisfaction. Such as when you are choosing not to smoke and suffering (experiencing) the images of satisfaction motivating your appetite for nicotine. Your Act of Being in that moment is contrary to a determined appetite, thus a free movement of your body versus a determined movement of your body. And while you are in Angst, you are still thinking you are the Man for moving your own body’s reality rather than passive movement determined by the objects of cigarettes in your sight and in your thoughts.

Never give up, Never surrender your Purpose that only You can make Happen. You are necessary tomorrow; don’t give up to determined (passive) act today.

 

[John_Martin]

Freedom - If you are (in your will) inclined to accept your passive appetites as final, then you are not free, but are determined by whatever appears to the senses. But if you are (in your will) inclined to an end judged by the council of your reason, then your acts will be moved (through your passive sensitive powers) as driven by your will and not by the appearances of outside motive objects. Your bodily movement will be moved from within yourself rather than from immediate objects received by the senses.

Still, there is the “sensation” of not being free in this freedom, because the sensitive appetites “feel” compelled not to be satisfied per their natural inclination, and these appetites move the passive thoughts to have images of being imprisoned and unable to “move freely” toward the determined inclination.

If your “choice” is temporal, such as wanting to be “sin-free” right now, or to stack up a set of “sin-free” days and daily build on it, you will not be experiencing acts of free will. Instead you will be satisfying passive appetites for pride, where your acts themselves are objects moving your appetite for pride, or in most cases you will invariably fail at the choice.

But if your “choice” to do or not do some specific act is in relation to the impact of acts in aiding or hindering the reaching your destination (final end), then you do experience that you are free from passive movement to get what an appetite perceives will satisfy it whenever such an object appears to the senses. You love something more than (bodily) life itself.

A determined act is one that passively occurs in response to an apprehension of the senses.
A non-determined act is one that occurs in indifference to an apprehension by the passive senses, but is moved into act for its own sake (so that the act takes place or “is” in actuality).

My personal goal or purpose while here: Jesus asked, “When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?” Well, I am making choices to make sure that when he returns he will at least find me saying, “Yes, you will find faith, at a minimum with me. and I believe there are others.” Jesus is coming, so I cannot give up and move whenever objects of desire appear in front of me, but instead move with my own goal’s agenda. And that is my freedom.

If there were some other idea of what freedom means, I really have no interest in it since it has no impact on my goal. But this freedom that I know is necessary to me. If I were a rational being who knew the divine without being free from passive appetites, I would be very very rationally disappointed in not being able to have Him because my appetites wanted cookies, which appear all the time in front of me.

 

[blase6]

The urge to act according to reason is just as much a determinant appetite as bodily urges. In the cases you describe, the desire to act according to reason seems to override the body’s desire and determines the choice. You are thinking that a person’s chain of reason is free; I do not see that.

 

[John_Martin]

The urge to act according to reason is just as much a determinant appetite as bodily urges. In the cases you describe, the desire to act according to reason seems to override the body’s desire and determines the choice. You are thinking that a person’s chain of reason is free; I do not see that.

No, your reason is not determined by your genes, whereas your tongue’s tastebuds are. You have no pre-set love in your will when you are born, but you choose it when you choose it.

 

[John_Martin]

I really can’t think of more to say about this, so I am afraid I have to sign off this now. I do believe there is freedom, in the fact that we do not have to choose what others say is the best choice, but we can make our own ruling and make that ruling true in our actions. Anyway, good fortune in your search.

 

[blase6]

No, your reason is not determined by your genes, whereas your tongue’s tastebuds are. You have no pre-set love in your will when you are born, but you choose it when you choose it.

How did I imply that one’s reasoning was determined by genetics? Reasoning seems to come from external stimuli.

 

[blase6]

I really can’t think of more to say about this, so I am afraid I have to sign off this now. I do believe there is freedom, in the fact that we do not have to choose what others say is the best choice, but we can make our own ruling and make that ruling true in our actions. Anyway, good fortune in your search.

How did I imply that what “others say is best” is what appears best to the will? I mean there is a combination of factors which lead a person to come to a decision. I do not see how any of it has to involve freedom.

 

[John_Martin]

How did I imply that one’s reasoning was determined by genetics? Reasoning seems to come from external stimuli.

Your last sentence here says that reasoning is genetic (“Reasoning seems to come from external stimuli.”)

If the soul is spiritual then it cannot be moved by anything material because what is material can only move other material. If reasoning were moved by what is material, it too, then, is material and therefore genetically generated.

Reasoning is not moved by external stimuli, but knows movement by stimulus is happening to its body and reasons about it, but never, ever, moved by it. The will moves the body but is never moved by the body or any sensation of the body. The intellect knows the body and external apprehensions of the body but is never known by the body. Even if its conscious thought knows “of” the soul it does not know it as an observed object so as to move it as a stimulus to the soul.

 

[blase6]

Your last sentence here says that reasoning is genetic (“Reasoning seems to come from external stimuli.”)

If the soul is spiritual then it cannot be moved by anything material because what is material can only move other material. If reasoning were moved by what is material, it too, then, is material and therefore genetically generated.

Reasoning is not moved by external stimuli, but knows movement by stimulus is happening to its body and reasons about it, but never, ever, moved by it. The will moves the body but is never moved by the body or any sensation of the body. The intellect knows the body and external apprehensions of the body but is never known by the body. Even if its conscious thought knows “of” the soul it does not know it as an observed object so as to move it as a stimulus to the soul.

No, I did not say that reasoning is genetic. External stimuli is not necessarily genetic. The will is moved by external stimuli which is either physical or spiritual, or a combination. I don’t know why you are assuming that it can only be physical.

 

[John_Martin]

That is the nature of a human, the only interface with anything and everything “other” is via its body. And the only thing and everything that the soul does is to know and to move its body, but never to be moved or changed by its body which is fully passive, while the soul is the fully active part of the human being.

 

[blase6]

That is the nature of a human, the only interface with anything and everything “other” is via its body. And the only thing and everything that the soul does is to know and to move its body, but never to be moved or changed by its body which is fully passive, while the soul is the fully active part of the human being.

I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Spiritual contact without corresponding physical manifestation is probably possible for human beings. However most things we experience involve some physical aspect.

Here’s another way of asking my question: Everything that God basically is, he is out of necessity, since he is the necessary being. Why does God have to be free? What is it about indeterminate random choices that make them an ulterior quality of personal existence?

 

[ChainBreaker]

Here’s another way of asking my question: Everything that God basically is, he is out of necessity, since he is the necessary being. Why does God have to be free? What is it about indeterminate random choices that make them an ulterior quality of personal existence?

God does not have freewill if by that one means that God can choose to be either good or bad. Perfection cannot be imperfect.

If we are forced to choose God, How can we have a real relationship with God? Is it good to force somebody into a relationship?

 

[blase6]

God does not have freewill if by that one means that God can choose to be either good or bad. Perfection cannot be imperfect.

If we are forced to choose God, How can we have a real relationship with God? Is it good to force somebody into a relationship?

Animals and inanimate objects are forced to act the way they do, right? The key word is “force”. Force causes everything to act. It just depends where the force comes from. Why can’t God create a being which is as intelligent as us, and can know him, but doesn’t have freedom? Why can’t a person exist in a way where they are bound to accept God? Wouldn’t that be better than having the chaos of random choice?

In the end, no matter how I act, it always feels like it was bound to happen. A personal choice can be reduced to an amalgamation of predetermined personal disposition to act a certain way, and of external stimuli. Saying that a choice is indeterministic does not make it feel any more free. It just feels like in the end, my choice was just random, and didn’t really “involve” me, if that makes sense.