Of course it exists.But,there is a thin line between free will and obligations.If you re planing to do something and it's against the rules of society youl'll have to obey that rules.The individual can be strong enough to pass this rules but of course with consequences.So the free will wuld be to expres your toughts and to do what you like as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.In order to expend free will we need more educated men so most of the humans won't get in conflict.And conflict is good because it creates new form of political,economycal society wich can be more free or less.Free will is not based on instict, it is based on how we are relating to ourselfs and to the other people.So my point here is that free will exist,somwhere less somwhere more but in order to keep it we need to learn more about the others so we can be more tolerant and allow other to expres their fellings and thoughts whether we don't like them or do.

My answer on that question is that the will of the Spirit is free, but not the will of the ego. The one who emerges with the Spirit will be free.

I am a post graduate philosophy student and just recently finished a thesis. I have spent a large amount of time looking at the arguments for and against free will, all in all its a tough question to answer. One of the main arguments against free will is the notion of determinism which is well argued by the Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza, Spinoza was a determinist and argued that there wasn't free will, it is well worth reading some of his stuff if you are interested although it is not easy to read and is written for the philosophically educated. Personally though I am rather sympathetic towards Spinoza's point, I am a fan of determinism to a degree and I don't really buy the free will argument due to determinism.

Written by IronAngel on 05.06.2009 at 21:35

I may not agree with Existentialists on a metaphysical level, but theirs is a fine attitude to take in life: there is no inherent meaning in life, and there doesn't need to be.

What exactly is it about Existentialism that you don't agree with? I must hasted to add that because there is no intrinsic meaning to life, Existentialists create the meaning of their own lives. By saying there doesn't need to be any meaning given to life sounds more like Nihilism.

Written by Immortal on 09.01.2010 at 07:18

Written by IronAngel on 05.06.2009 at 21:35

I may not agree with Existentialists on a metaphysical level, but theirs is a fine attitude to take in life: there is no inherent meaning in life, and there doesn't need to be.

What exactly is it about Existentialism that you don't agree with? I must hasted to add that because there is no intrinsic meaning to life, Existentialists create the meaning of their own lives. By saying there doesn't need to be any meaning given to life sounds more like Nihilism.

An important aspect of Existentialism is that existance preceeds essence, that is, man has some neutral existance before he becomes something. Especially with Sartre, this is connected to choice: you can choose what you become, because you're defined by your free will rather than any norms or predetermined ideals. But that's just way too extreme to be true: you are defined by your biological and psychological limits, as well as social interaction. You cannot become human or exercise free will outside of society, as has been shown in the case of feral children. You can't choose something that isn't an imaginable option in your culture and social environment. (An ancient Greek couldn't have chosen an ecological way of living to prevent global warming, because the notion would've been absurd to him.) You are not fully responsible for something you cannot fully control. Thus, since you cannot fully control your life and what you become, you cannot be fully responsible of it either.

But we have to remember Existentialism is not metaphysics. It's a shady doctrine with unclear and hasty arguments. Take Kierkegaard and Nietszche for example: neither of them are systematic, rational philosophers in the strict sense, and their arguments can't really shake the critical and academic mind. But the reverse is also true: pure and appropriate philosophical analysis fails to grasp their real meaning. Sartre and de Beauvoir are similar: they're not analytic philosophers, strict epistemologists or metaphysicists. They're critics of culture and ethics, and that's the context you need to put their bold claims into. They can't really be taken literally on all points.

About meaning in life: my point is that there doesn't have to be inherent meaning. The Existentialists point out that there isn't, and it's not a big deal. It's actually liberating. Now, Sartre especially goes on to argue that we must act as if we were making choices for the entire humankind, and he does seem to smuggle some positive values and norms into his system after abolishing them. I don't agree with him on that, because it is inconsistent. He even says all people feel an angst because of their responsibility to all mankind, but this is in blatant contradiction with his thesis that there is nothing essential shared in all humans.


Re: Spinoza. I'm rather sceptical whether you can deduce the nature of the universe from logic. Spinoza tried to do it, but his logic is fallacious by today's knowledge. There are many possible worlds, all just as logically possible and many actually similar enough to explain our experiences of the world. Bertrand Russell deals with this in a few of his works, and I'm inclined to agree. As he says: due to modern knowledge of logic, mathematics and epistemology, there's been a decrease in what we (believe to) know is true for certain but a dramatic increase in what we know is possibly true.

Written by IronAngel on 09.01.2010 at 11:29

An important aspect of Existentialism is that existance preceeds essence, that is, man has some neutral existance before he becomes something. Especially with Sartre, this is connected to choice: you can choose what you become, because you're defined by your free will rather than any norms or predetermined ideals. But that's just way too extreme to be true: you are defined by your biological and psychological limits, as well as social interaction.

I don't think Existentialism was intended to be anything other than completely subjective. I don't think it's plausable to say that you are defined by your bioloigcal and psychological limits either. I think we're getting free will mixed up with Determinism here. I think it is true to say that you are defined by the actions you make through your aparent free will even though it may be inhibited by factors of bio/physco-Determinism

Written by IronAngel on 09.01.2010 at 11:29

You cannot become human or exercise free will outside of society, as has been shown in the case of feral children. You can't choose something that isn't an imaginable option in your culture and social environment. (An ancient Greek couldn't have chosen an ecological way of living to prevent global warming, because the notion would've been absurd to him.) You are not fully responsible for something you cannot fully control. Thus, since you cannot fully control your life and what you become, you cannot be fully responsible of it either.

Of course a person would have never chosen something as unimaginable as that because, like I said, this theory is subjective. If responsibilty doesn't lie with you, the person that acted, then with who does it lie? It would be absurd to infinatly regress the blame because that would mean we could act carelessly. Only the person that acted can be responsible for the action because it was that person who chose to do so, even if his action was affected by some other prior notion.

My life philosophy is based on the presumption, that free will really exists...and i believe it deeply - it is like playing poker - you arent destined to loose the hand or the whole game, you are only about to make good or wrong decisions - YOUR decisions

Written by Immortal on 09.01.2010 at 13:36

[zip]

You're right in that it's probably meant to be subjective. (Though reading some of the most enthusiastic Existentialists, I do get the feeling they try to give objectivity to subjectivity.) And that's what I meant with what you quoted earlier: I don't agree with its metaphysics, that is, I don't think the world and humans are what Existentialists say they are. Because undoubtedly, they do make these claims about what world and man are in their core, even if they don't mean for it to be taken literally. It's a way to look at life and society, and sometimes it's a fruitful way. Othertimes, it's not that useful. But it's not necessarily "true" in itself. Probably most Existentialists didn't even mean to preach the "truth."

About this...

it's a so simple question, but with too much complexes answers, with too much views.

ok here we go!

our bodies at this world... don't exist a real total freedom, and I bet that won't: always exists something to tie us to we do something with... freedom (money, power, status). Exixts some religion views that says when we die, not our body, but our souls will be free at heaven(if you had been a good guy) or locked at hell (if u be a bad guy).

at all, the real freedom never will exists, unless you be the superman XD

Society imposes rules upon you, Government imposes Rules upon you. We are surrounded with rules and laws which defy some of our basic instincts so we defy our selves. If we act with out concern for society and law then we are shunned, exiled, killed ect. So yes free will exists there is no great plan for. We do how ever cow down to those who weild more supposed power i.e. Governent, Peers. They along with 99% of us who have the rediculous urge to be accepted by everyone give up our free will for saftey and acceptence.

I know i kindof driffted but im not going back to fix the Digressions

Written by ChaoCentric on 24.02.2010 at 21:39

Society imposes rules upon you, Government imposes Rules upon you. We are surrounded with rules and laws which defy some of our basic instincts so we defy our selves. If we act with out concern for society and law then we are shunned, exiled, killed ect. So yes free will exists there is no great plan for. We do how ever cow down to those who weild more supposed power i.e. Governent, Peers. They along with 99% of us who have the rediculous urge to be accepted by everyone give up our free will for saftey and acceptence.

When I first seen this topic a while ago, I knew what I wanted to say, but didnt know how to word it properly. You have just did it for me, thank you.

The laws and rules of governments and society serve to curb free will. And though all of us can excercise free will still, it's fair to say that lots of people refuse to, because they don't want to be shunned by society, or prosecuted by government. Lots of people attempt to repress, or hide their true selves because they want to be accepted by society, and not be shunned by it. Closeted gays are a classic example of that. Do gays want to be in the closet? Of course not. They can excercise their free will and be open about their homosexuality, but some still choose not to. And why? Because in some parts of the world, you could be imprisoned or executed for it. Or shunned and looked down on by society for it.

Free will certainly does exist. But it would be true to say that many people do not feel they are free to excercise that free will without fear of negative ramifications from society or government.

It's pretty simple - NO.
If our minds are a part of nature, governed by causality or randomness (does not matter),
your mind is like a rock falling to the ground, like a snooker table - atoms kick other atoms.
From the big bang to now and so on.

It doesn't. and since i'm too lazy to prove my point we'll have it this way; everyone is welcomed to prove me wrong.. and i will reply to you all

It depends on the standards of your free will...We don't have our own certain destiny and every man himself builds up his life...But to put it short...Totally free will doesn't exist...It may exist if you're really happy with everything...And that's not possible...because there's shit on all of our papers...Maybe If you are born...If you even wanted to be born...Your parents totally support you...You happen to enjoy school Very much...Then graduate and go to a university where you can study the stuff you really really like and then end up getting a job that you totally enjoy and like doing...Then get a wife or a husband that you are totally satisfied with and end up having children that are everything you want them to be and die exactly the way you want...Then in conclusion you have lived your life exactly the way you have wanted to live it...But then again it ain't possible and even If you would be lucky enough to live that kind of life then even then there can be some flaws...

-

Yeah...I Tend to write fucked up things that even I can't really understand.

Lol ... nevermind

all i have to say about this is what is already written as my signature,

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free
Johann Wolfgang van Goethe 1749-1832"

Written by Zombie on 15.07.2010 at 21:12

Lol ... nevermind

all i have to say about this is what is already written as my signature,

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free
Johann Wolfgang van Goethe 1749-1832"

And your signature ain't wrong...Because non of us really does what he really wants...afterall we are living beings...We have instincts and shit...And some instincts are already in us at birth...Maybe I wouldn't want to fall hands first on the ground...I'd be happy having faceplants all day long...

Written by Zombie on 15.07.2010 at 21:12

Lol ... nevermind

all i have to say about this is what is already written as my signature,

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free
Johann Wolfgang van Goethe 1749-1832"

"A witty saying proves nothing."
Voltaire 1694-1778

Written by Hrothdane on 16.07.2010 at 09:14

Written by Zombie on 15.07.2010 at 21:12

Lol ... nevermind

all i have to say about this is what is already written as my signature,

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free
Johann Wolfgang van Goethe 1749-1832"

"A witty saying proves nothing."
Voltaire 1694-1778

Yeah...But Then again you could use Voltaire's saying against his own...:D

Written by k1tu on 16.07.2010 at 09:54

Written by Hrothdane on 16.07.2010 at 09:14

Written by Zombie on 15.07.2010 at 21:12

Lol ... nevermind

all i have to say about this is what is already written as my signature,

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free
Johann Wolfgang van Goethe 1749-1832"

"A witty saying proves nothing."
Voltaire 1694-1778

Yeah...But Then again you could use Voltaire's saying against his own...:D

That's kinda the point

There is no "soul like" free will. No pilot siting over the head and telling it how to act.
We take decisions in the area of our front brain, which is made out of atoms government by of cause & effect. Same story with a few levels above, Cells interact by the same cause & effect principle.
In other words when you shoot a balling ball on a snooker table, it does not have free will, it is determined.

There are conversations about other types of free will, but this type is simply implausible.
Open any book on neurology & neurophysiology.
In open head surgeries some patients get there neurons "tickled". In causes them to act/move in a certain manner, and they feel as if they choose it.
Who ever is interested in a good but light read I recommend "Into the Silent Land: Travels in Neuropsychology" By Paul Brooks.

I guess it does exist. Now whatever the society thinks or whatever the goverment does.... is a different thing. You can do anything you want without having anything to worry about.

lets say you want to kill someone, you can do it, but if they find out then it wont be so much of a free will. Think before you act. If you think someone of any kind of person will try to mess with you then just have some caution with what you are going to do.

What i want to say is that free will exists but only to the ones who really want it and can do the necesary to have it.

If anyone is interested the Neurophilosoper (yes apparently there is such a thing) Patricia Churchland is lecturing on this issue in an easy to understand for every layman fashion. Enjoy.
Morality, Free-will & Neuroscience
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3zUqj0x848

Haven't read all three pages, but my answer is no.
Read Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse-Five".

Never 100%.

Our actions are dictated by our personalities. Personalities are the result of genetics and environmental factors/past experience, so no. Free will does not exist. Not saying that there's such a thing as destiny, or that all of our choices are already made, as personalities (sometimes) change to an extent as time goes on, depending on external factors.

Choice and other outcomes become clear after a decision is made, or an action enacted. We "choose" an option based on our thinking styles, which are products of personality (and our perception of reality).

Written by ThisIsNotHere on 21.08.2010 at 11:16

Our actions are dictated by our personalities. Personalities are the result of genetics and environmental factors/past experience, so no. Free will does not exist. Not saying that there's such a thing as destiny, or that all of our choices are already made, as personalities (sometimes) change to an extent as time goes on, depending on external factors.

Choice and other outcomes become clear after a decision is made, or an action enacted. We "choose" an option based on our thinking styles, which are products of personality (and our perception of reality).

Are you psychology or philosophy student ? . Can human one change his personality or can we control it ?

Written by FOOCK Nam on 27.08.2010 at 22:11

Written by ThisIsNotHere on 21.08.2010 at 11:16

Our actions are dictated by our personalities. Personalities are the result of genetics and environmental factors/past experience, so no. Free will does not exist. Not saying that there's such a thing as destiny, or that all of our choices are already made, as personalities (sometimes) change to an extent as time goes on, depending on external factors.

Choice and other outcomes become clear after a decision is made, or an action enacted. We "choose" an option based on our thinking styles, which are products of personality (and our perception of reality).

Are you psychology or philosophy student ? . Can human one change his personality or can we control it ?

I'm not a psychology or philosophy student, I just read, think about, and discuss a lot of shit in my free time.

Humans cannot change their personality. It's initially determined by genetics, and gets expanded upon/modified by external situations. Our responses (dictated by personality) influence the course of future events (which will then shape us internally as they occur). And so on. One nice cycle.

I believe humans are radically subjective to the laws of causality and superficially free from the laws of causality. We can't choose to be born, we cannot choose the world we live in, we can't choose our own species etc. But we can choose to listen to metal and not to trance. And maybe that's all the freedom we need...