CJD

Pyrrho, I am thinking we agree on this issue (save for a few minor metaphysical quibbles).

But xorbie, this "Why exactly would you eat dog shit if you didn't want to?", does not make any sense. One would not eat dog shit if they did not want to. In like manner, if someone is chowing down on a fresh pile, it would seem quite obvious that that is exactly what he/she would want to be doing. Contrarily, if I grabbed a handful of canine execrement and shoved it into someone's mouth, and then proceeded to forcefully make him/her masticate and swallow, then that someone is eating shit against their desire or want to do so.

This last case, it seems to me, is the only case that a person would be doing something that he/she did not want to do. It is also the only case where responsibility shifts from the one doing the actual eating to the one doing the forcing.

As an aside, what this means for us is that when we are faced with a habitual act that we are ashamed of (for example), our desire to do the act dominates our desire to be free from shame. To say "I have no choice" in the matter, is akin to what Sartre called "bad faith." True, society provides a gigantic mechanism by which we can hide from ourselves and avoid the responsibilities of our own freedoms (every institution thus becoming an alibi). But the fact that we can and do project ourselves into society (thus shaping it) leaves us with no escape: we must own-up to the responsibility such freedom brings.


Regards,

CJD

* edited to add the following: xorbie, could you explain how these two propositions are not synonymous? "Once again, this is about the will to desire what you want, not to be confused with the will to make dogshit appealing to you."

paul30

Has anyone addressed Schopenhauer's famous conundrum?

Here it is: You are free to do what you want, but you are not free to want what you want.

Any thoughts on this?

haverbob

Right on target. Our ultimate purpose in life is to try to promote our happiness, however, we have no choice to purposefully do otherwise. This is the crux of everything. so in a small sense, we do not have complete free will because we do not have the choice of making ourselves purposely unhappy although we accidently or inadvertently choose things that make us unhappy, but never purposely. Someone once asked me about free will in terms of Adam and Eve eating the apple. They seemed to think we didn't have free will until we ate the apple. But I think it was the opposite. I think we had the free will to choose to eat the apple but lost free will after doing so. We became a slave to pleasing ourselves and therefore lost the true free will that we had. Ignore the fact that I brought up a Bible example, it's supposed to be a figurative representation of things anyway.

yaktldg

paul30: Schopenhauer: You are free to do what you want, but you are not free to want what you want.

Am I understanding this? Phrased otherwise: "You are free to do what you want, but you [cannot control] what you want."

haverbob: you still have the free will to decide that you want to raise your arm.
Quantum Ninja: So, could we then say that X has free will if X has the ability to make decisions?
xorbie: [Free will is] The ability to want to do something.

Don't confuse Will with Free Will. We do have a Will, but how is it Free?

Will -- "The power of choosing"

Free Will -- "the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies"

Let me know if the dictionary's definitions are off.

haverbob: Our ultimate purpose in life is to try to promote our happiness

That is your opinion, and I respectfully disagree.

haverbob: we accidently or inadvertently choose things that make us unhappy, but never purposely

It is within our capacity to make ourselves unhappy if we so desired. I do not think "desire" or "want" necessarily imply "happiness".

QN: QN: If you can't define what your rejecting, on what basis can you reject it?

I think it's backwards. "If you can't define what you're accepting, on what basis can you accept it." I think the burden of proof is on free will believers.

Quantum Ninja

I think it works both ways. You should neither accept nor reject anything until you can define it.

Suppose I tell you there's a flob sitting on my desk right now, without defining what a flob is. Do you accept that statement or reject it?

The best option is to suspend all judgement until a clear definition has been provided. For instance, if a flob turns out to be a special type of pencil, then you could reasonably accept that my assertion is true. If, instead, a flob turns out to be a purple rhinoceros, then you'd be more likely to reject it. Since you can't really make a fair judgement until you know what it is you're talking about, your default position should be that of suspended judgement.

When discussing whether or not free will actually exists, I'd like a definition a little more specific than, "The abilitiy to make choices." That's to vague for my tastes. That's like saying a flob is something that sits on a desk. What does it mean to make a choice?

yaktldg

QN: I think it works both ways. You should neither accept nor reject anything until you can define it.

Agreed.

Nowhere357

It means the decision is not predetermined, coupled with the idea that the decision coincides with a subjective feeling of making a decision.

Imo, will and free will are synonomous.

yaktldg

Nowhere: It means the decision is not predetermined, coupled with the idea that the decision coincides with a subjective feeling of making a decision.

Disagree. In a world of non-predetermined decisions, is your will any more "free" than in the world of predetermined decisions in the sense of putting you in control "unconstrained by external agencies"? Not necessarily, I think.

Nowhere357

Are you saying reality is predetermined?

Of course our ability to make decisions is constrained. We can choose only from the options presented to us, and there are many factors which influence our decisions.

From the Philosophypages, will is the faculty of deciding, choosing, or acting. Interestingly, there is no entry for free will. I think the term is unuseful, adding nothing but confusion. Thus I consider "free will" to be equivalent to "will".

xorbie

CJD, sorry this took so long, I forgot about this thread for a while there. Anyway, the difference between the two is this: I cannot control my physical senses. I cannot will myself to see blue as red, or to make dog shit taste good. This is of course not totally true, and there are ways of controlling or limiting physical senses to some extent (mind over matter type things). However, I find it highly unlikely that I will ever find the taste and smell of dog shit appealing. Hoewever, I can force myself to eat it anyway. This is your will to desire what you want.