Freewill: Rand vs Schopenhauer

[Sophus]

Umm... I'm hoping this isn't a topic that has already been discussed long ago.

I no longer believe in Freewill. I believe in a limited or restricted will for reasons explained by Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Schopenhauer demonstrates, that free will requires indeterminism (that we act without cause). There is a reason for everything we do.

Rand's Objectivism sort of redefines Freewill, arguing that the choice to stop and think about an action prior to committing it is what gives man freewill. I think she misunderstood Determinism. Determinism is not to say that we don't have control over what we do but rather we don't even have complete control over ourselves or way of thinking/beliefs, which ultimately will determine what we do. The effect is mistaken for the cause.

My theory of Limited Will- Man is in control of many, if not most, of his actions. However you cannot will your will. Darwinian effects have willed for us to have certain wills. We are merely animals and our brains can only be reasonable to a certain degree. Intuitive, emotional, chaotic instincts will kick in under the right circumstances. For example, when in danger you will react hastily on the instinct of fear for the purpose of protection. Even the choice to think (which still always requires a series of internal causes) of the desirable action/outcome is not an option.

Furthermore, even though we do have control over many of our actions we do not have control over the desired outcome which drives our will. We can change our desires through discovering our true desire via thought, but the act of thinking itself will not always give an honest answer. Cognitive ability is required for this.

I would also contend that we are responsible for what we do, just as any cause is responsible for its effect.

Critique?

[AlP]

I have some thoughts on this. But its late here and I don't have time to think through a response and get to work in time tomorrow. I just want to say for now that this interests me. Thanks for taking the time to post.

[JillSwift]

I find the classic idea of free will to be the last unquestioned bastion of dualism.

Thanks mostly to religion, we don't consider ourselves part of the universe, always considering ourselves "individuals" and calling the results of our creations "artificial". This is strange to me as we don't similarly individuate and artifice other social animals even though their efforts are only simpler than ours. We are very much part of nature, no matter what we're doing, not a separate entity (not dual).

Our will - that conglomeration of decision making processes - exists entirely as a result of the physical rules of the universe. The brain itself is the result of a very long process of natural selection resulting in the basis for the survival of our phenotype. Built in to its functioning are things like social instincts, paternal-attentive instincts (where children learn from their parents and other adults at the instinctive level), fear of certain dangers, and communicative capacity.

The process continues at a more immediate level as experiences. From the simple "stove is hot = don't touch" associations to more complex social interactions and even discrete reasoning. The vast majority of this is external influence. New associations and arrangements of information (a.k.a. new ideas) are the result of combinations of experience and the foresight/predictive quality built into our brains.

In other words, our will is deterministic (not to be confused with predetermination) just like the rest of the universe.

[AlP]

I not sure to what extent we are free. In everyday matters, it doesn't matter to me; the experience of consciousness is one of freedom. I agree that the degree to which we are free depends on our physiological state. If we are being chased by a man with a gun for example and our bodies have switched in response. And even in more mundane situations, like washing dishes, we aren't necessarily particularly conscious of the activity because we do it pretty much on autopilot.

But sometimes my consciousness comes to the forefront, for example if I am thinking about philosophy. I find it interesting to categorize my conscious experiences into three sorts. There is abstract conscious thought, where I have the experience of actually being my beliefs. There is self-conscious thought where I am aware of being consciousness. Finally there is worldly conscious thought where I have the experience of being integrated with the world. I find myself switching between the three categories.

From a scientific standpoint, I believe consciousness is a result of electrical activity in the brain. But consciousness isn't the electrical activity itself. Here's an analogy. A computer is an electronic device that runs processes. The process runs as a result of electrical activity in the computer. But the process is distinct from the electrical activity. Computers are deterministic and yet the processes that run on them make choices. Is that freedom?

[HandsandDreams]

I've had many heated conversations on this topic, and I've come to a sort of cease-fire with myself.

Someone once asked me, "You have your genetics, and you have your experiences.  Can you think of anything else that would affect choices you make?"  I had to answer no.  His point was that even though we experience the decision-making process, our choices are already determined, and were set in motion long ago.  I have a hard time arguing with this.

On the other hand, I firmly believe we are all responsible for our actions.  If we weren't, justice would be impossible.  I saw a funny cartoon illustrating this point once: a woman was choking her husband and yelling, "I'm sorry honey, but I'm not responsible for my actions!"  We can invoke Fate all we want, but the fact remains that all non-reflexive choices we make are premeditated.

Sophus, I think your mind is in the right place.  The bottom line is: there is no escaping the responsibility of thought and for our actions.  I can live my life happily without arguing semantics about free will.  I can feel proud for the good choices and achievements I make, and ashamed of the bad ones.  I own my thoughts and actions.  To hell with Fate.

[Sophus]

Sophus, I think your mind is in the right place.

I found them! Someone who doesn't think I'm crazy!  :bananacolor:

The bottom line is: there is no escaping the responsibility of thought and for our actions. I can live my life happily without arguing semantics about free will. I can feel proud for the good choices and achievements I make, and ashamed of the bad ones. I own my thoughts and actions. To hell with Fate.

You're right. I, too, have trouble with the word fate. To me it suggest a layout or plan and that we are of no influence. But someone whose behavior becomes lazy because of losing belief in freewill has not properly understood the concept. It's not that we can't make a difference or our own chooses. It merely means there are other causes that lead to our thoughts which will of course lead to our decision making.

And responsibility - absolutely. Just as the bowling ball is responsible for knocking over the pins, every cause is responsible for it's effect. Even though in this case, and as in any, the cause was the effect of another cause! The bowler rolling the ball. Ha ha...

But yeah it's not really free. Can you will your will?

[HandsandDreams]

Can you will your will?

Can you elaborate on this?  I'm not sure what you mean.

Sophus, I think your mind is in the right place.

I found them! Someone who doesn't think I'm crazy!  :bananacolor:

Of course you're crazy.  Who else but crazy people would argue semantics about free will?    Join the club.

[AlP]

Can you will your will?

No. I think for the same reason that you can be aware that you are conscious but you can't be aware that you aware that you are conscious. Awareness of consciousness is distinct from regular consciousness so there is no infinite regress.