But again, I raise the point that it's only necessary that some of our will is free, in order to give us that opening that can account for what appears to actually happen when we look at what people do. We say that we can't predict what anyone will do in a given situation, and that is correct. That also is the indicator that there is indeterminance in our actions. I was reading recently about Robert E. Lee's decision to fight for the Confederacy. If you were to consider the forces of determinism, such as family influence and upbringing and his West Point training, you would have to say that Lee would choose the Union--but of course he didn't. How is that to be explained?

DWill wrote:But again, I raise the point that it's only necessary that some of our will is free, in order to give us that opening that can account for what appears to actually happen when we look at what people do.

I suspect I will not be able to convince you, but I see no reason for claiming that some of our will is free.

We say that we can't predict what anyone will do in a given situation, and that is correct. That also is the indicator that there is indeterminance in our actions.

Being unable to predict does not imply indeterminance, but merely a lack of information, probably combined with some degree of randomness.

I was reading recently about Robert E. Lee's decision to fight for the Confederacy. If you were to consider the forces of determinism, such as family influence and upbringing and his West Point training, you would have to say that Lee would choose the Union--but of course he didn't. How is that to be explained?

This hardly challenges the argument about free will, there are all sorts of decisions that seem puzzling, but I am saying that whatever decision he ended up making was the result of a chain of causal events leading up to it. How could it be otherwise? I hope I'm not being too repetitive (can't help it -- determinism), but at decision time x, all the causes were in place to make that decision, however seemingly illogical it might seem, based on all the factors that led to brain state at time x-1, and so on.

Thinking about emergence, about which there seems to be a lot of interest, do you suppose there is an essential conflict between emergent processes and determinism? I would guess so....it seems there would have to be.

Dexter wrote:

Robert Tulip wrote: The dichotomy of freedom was expressed by the existentialist philosopher Martin Heidegger, who said in his 1926 book Being and Time that on the one hand we are limited by our facticity, the actual historical situation constraining our options, while on the other hand we have existentiality, our free human capacity to project ourselves upon our possibilities in the sphere of openness. Heidegger held that the authentic human ethic is found in an attitude of pure freedom, which he further described in the rather cryptic phrase 'anticipatory resoluteness', meaning the ability to maintain integrity in the face of events.

No offense to the Heideggerians, but these are just assertions, I'm sure dressed up in fancy, obscure philosophical language. Does he make any coherent argument?

Hi Dexter, yes, you are right, Heidegger made assertions about philosophy. He asserted that freedom is the highest value, and defined freedom as being true to yourself, living with integrity and authenticity. I find that to be a coherent argument, although it is rather complex.

Existentialism asserts that to claim we are not free is an act of bad faith. This key idea, that we should choose to be free, is one that Jean Paul Sartre took from Heidegger's argument that the essence of truth is freedom. This sense of free choice is something that Heidegger locates in imagination, the consideration of possibilities, and the courage to be open to change. This connection between truth and freedom is admittedly rather obscure, but it makes sense if you consider it carefully.

Many people are not free, for example prisoners. Apart from those who are locked up by jails or other legal constraints, many people shackle themselves with culture, as mmguta has described. The shackles of culture are what Heidegger analyses in terms of the weight of anonymous mass opinion, with people internalising social expectations, and forfeiting their freedom.

I wrote about this material in my Master of Arts Honours Thesis, and find it interesting to explore again. Heidegger analyses human existence as primarily constituted by state of mind, understanding and language. When we forfeit our freedom and identity to others, he argues we live in a world of ambiguity, curiosity and chatter. Authenticity, being true to ourself, is the precondition for existential freedom.

Robert Tulip wrote: Existentialism asserts that to claim we are not free is an act of bad faith. This key idea, that we should choose to be free, is one that Jean Paul Sartre took from Heidegger's argument that the essence of truth is freedom. This sense of free choice is something that Heidegger locates in imagination, the consideration of possibilities, and the courage to be open to change. This connection between truth and freedom is admittedly rather obscure, but it makes sense if you consider it carefully.

Well I admit I'm not a fan of that type of continental philosophy -- Heidegger, Hegel, Sartre, etc. -- although admittedly I'm not very well informed.

It doesn't seem like they are addressing the issue of whether we have free will in the sense that Harris and others are arguing, but more of an ethical theory of how you should live. At least that's how it seems to me.

I know that many do not appreciate Freud (mostly because they have not studied his full works and do not realize that he was actually a genius - he did have some strange concepts but many were genius).

That being said, Freud did not believe in the concept of free will. This was because of the unseen forces within the human mind and the unconscious that are not aware to us. Freud believed that the unconscious controls our behavior thus, eliminating the potential for free will. A very basic example of this is that if my father was abusive in some way, I will repeat that abusive pattern in my relationships unconsciously until I have some intervention that brings that situation with my father into my consciousness and I can "choose" to make different decisions. I may have left home thinking I was leaving my father's abuse but my unconscious holds onto it until it is worked through.

Just my 2 cents

Kym

Dexter wrote: continental philosophy -- Heidegger, Hegel, Sartre, etc ...It doesn't seem like they are addressing the issue of whether we have free will in the sense that Harris and others are arguing, but more of an ethical theory of how you should live.

Yes, that is true. Existentialism says we are thrown into the world and should live as if we are free, because any 'ultimate' answer regarding physical causality of action is irrelevant to life and history.

A main progenitor of continental philosophy was Rousseau, who said 250 years ago 'man is born free but lives in chains'. This supports the point made by mmguta:

mmguta wrote:the freedom we think we have is a delusion of sorts because what we choose to accept influences us tremendously

Freedom and liberty are less about physical constraints of causality than the spiritual constraints of culture. This is why freedom of the will should be analyzed more within the continental philosophical framework of history - assessed as a question of spiritual culture - than the Anglo-American analytical philosophy framework of physics - where the political dimension of freedom is ignored in favour of a scientific abstraction.

I actually find the Bible very informative on this question of the politics of freedom, with statements such as John's remark that 'the truth will set you free' and Paul's that 'the Spirit of God is Liberty'.

How I read the Gospels is that Jesus Christ is imagined as the incarnation of perfect human freedom, a man of pure integrity, who is destroyed by the world but triumphs through his focus on the ultimate values of love and truth. Jesus puts himself beyond the constraints of culture because he does not care what will happen to himself; he decides to be true to himself and so finds perfect freedom. This story illustrates the oppressive attitude of mass culture, and also Heidegger's argument that truth is the essence of freedom.

Hegel said freedom is the recognition of necessity. This means that our free choice about whether to read a story about Angelina or Nicole in a supermarket magazine does not enter the terrain of freedom, which is about the bigger questions, such as why we find ourselves compelled to allow trivia to crowd out reality. Which brings us to Freud, psychology, and the sway of delusion as producing a crushing conformity.

Newomyn wrote:Freud did not believe in the concept of free will. This was because of the unseen forces within the human mind and the unconscious that are not aware to us. Freud believed that the unconscious controls our behavior thus, eliminating the potential for free will.

I started a commentary here on a book by Freud last year. I think that Freud accepts in part the Christian idea that 'the truth will set you free', and sees truth and freedom as obtained through psychoanalysis. Naming our demons helps to control them. Freud identified a pervasive imprisonment of the human soul, and rather like the Buddha, pointed to a path of liberation. So it is not quite right to say Freud disbelieved in freedom of the will, but rather that he explained the existential constraints and limits of freedom much more clearly than previous philosophers of the modern Enlightenment who assumed pure rationality and did not appreciate how instinct enslaves us.

Freud's sense that we have to understand reality in order to be free is similar to the Buddhist idea that there are four steps on the path to liberation. These are known as the four noble truths of suffering, the cause of suffering, the end of suffering, and the eightfold path to the end of suffering. The path is summarized by the acrostic Use These Steps And Leave Everything Mara Causes.

I think that Freud accepts in part the Christian idea that 'the truth will set you free', and sees truth and freedom as obtained through psychoanalysis. Naming our demons helps to control them. Freud identified a pervasive imprisonment of the human soul, and rather like the Buddha, pointed to a path of liberation. So it is not quite right to say Freud disbelieved in freedom of the will, but rather that he explained the existential constraints and limits of freedom much more clearly than previous philosophers of the modern Enlightenment who assumed pure rationality and did not appreciate how instinct enslaves us.

Agreed. And said much more eloquently than I