4 ms·
This was the conclusion I came to when I first considered the question. I later decided it was a moot point. The question "is there free will" generally assumes
by bnjms 12y ago
This was the conclusion I came to when I first considered the question. I later decided it was a moot point. The question "is there free will" generally assumes or implies to most people, I think, that if there is not free will there is no matter in day to day choices. But that's silly because as far as I can see determinism applies to systems and from within the system our will is indistinguishable from free will. (Not sure how to word the leap here.) And believing in not free will, if it causes paralysis, results in less desirable deterministic outcomes anyway. So it's best for most people to assume free will.
- logicchains 12y agoI think often free will is a fuzzy concept people use to represent some kind of feeling/function/mode/whatever that exists in the psyche. As in, there's some kind of positive feeling associated with being in control, and when people speak of free will they don't necessarily have a clearly defined concept in mind, rather are speaking in reference to that feeling. I'm not sure I expressed myself so clearly there. What I mean is that, the concept of free will disbelief in which is associated with paralysis is distinct from the philosophical/logical concept, but these two are often conflated. The logical understanding of free will not existing can actually be emotionally liberating; it acts as a balm against hatred and whatnot for instance, as it's difficult to hate someone when you see their actions as merely following a mechanistic, predetermined path. This kind of thing was an important concept in Spinoza's Ethics (Spinoza famously denied free will), and I believe also played a role in Buddha's teachings.
- johnchristopher 12y agoThis is existentialism.