So ive read quite a bit about free will and still cant wrap my head around it. Ive read all the greeks, a lot of theology and some phenomenology and I cant put any meaning on the concept of human agency as metaphysically independent.
So /his/, how can any event (such as an individual taking a decision) be anything else than A) Issued from prior event exterior to the individual
B) somehow not caused by any prior event, both cases not being describably as free? Seems to me freedom can only be defined in relation to the thing one is free from, and therefore cant be used in any absolute sense.
pic unrelated
Those prior events can be events in my consciousness, so based on how just something makes me feel, it's pure image in my consciousness and only that, I can make a decision based on this event, and so free will is not so much outside of determinations but that which determines itself, through itself.
>>1803913
I really liked the comment in a thread yesterday that went something like.
>People would rather believe a comfortable lie than an uncomfortable truth.
That's free will. Which one will you choose.
Sorry I suck at explaining myself on the internet
>>1803926
>le free will is an illusion xP
you are your own will, there's nothing secretly behind your actions but yourself, you are as embedded in the causal chain as a stone, but that causal chain is a lot less restrictive than determinists would have you believe because absolutely everything about you - your sense of self and freedom - is sourced in this chain, and so there's no magical deterministic force outside of yourself keeping you in your rut, you are the universe and the universe is you
>>1803920
Thats how i see it, with human agency being a meaningful concept when applied to everyday situations, but that has nothing to do with the ontologically discernable free will which is necessary to give meaning to concepts like "original sin". It depends on the notion that the taking of the apple by Eve was ultimately independent of god's perfect creation, and that she truly, profoundly could have chosen between listening to Yawveh or the serpent.
>>1803937
Free will is real. I must have explained myself wrong.
I see what you're saying and I think that's where we differ on what kind of 'person' God is.
To me, God has no empathy, what if he wants to step on that chain for a bit to see how you react?
>>1803937
This is not the traditional view of free will either. The "youre not trapped in the universe you move along with it" is the best way to think of the human action in my opinion, but the soul as thought of in the west is totally independent of the material world, and hierarchically superior to it.
You're just a biological computer really. If could make 1000 exact copies of yourself and put them all into 1000 exact copies of the same situation, all of them will act the same way, because "free will" is just your brain receiving input, computing, and giving output. People make different decisions because no one has the same brain. Every person is a unique computer running its own unique software. At the same time, your mind is created by factors outside your power. Genetics and upbringing set you upon a certain path, and you follow it the same as a ball follows a path when thrown. Just atoms behaving according to natural laws.
*tips fedora*
>>1803965
The ancients could only posit this independence based on the will's self-determination.
So where as stones must fall when you drop them, a man can overcome habitual modes of thought if he so chooses. Regardless of the metaphysics of a soul, the independence of human consciousness from the world is real and does manifest, albeit rarely
>>1803985
> if he so choose
And what explains this choice?
If the choice can be explained, then that explanation describes how the choice was determined, necessitated to happen.
If it can't be explained, then the concept of "choice" doesn't help us make sense of anything.
No?
>>1804012
He chooses in himself, through himself, according his particular internal dynamics. Is it a black box? Probably not. But does this devalue his agency? No. Why? Because to him, it was a freely made choice. But is this choice his, does he own it, is he not a causal chain "consenting" to itself (what I think you're getting at by posting Schopy, ie he never willed to be a will, and certainly not this particular will)? Sure, but outside of this universe and its causal network, there is nothing of who I am that there is to speak of.
Chemicals have a greater effect on behavior, mood, and mental state than you might realize, as well as instincts. We have agency, but if you still think we're free, then so be it.