Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Is Free Will "Good"?

Bannanawamajama
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 10:28:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
One thing that comes up alot in this forum is Free will, and for some reason its always generally assumed to be a beneficial thing that we have when people support it. Like "Evil exists in the world because its a product of our own Free Will. We accept the flaws in the universe as a tradeoff." If free will is the cause of all these bad things, why is it a good thing that we have it?(Assuming we do have it).
Wren_cyborg
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 10:59:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Free will is a moot point. The only way it matters is if somebody can gain the power to predict it. Since that doesn't seem like it will ever be likely, the metaphysical point about whether we were "free" or not is meaningless.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 9:29:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 10:59:11 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
Free will is a moot point. The only way it matters is if somebody can gain the power to predict it. Since that doesn't seem like it will ever be likely, the metaphysical point about whether we were "free" or not is meaningless.

I'd say that while the metaphysical point about freedom is pointless, the epistemological point is quite pertinent for our conceptualization of others and the world. Since one might argue that our conceptualization of others and the world encompasses the entire study of philosophy, I'd say it is rather to the point.

To add my two cents, I'll say that the belief in "Free Will" is problematic. Free Will tends to be a way of separating the self from others, human from animal, animal from plant, etc. It hints at humanity's being somehow superior or at least beyond the traditional scope of "nature," which is seen as a mere "mechanistic" process. Instead, I invite one to embrace the idea of a socially-formed consciousness that stems from the universe as much as from the individual. So what if being hungry makes you eat? By identifying the causes of your behavior, you are able to realize your place deeply embedded in the fabric of the universe. You aren't "free" because you aren't alone--as long as you aren't alone then neither is your autonomy. On the flip side, should something be truly alone than one would be autonomous, but would have no relevant existence to speak of.
Wren_cyborg
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 9:43:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 9:29:52 AM, kbub wrote:
At 11/26/2013 10:59:11 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
Free will is a moot point. The only way it matters is if somebody can gain the power to predict it. Since that doesn't seem like it will ever be likely, the metaphysical point about whether we were "free" or not is meaningless.

I'd say that while the metaphysical point about freedom is pointless, the epistemological point is quite pertinent for our conceptualization of others and the world. Since one might argue that our conceptualization of others and the world encompasses the entire study of philosophy, I'd say it is rather to the point.

To add my two cents, I'll say that the belief in "Free Will" is problematic. Free Will tends to be a way of separating the self from others, human from animal, animal from plant, etc. It hints at humanity's being somehow superior or at least beyond the traditional scope of "nature," which is seen as a mere "mechanistic" process. Instead, I invite one to embrace the idea of a socially-formed consciousness that stems from the universe as much as from the individual. So what if being hungry makes you eat? By identifying the causes of your behavior, you are able to realize your place deeply embedded in the fabric of the universe. You aren't "free" because you aren't alone--as long as you aren't alone then neither is your autonomy. On the flip side, should something be truly alone than one would be autonomous, but would have no relevant existence to speak of.

I think that free will is usually meant in the sense that we are simply products of he laws of physics and don't actually have control over anything we are doing. You're describing free will in the sense that we aren't independent souls. I've never heard it framed like that before (I'm by no means an authority on the subject) but I believe we have control over our actions AND are part of a collective consciousness. I might be separate from your consciousness now, but I find no other way to reconcile the fact that nothing can be created or destroyed, yet we pop into being for a short time and then seemingly vanish for the rest of eternity. Nothing in nature works like that, therefore our consciousness must rejoin some sort of collective energy after we die. This idea can be resonant with both the Christian idea of heaven, the atheistic idea of the opposite, and every other religion out there that clumsily attempts to define it. If there is consciousness everywhere and we return to that after we die, I think that satisfies all belief-systems simultaneously. It satisfies our ideas of karma/heaven/morality and ties off all the unsightly loose-ends.