Yahoo Clever wird am 4. Mai 2021 (Eastern Time, Zeitzone US-Ostküste) eingestellt. Ab dem 20. April 2021 (Eastern Time) ist die Website von Yahoo Clever nur noch im reinen Lesemodus verfügbar. Andere Yahoo Produkte oder Dienste oder Ihr Yahoo Account sind von diesen Änderungen nicht betroffen. Auf dieser Hilfeseite finden Sie weitere Informationen zur Einstellung von Yahoo Clever und dazu, wie Sie Ihre Daten herunterladen.
Does free will require a proof or is a matter of axiomatic self-evidence?
Humans are conceptual beings. Conceptual beings have alternative ways of thinking from which to choose. Fundamentally, they have the choice to make the mental effort to be logical or to avoid that effort. It is that fundamental choice that is the base of Free Will. Morality implies that one is confronted by an alternative that compels him to choose among two or more different actions and that in order to choose in his best self-interest one must make all the mental effort of which one is capable in order to be guided by logical reasoning. Where no mental effort is possible, there is no alternative. Where there is no alternative, there is no free will. Where there is no free will, morality is not possible and can’t be an issue.
Smells like New Screen Names ------ Are you saying that free will is self-evident? I agree. You need no proof to demonstrate that you think, since thinking is necessary for providing a proof of something that is either real or unreal. If you are saying that free will does not exist because it’s the result of genetics or the environment, is the same as saying that thinking does not exist because we have a brain and we live among other people.
JORGE N ---- So, are you saying that we do or do not have a free choice to live or not to live? And once we decide that we do want to live, the question that confronts consistently is not “to live or not to live,” but “to think or not to think,” isn’t it? – which means to choose to make the effort to be logical or to avoid that effort.
Yacine Ben Amazigh ж ------ Realizing means perceiving intellectually, with our minds. Perception has a cause. The fact that there is a reality that we perceive is without choice, I agree. I perceive that there is a wallet sticking out of someone’s back pocket. What should I do? Is my action written in the sky? Can I think and choose among different courses of actions? Does thinking require judgment? Is all judgment unjust, as Nietzsche says? Options to choose from: a) I can tell the man in front of me that he is about to lose his wallet; b) I can take the wallet and run; c) I can ask a friend of mine to take the wallet; d) I can ignore the man and the wallet; etc. All these options are caused by the effort of my reasoning logically or illogically.
Coop 366 --- I totally agree. Free will is self evident. We know we have it because we know we can think. If we did not have free will we would not have the need to prove anything.
Eric Hayes ---- The problem with following your code of moral values by demonizing logic as the “trouble-maker” is that it cannot be applied in practice. And what is not practicable is not theoretically sound either. “To hear the word & obey” is advocating what a dog does when the dog hears a command by its owner. But for humans, even if we choose to obey “the word” (I assume that’s a metaphor for “laws of nature”), we cannot act like dogs. We could not be moral beings if we simply blindly obeyed. We’d have to think and judge if the command that we “feel within” is logical, is worth following or if we are mistaken in following it. There are lots of commands that we may feel. Some are right. Some are wrong. Without logical reasoning, how would we know? A dog can be commanded to attack an innocent bystander or a burglar. The dog would not know the difference. We have a choice... through reasoning. I’d have more to say about demonizing self-interest, too. But that could be
Yacine Ben Amazigh ж ------ Do you believe that we make choices by instinct and not by logical reasoning? Did you choose to write your comment by instinct? Did you write the sentences for conceptual understanding by instinct? Desires, emotions are not instincts. They are automatic psychosomatic responses to values. Values are concepts we form through reasoning. I like apples more than lemons because they taste better to me. As a fruit, apples are more desirable than lemons to me – therefore, they have a value that pebbles or twigs do not have. All this is reasoned out by the adults who teach us not to eat dirt when we are only two years old. We reason as we are taught. I grant you that. Not all reasoning is rational. But, right or wrong reasoning is not an instinct. You decide to take the wallet, not by instinct, but by the way you were taught to reason and by the way you avoided to check if what you were taught is truly in your self-interest, if the risk is worth the gain
6 Antworten
- Coop 366Lv 7vor 9 JahrenBeste Antwort
By the very question shows you that free will is being exercised. Without free will there would be no concept of doing something differently, just do it as your father did. No growth or ideas because it requires free will. Proof is in the doing
- ?Lv 7vor 9 Jahren
You wrote "Where no mental effort is possible, there is no alternative."
There is an alternative regardless if man chooses one way or another & yes not choosing is yet another choice.
Furthermore, you say "that in order to choose in his best self-interest one must make all the mental effort of which one is capable in order to be guided by logical reasoning." based on this alternative of morality.
The conceptualized that you began with is already part of mans logical processes, it is what gets him into trouble when following if not adhering to the "word".
The word is humility, to accept that we are ignorant, unknowing of many, actually most things that the creative force is knowing of and is king of and we it's creation, to look to the creative force to hear the "word" & obey.
The reason I say logic troubles man is because he uses it just as you put it "choose in his best self-interest".
Consider this: how can man choose rightly when he is drunk or a sexual pervert or a liar? He can't his foundation is corrupt therefore he is corrupt and his logical choices are tainted.
It is good for man to cut off the diseased and look to the speaker of the word for purification, then move forward.
This may seem unscientific but it's more real than one may think, the proof is in the individual seeking & testing for himself .
- Anonymvor 9 Jahren
Schopenhauer says that a human feels guilty when he does an action that causes displeasure (guilt) proving that there is a sort of responsibility, thus existence of freewill.
I think he is wrong because guilt is caused by realizing and realizing is the result of exterior and interior influences so humans are always ruled by causality, thus there is no freewill.
"To judge is to be unjust" - Nietzsche. And I say that it is a necessary injustice.
@By "to judge" Nietzsche means evaluate other people actions and apply feedback (punishment or reward).
Your decision about the wallet depends on your mind stat which is ruled by the environment and long term experience, before you take the decision you will try to study every possibility to eventually make the most comforting one for you and comforting comes from desire and desire is one of the main animating motives/instincts of humans.
So you will make your decision under your instincts governance thus the "you" can't choose.
- JORGE NLv 7vor 9 Jahren
The question really comes down to having the will to choose and then do what that choice entails. Either we do or we don't. Brings reality down to a binary one. To be or not to be. Choices we are making with or without any will knowing what it is doing. Sometimes the will just has to go along and be a patient will until the right things happen that allow it to make a choice that will effect it in a positive way. Free will? Is not our will the product of our brain and its need to survive? Are we free of that? Only in death. And that is no choice to be making for any will needing to live. What could be more axiomatic than that?
- Wie finden Sie die Antworten? Melden Sie sich an, um über die Antwort abzustimmen.
- Anonymvor 9 Jahren
How does one ever demonstrate an act of free will? Any claim can always be dismissed as being the result of genetics and environment., any choice can claim to have been pre-destined in retrospect.
What is faulty is the observer's claim to know the observed's future actions. Any observer that claims proof of free will, is just claiming a choice existed that isn't demonstrable. There is no way to ever prove that a subject made a free will choice, as every choice can be claimed inevitable.
- All hatLv 7vor 9 Jahren
I think this is a terrible and disturbing issue. We all like to think we are the captains of our actions and all that, but don't we end up doing what we think and feel is "the best" course of action, minus any "fck it" impulses, etc.? In other words, do we have any more choice in the final outcome than which ping pong ball gets blown into the chute in a lottery machine? I wonder. Which is not the same thing as saying I want to know!
