Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Redefining free will Message-ID: <663@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Mon, 11-Mar-85 21:33:29 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.663 Posted: Mon Mar 11 21:33:29 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 12-Mar-85 22:47:54 EST References: <627@pyuxd.UUCP> <159@frog.UUCP> Organization: Huxley College Lines: 22 > To argue that there might be something outside of cause and effect > that is somehow related to our conciousness is so far from the > common understanding of the word "free" that the expression "free > will" as it is commonly interpreted in philosophy should be replaced > with something suitable to what is being discussed. The discussion > of free will could then return to the question of the existence of > some superbeing controlling human beings, if it were worthwhile, or > of some being controlling another's mind (to distinguish free will > from freedom). [DAVID HUDSON] The notion of free will is independent of any notions of deity. The implication is not "If we don't have free will, some superbeing does; thus if we don't have such a superbeing, we can have free will". The possibility exists that there is neither free will in ourselves nor is there free will in a deity (if it existed---interesting question: Is it possible that we don't have free will, but that god doesn't either?) (If, of course, there is such an animal.) As Schopenhauer said: "A man can do what he wants to, but he cannot want what he wants to." If he could, that would be free will. As long as we are not free to want what we want to want, as long as that wanting is controlled by something, we have no free will.