Identifying Free Will

[William]

Fundamental to the Christian Belief Systems shared by a majority of those calling themselves "Christians"

Q: Is "Free Will" the same thing as "The Ego".

Re: Wikipedia
Free Will:

Free will is the capacity for agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.[1][2]

Free will is closely linked to the concepts of moral responsibility, praise, guilt, sin, and other judgements which apply only to actions that are freely chosen. It is also connected with the concepts of advice, persuasion, deliberation, and prohibition. Traditionally, only actions that are freely willed are seen as deserving credit or blame. Whether free will exists, what it is and the implications of whether it exists or not are some of the longest running debates of philosophy and religion. Some conceive of free will as the right to act outside of external influences or wishes.

Re: Wikipedia
The Ego:

The ego (Latin for "I",[19] German: Ich)[20] acts according to the reality principle; i.e., it seeks to please the id's drive in realistic ways that, in the long term, bring benefit, rather than grief.[21] At the same time, Freud concedes that as the ego "attempts to mediate between id and reality, it is often obliged to cloak the [unconscious] commands of the id with its own preconscious rationalizations, to conceal the id's conflicts with reality, to profess...to be taking notice of reality even when the id has remained rigid and unyielding."[22] The reality principle that operates the ego is a regulating mechanism that enables the individual to delay gratifying immediate needs and function effectively in the real world. An example would be to resist the urge to grab other people's belongings, but instead to purchase those items.

[Kylie]

I started this thread to investigate the notion of adding 'free' to "will", to see if anyone could identify it and show why it is necessary to say that one has "free will", rather than simple refer to it as one has will.
I personally think the will has to do with what an individual really is - that which is able to choose. To act according to ones will. To have the ability to chose to do something within the parameters set by the landscape of ones situation.

But can they do it freely?

If one is not acting according to their will freely, then how are they acting according to their will at all?

Curious. what do you consider the will to be?


.

The will is the "This is what I want to do."

[William]

[Replying to Kylie in post #61]

I'd say that someone who is being forced to do some action that they do not want to be doing is not acting according to their will. For example, if Bill has kidnapped John's daughter and says, "John, I'll kill your daughter unless you rob the bank," I'd argue that John is robbing the bank according to Bill's will, not his own.

I disagree with this. Remember the falling to ones death analogy? It is the same in every situation, One does not lose one's ability to choose, even though the choices are greatly reduced.

John has choices. They may be difficult due to the situation, but he has been given options by Bill and thus whatever John chooses, he is doing so according to his ability to choose, not anyone else's. Not his daughters, and not Bills.

So your example hasn't really shown someone not acting according to their will. If John robs the bank, he is doing so according to his will, in this case, we can assume it is because he wants his daughter to survive.

[Kylie]

[Replying to Kylie in post #61]

I'd say that someone who is being forced to do some action that they do not want to be doing is not acting according to their will. For example, if Bill has kidnapped John's daughter and says, "John, I'll kill your daughter unless you rob the bank," I'd argue that John is robbing the bank according to Bill's will, not his own.

I disagree with this. Remember the falling to ones death analogy? It is the same in every situation, One does not lose one's ability to choose, even though the choices are greatly reduced.

John has choices. They may be difficult due to the situation, but he has been given options by Bill and thus whatever John chooses, he is doing so according to his ability to choose, not anyone else's. Not his daughters, and not Bills.

So your example hasn't really shown someone not acting according to their will. If John robs the bank, he is doing so according to his will, in this case, we can assume it is because he wants his daughter to survive.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

By your logic, there is only one kind of will, and since everyone makes the choices for themselves, then you could argue that ALL will is free.

[William]

[Replying to Kylie in post #64]

Specifically the thread is about identifying so-called "Free Will", and asks the question, "Is "Free Will" the same thing as "The Ego"?"

So therein, first we have to establish whether will is "free" as per the definition provided.

"Free will is the capacity for agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded."

Then we question if this is a correct definition, because to appears to be a definition which can just be applied to using will, and therefore "why place the word 'free' in front of it as if somehow there is also such a thing as 'captive will'?"

As the opening post also shows in the definition provided;

"Whether free will exists, what it is and the implications of whether it exists or not are some of the longest running debates of philosophy and religion. Some conceive of free will as the right to act outside of external influences or wishes."

I am one such person who thinks that no one on this planet has free will because the situation we are within does not allow for the acting outside of the influence of said situation.

So I think that we have - or perhaps that we are - "Will" [re identifying as Ego-personality] but that Will is not 'free' but rather, 'captive' to the circumstance.

In that, we have a certain amount choice, depending upon the situation we are involved in [such as the falling to one's death analogy, or your hostage example] and these situations contain options which are chosen through use of will. Since we cannot use will to magically change the situation to something we might prefer, we are stuck with having to make choices which we might not like, but have to make anyway.

So therein, I cannot see any justification for referring to the will as being 'free' because we ourselves are not free.

Thus - when a Christian claims as a fundamental belief, that "God gave us free will" it makes no sense because we are not actually free, given our situation, so whatever we choose is what our actual situation dictates that we can choose, even that we may still have options, those options do not allow for us to chose NOT to be in said actual situation.

So will we do have, but not free will.

So, identifying 'free will' would go along the lines of defining it as "The ability to leave any undesirable situation just by willing oneself to do so".

Which of course, is not something any of us appear to be able to do, so we do not have free will, thus we cannot truthfully state that such was given to us by a God.

[Kylie]

[Replying to Kylie in post #64]

Specifically the thread is about identifying so-called "Free Will", and asks the question, "Is "Free Will" the same thing as "The Ego"?"

So therein, first we have to establish whether will is "free" as per the definition provided.

"Free will is the capacity for agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded."

Then we question if this is a correct definition, because to appears to be a definition which can just be applied to using will, and therefore "why place the word 'free' in front of it as if somehow there is also such a thing as 'captive will'?"

As the opening post also shows in the definition provided;

"Whether free will exists, what it is and the implications of whether it exists or not are some of the longest running debates of philosophy and religion. Some conceive of free will as the right to act outside of external influences or wishes."

I am one such person who thinks that no one on this planet has free will because the situation we are within does not allow for the acting outside of the influence of said situation.

So I think that we have - or perhaps that we are - "Will" [re identifying as Ego-personality] but that Will is not 'free' but rather, 'captive' to the circumstance.

In that, we have a certain amount choice, depending upon the situation we are involved in [such as the falling to one's death analogy, or your hostage example] and these situations contain options which are chosen through use of will. Since we cannot use will to magically change the situation to something we might prefer, we are stuck with having to make choices which we might not like, but have to make anyway.

So therein, I cannot see any justification for referring to the will as being 'free' because we ourselves are not free.

Thus - when a Christian claims as a fundamental belief, that "God gave us free will" it makes no sense because we are not actually free, given our situation, so whatever we choose is what our actual situation dictates that we can choose, even that we may still have options, those options do not allow for us to chose NOT to be in said actual situation.

So will we do have, but not free will.

So, identifying 'free will' would go along the lines of defining it as "The ability to leave any undesirable situation just by willing oneself to do so".

Which of course, is not something any of us appear to be able to do, so we do not have free will, thus we cannot truthfully state that such was given to us by a God.

This sounds very circular, saying we aren't free, thus we don't have free will, and since we don't have free will, we aren't free.

[William]

[Replying to Kylie in post #66]

This sounds very circular, saying we aren't free, thus we don't have free will, and since we don't have free will, we aren't free.

More to the point, it is saying that we aren't free, but we have will, and having will does not somehow make us [or the will] free.

[Kylie]

[Replying to Kylie in post #66]

This sounds very circular, saying we aren't free, thus we don't have free will, and since we don't have free will, we aren't free.

More to the point, it is saying that we aren't free, but we have will, and having will does not somehow make us [or the will] free.

So how does it work that we can have a will of our own, but it isn't free?

[William]

[Replying to Kylie in post #66]

This sounds very circular, saying we aren't free, thus we don't have free will, and since we don't have free will, we aren't free.

More to the point, it is saying that we aren't free, but we have will, and having will does not somehow make us [or the will] free.

So how does it work that we can have a will of our own, but it isn't free?

: Is "Free Will" the same thing as "The Ego".

[1213]

[Replying to Kylie in post #66]

This sounds very circular, saying we aren't free, thus we don't have free will, and since we don't have free will, we aren't free.

More to the point, it is saying that we aren't free, but we have will, and having will does not somehow make us [or the will] free.

Sorry to interrupt, but are you saying you have not free will? You can’t freely want whatever you want?

[William]

[Replying to Kylie in post #66]

This sounds very circular, saying we aren't free, thus we don't have free will, and since we don't have free will, we aren't free.

More to the point, it is saying that we aren't free, but we have will, and having will does not somehow make us [or the will] free.

Sorry to interrupt,

Quite alright

but are you saying you have not free will?

Yes....but I suspect that this is what [who] I am in the sense that I do not HAVE will, but that I AM Will.

Essential I think of Will as something that starts out as "without personality" and when Will is placed into a container such as the Human form and placed on a planet of extremes, which is placed in a universe of infinite mystery, "personality" quickly [and willfully] evolves. [iow the personality is created]
Thus, I [the personality which has access to Will] ask "Is "Free Will" the same thing as "The Ego"" and then question why I asked the question.
So far I am thinking that I the personality have access to the Will [which is the real player in this game] and often enough have misused the Will for my own selfish benefit...and other times, not.
So - maybe in that - I confuse myself thinking I have free Will, rather than in reality, what I have is access to Will in which I use for the duration of my short existence as said personality, in this rather limiting environment [re what personality wants.]

You can’t freely want whatever you want?

Wanting something and getting it isn't a problem as long as what one wants is possible re the environment we are within.

I also think that this applies only re this phase. This phase is severely limited in that department as we humans have to literally make all our glorious creations from the muck about us which we sort into useful departments, step by painful arduous step. That is the nitty gritty.

If I play my short-lived game cleverly, I can be acceptable in the sight of the Will which created me, and use that to great purpose in the next phase which appears to react more readily in relation to freely getting whatever one would want...such a skill requires care and attention to details.