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.

[Miles]

.

When in college I had a smattering of Freudian psychology, which, as I remember it, said the personality is composed of three elements: the id, the ego, and the superego, and that these elements work together to create human behavior. I found it all insufferably abstruse and therefore boring. So, while I'm quite willing to talk about the claim for free will, the ego and its connection to free will, will have to wait until my next reincarnation. . . . . . . . . . . if that.


As for your question:

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

I have to say no. Free will is the power to act without constraint, allowing one to make choices, whereas ego is a person's sense of self-importance.


,

[PinSeeker]

And this is key:

• "Some conceive of free will as the right to act outside of external influences or wishes."

Yes, when it comes to Christianity and the argument over "free will," there really is no argument. The issue is not whether the will is free or not (it is), but rather autonomy, as in "Nobody has any control over what I do, not even God!" And that's a very erroneous assumption that is a product of pride, which is the sin of the Garden of Eden, that keeps repeating itself over and over and over again, in different ways. With regard to God's salvation and who receives it, no one is autonomous. Some He purposes to save and some He does not. Why? As the one true and sovereign God, He is the only autonomous Being in the universe. Why is that? Because He is the Potter (Molder, Creator) and we are the clay (molded, created); He made, out of the same lump, some vessels for honorable use and others for dishonorable use. Desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, He has endured (and is enduring) with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory. His purposes cannot be thwarted. God is in the business of changing hearts, giving new life in the Spirit. When this happens (for those vessels made for honorable use), they will not fail to then freely choose the Right, thus becoming a slave of righteousness (though still, in this life, sinful). Until then -- and for the vessels made for dishonorable use -- the person will freely choose the wrong, thus remaining a slave of sin/unrighteousness. Again, the will is always free, but not autonomous, with regard to God's salvation.

Grace and peace to all.

[Miles]

And this is key:

• "Some conceive of free will as the right to act outside of external influences or wishes."

Yes, when it comes to Christianity and the argument over "free will," there really is no argument. The issue is not whether the will is free or not (it is), but rather autonomy, as in "Nobody has any control over what I do, not even God!" And that's a very erroneous assumption that is a product of pride, which is the sin of the Garden of Eden, that keeps repeating itself over and over and over again, in different ways. With regard to God's salvation and who receives it, no one is autonomous. Some He purposes to save and some He does not. Why? As the one true and sovereign God, He is the only autonomous Being in the universe. Why is that? Because He is the Potter (Molder, Creator) and we are the clay (molded, created); He made, out of the same lump, some vessels for honorable use and others for dishonorable use. Desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, He has endured (and is enduring) with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory. His purposes cannot be thwarted. God is in the business of changing hearts, giving new life in the Spirit. When this happens (for those vessels made for honorable use), they will not fail to then freely choose the Right, thus becoming a slave of righteousness (though still, in this life, sinful). Until then -- and for the vessels made for dishonorable use -- the person will freely choose the wrong, thus remaining a slave of sin/unrighteousness. Again, the will is always free, but not autonomous, with regard to God's salvation.

Grace and peace to all.

It's very nice and all that Christians have a special definition of "free will," but I fail to see how it contrasts with ego. Of course I also fail to see how the philosophical definition of free will, which basically comes down to the ability to have done differently, contrasts with ego as well.

C'est la vie

.

[1213]

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.

...

That is an interesting definition. I think will means the ability to want something. If person has free will, he can freely want whatever he wants. It does not mean he can choose or do whatever he wants. I would say it is only part of self-concept, or ego.

[PinSeeker]

It's very nice and all that Christians have a special definition of "free will"...

No, no "special definition." It is what it is. And it isn't what it isn't (autonomy).

[Miles]

It's very nice and all that Christians have a special definition of "free will"...

No, no "special definition." It is what it is. And it isn't what it isn't (autonomy).

Sorry, but you agreed with one of Wikipedia's explanations of free will as quoted by William in his OP:

And this is key:

• "Some conceive of free will as the right to act outside of external influences or wishes."

(Emphasis mine)

Which is a special definition and sometimes used by Christians. The common definition, as expressed by Wikipedia in its opening statement, being:

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

Please note the lack of any "right."



.

[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.

...

That is an interesting definition. I think will means the ability to want something. If person has free will, he can freely want whatever he wants. It does not mean he can choose or do whatever he wants. I would say it is only part of self-concept, or ego.

There is possibly another question related to this idea.

Q: What creates "free will", if free will is something a person 'has'? [Given the premise that a 'person' is what self-concept [ego] is]

[William]

[Replying to PinSeeker in post #3]

The issue is not whether the will is free or not (it is),

What makes the will, 'free'? Can you describe a will which is not free?

[William]

[Replying to Miles in post #2]

I have to say no. Free will is the power to act without constraint, allowing one to make choices, whereas ego is a person's sense of self-importance.

1: If I changed your statement to;
"I have to say no. Will is the power to act without constraint, allowing one to make choices,"

would that change anything of ones power to act without constraint, allowing one to make choices, with the word 'free' now being removed?

2: If I changed your statement to;
"ego is a person's sense of self"

would it better fit the idea that the 'person' is the ego, or is it being said that the ego is something of a rebellious entity which has assumed the position of 'the person' but is really a fake representative of the person?

iow: "ego is a person's fake sense of self"