Free will

[Anonymous No.16951863]

How much free will can we really have? For example, I can't will myself to lift 1000 pounds. It seems that no matter how much you want free will to be true, there's still physical constrictions that limit it.

[Anonymous No.16952353]

>>16951863
How is free will related to mechanical possibilities of our bodies? Are you nuts?

[Anonymous No.16952383]

huh really makes ya think

[Anonymous No.16952407]

>>16951863
>Hmm, let me farm karma on Redd*t by posting a photo
>Months afterward, people on 4channel continue to seethe and write essays on it
Why do you care if some stoner eats cereal and watches cartoons?

[Anonymous No.16952425]

>>16952407
>hmm let me farm (You)s by effortposting on 4chan
>months afterward people on reddit continue to seethe and post about it
What do you care if some anon writes essays?

[Anonymous No.16952574]

>>16952353
Because you exist inside a body within an environment? Not sure whats confusing about that. Your choices are thereby limited by your physical limitations

[Anonymous No.16952593]

>>16951863
Looks comfy ngl

[Anonymous No.16952613]

>>16951863
No, your body can't lift, but your mind could remember humanity invented tools and machines to help us with tasks like that.

[Anonymous No.16952629]

>>16951863
>I can't will myself to lift 1000 pounds.
Sounds like you are a little bitch with no discipline. You should worry about solving that before making assertions about free will.

[Anonymous No.16952647]

>>16952407
>dude who cares lmao
please nigga

[Anonymous No.16952649]

>>16952629
Lmao

[Anonymous No.16952688]

>>16952593
Der letzer mensch
>>16951863
Read luther and erasmus ig, if your talking about absurdity towards the end kierkegaard

[Anonymous No.16952902]

>>16952688
Than for the recommendations. What nationaity are you?

[Anonymous No.16952950]

Free will is the first and last great mystery. It is literally impossible to imagine how freedom could ever interact with a determinate system, but all we know and all we experience is necessarily determinate as a function of the conditions of the possibility of our cognition. This was known in varying degrees throughout history but Kant formalised it by showing that all reasoning is necessarily causal, all thought works by positing the contingency and determinacy of its object, and all the points at which thought tries to find the "free" or "first" cause, at the beginning of any causal chain, therefore point beyond reason itself necessarily. These points are God (posited as the uncreated, indeterminate creator of the determinate world of experience) and individual souls (posited as the real, ultimately underlying reality of every person, freely determining the unfree deterministic mechanisms of the body and discursive intellect).

No matter how deeply we try to delve into these topics with discursive thought, we will always come up against the same problem. If you posit a fundamental material substrate, it still appears as a determinate entity for consciousness, implicitly inviting the question "why is it determinately this way?" If you posit a fundamental ideal substrate of laws operating on material, the same thing happens. Similarly if you try to delve deeper and deeper into the human (or animal) being, positing more fundamental determinate mechanisms, all you will ever accomplish is a portrait of an automaton that is not adequate to describing freedom. No matter how complex you make the algorithm it will still be a determinate mechanism in principle.

All attempts to cognise free acts of creation, whether God's act of creating the world or the everyday acts of individual persons, only produce an error message, necessarily pointing beyond current forms of cognition, suggesting the exploration and cultivation of other, higher forms.

The more conscious of this a person is, the closer to cognising real freedom he gets. To cease to be troubled by the error message is either to transcend it (which we don't know to do) or to become forgetful of it and deluded into thinking there was no error. Hard determinists are closer to the truth than compatibilists because at least hard determinists have a clear and distinct idea of the problem: freedom literally cannot be (and has not been) cognised within conventional thought. There is no philosophical description of free will in any literature because it's an impossibility.

The more forgetful you become of freedom (which you sense but don't yet understand), the more mechanical you become. All freedom operates within contingency, but some people are more forgetful of their soul's own nature than others, and surrender progressively to unfreedom. The man who is frustrated by hard determinism is closer to intuiting his freedom than the man who surrenders to drives and impulses and becomes their puppet.

[Anonymous No.16952962]

>>16951863
>I can't will myself to lift 1000 pounds
Lmao, dyel

[Anonymous No.16952985]

>>16951863
Imagine a bunch of overweight incels talking about "free will"
If you have half a brain, the "problem" is solved right there
It's like economist dogmatizing that people are rational and act in their own best interest
Philosophers and economists are clearly autistic, religious nuts are schizo's, and /lit/ is infested by both.

[Anonymous No.16952999]

>>16951863
>can't will himself to lift 1000 pounds
ngmi

[Anonymous No.16953133]

>>16952999
>can't destroy galaxies with his mind
Kys

[Anonymous No.16953155]

>>16951863
Read War and Peace OP