I don't think it's a matter of who's right or wrong. Free will exists as long as one realizes the only things you are in control of are your own thoughts and actions in life, which is pretty much the only thing you are in control of. The only thing you can be certain of is that the universe will continue doing what it does regardless of your beliefs; it's out of your control. And in the greater scheme of things, we're a very small phenomenon in an expansive landscape of particles and forces we're still trying to understand. So what is fate and what do Gods have to do with it?
We all have to make choices. At a practical level, if you think all your choices have been pre-determined, then the question becomes: determined by whom? Simple physical mechanics? You could get paralyzed in your analysis if you don't think you need to take responsibility for your choices. If all is pre-determined, what's the point? Do your choices matter? The CONSEQUENCES of your choices may be built into the structure of the universe's moral law, but you still have the choice whether to accept that law.
The freedom of the mind to choose to analyze sensory data makes knowledge possible. An advocate of determinism can never know if their determined ideas are true or not.
I think this is where the confusion comes in. I can’t claim to have any expertise in clarifying the language, but I was taught the interpretation that while Diotimus is clearly named as the one “citing fifty licentious letters,” we don’t know for sure who wrote them. Separately, there is a writer who ascribed to Epicurus letters allegedly written by Chrysippus.
But I don’t consider it significant evidence that Chrysippus did it, nor that Diogenes believed he did. And I think the consensus, though I honestly can’t say for sure, is that he didn’t.
I think I figured out a missing piece that helps drive consensus to who it’s seen as actually landing on.
Athenaeus in Deipnosophists 13.611b mentions “Theotimus, who wrote the books against Epicurus, was accused by Zeno the Epicurean and put to death; as Demetrius of Magnesia relates in his work on men of the same name.” But that’s as far as I can really contextualize things.
I've done some work on the neuroscience free will. The consensus today is that most actions have a preconscious activation in the brain, almost systematically. This has been used to argue that free will is a hoax (if your decision is coded in your brain before you can think about it, did you really make it?)
I think that free will is a retrospective state of mind. Say I do something I'm at odds with. What matters is not whether I chose to do it or not; what matters is, what am I going to do next? Am I going to do it once more? Prevent it from happening ever again?
A good analogy, I believe, are thoughts. A popular idea is that "we are not our thoughts" - that is, thoughts we evaluate as good or bad can occur, but it's up to us whether we engage with them, act according to them or speak them. In this vein, what matters is less the thought itself and more what occurs on its basis.
I would argue free will follows the same pattern: it shouldn't matter whether I am the agent of my latest action or if it was predetermined. What matters is what I choose to do next. How I think on it, how I adapt it. How it angers me, or how it delights me.
But what if that subsequent action is also predetermined, you might ask?
Well, I'd give you the same answer I give to those who ask me about an unescapable matrix. To them, I say what does it matter that it's fake, it's real enough to me. And to you? I say it doesn't matter if my actions are fated or not. It only matters that I feel responsible for them.
I don’t think there is any conflict between the two and it is not the question of “either/or”. Free will is the instrument in our hands to make the choice of whether to do or not to do. Having made the choice, the consequence flowing from that choice is not up to us. If one can accept the outcome, whatever that is, with equanimity and as a will of God, that is the fate. The problem is that we want to exercise the free will in our choice, but are not prepared to accept the outcome handed to us by the fate.
Personally I thought that life was both Fate and Free will. Fate in that you were meant to meet certain people and that when you look back you will see that you always had a choice and that God gave you Choice and didn't always decide for you .
Thanks Anya! Just a quick clarification that the swerve concept appears no where in the extant texts of Epicurus, including his three important letters which contain his most salient ideas. The swerve appears in Lucretius, as you know, who was writing a couple of hundred odd years later. I’m enjoying Classical Wisdom!
In my mind, we are all here to walk our own path. If we do nothing different, and just ride the tides, then we don’t grow as much spiritually. Not enough lessons learned. Not as many failures learned from. If, by our free will, we try new things. If we go outside the comfort zone for example, we could grow our knowledge and understanding of who we really are exponentially. Why are we here……THIS could be answered. I think we can change our fates every day by how we choose to live.
Free will is an incoherent concept. We have thoughts but do not choose them consciously. Thoughts, sensations, feelings, etc. simply appear in conscious awareness. We cannot “will” the underlying processing.
I think whether we have free will or whether all is predetermined is a question of viewpoint. From the point of view of a god or some entity outside our universe, all could be considered predetermined in a static structure where time is one of the dimensions. However, for us as human animals, being part of a universe developing over time, it appears to us that we have free will, and for all intents and purposes we do. Science is presently trying to come to grips with the fact that we have to consider ourselves as participants in the process, not as observers separate from it. My opinion is that if we want to make a moral story out of it we are on shaky ground, but I don't think it should be an essential element for us in deciding how we behave. There are other reasons for choosing Epicurus or the stoics, based on how we view happiness.
Sadly, for the whole of human civilization, people competing for the same market share, whether in a actual products, or if your product/brand is ideas, go to great lengths to differentiate themselves from each other, no matter how similar they are in reality, and quite often that rhetoric got nasty, as it does to this very day.
I don't think it's a matter of who's right or wrong. Free will exists as long as one realizes the only things you are in control of are your own thoughts and actions in life, which is pretty much the only thing you are in control of. The only thing you can be certain of is that the universe will continue doing what it does regardless of your beliefs; it's out of your control. And in the greater scheme of things, we're a very small phenomenon in an expansive landscape of particles and forces we're still trying to understand. So what is fate and what do Gods have to do with it?
Great article, Anya.
We all have to make choices. At a practical level, if you think all your choices have been pre-determined, then the question becomes: determined by whom? Simple physical mechanics? You could get paralyzed in your analysis if you don't think you need to take responsibility for your choices. If all is pre-determined, what's the point? Do your choices matter? The CONSEQUENCES of your choices may be built into the structure of the universe's moral law, but you still have the choice whether to accept that law.
The freedom of the mind to choose to analyze sensory data makes knowledge possible. An advocate of determinism can never know if their determined ideas are true or not.
Whether or not free will exists, whether or not we have power over our actions and lives, I believe it only makes sense to live as if we do.
It was Diotimus, not Chrysippus who wrote forged letters of Epicurus.
I was just quoting Diogenes! But happy to edit depending on sources :-)
I think this is where the confusion comes in. I can’t claim to have any expertise in clarifying the language, but I was taught the interpretation that while Diotimus is clearly named as the one “citing fifty licentious letters,” we don’t know for sure who wrote them. Separately, there is a writer who ascribed to Epicurus letters allegedly written by Chrysippus.
But I don’t consider it significant evidence that Chrysippus did it, nor that Diogenes believed he did. And I think the consensus, though I honestly can’t say for sure, is that he didn’t.
I’ll also state more clearly that I was wrong in saying Diotimus actually wrote them. I should have been more careful in how I responded.
I think I figured out a missing piece that helps drive consensus to who it’s seen as actually landing on.
Athenaeus in Deipnosophists 13.611b mentions “Theotimus, who wrote the books against Epicurus, was accused by Zeno the Epicurean and put to death; as Demetrius of Magnesia relates in his work on men of the same name.” But that’s as far as I can really contextualize things.
Interesting! Diogenes certainly relays a few slanderous remarks regarding Epicurus - but I haven’t followed up on the specifics of them.
I've done some work on the neuroscience free will. The consensus today is that most actions have a preconscious activation in the brain, almost systematically. This has been used to argue that free will is a hoax (if your decision is coded in your brain before you can think about it, did you really make it?)
I think that free will is a retrospective state of mind. Say I do something I'm at odds with. What matters is not whether I chose to do it or not; what matters is, what am I going to do next? Am I going to do it once more? Prevent it from happening ever again?
A good analogy, I believe, are thoughts. A popular idea is that "we are not our thoughts" - that is, thoughts we evaluate as good or bad can occur, but it's up to us whether we engage with them, act according to them or speak them. In this vein, what matters is less the thought itself and more what occurs on its basis.
I would argue free will follows the same pattern: it shouldn't matter whether I am the agent of my latest action or if it was predetermined. What matters is what I choose to do next. How I think on it, how I adapt it. How it angers me, or how it delights me.
But what if that subsequent action is also predetermined, you might ask?
Well, I'd give you the same answer I give to those who ask me about an unescapable matrix. To them, I say what does it matter that it's fake, it's real enough to me. And to you? I say it doesn't matter if my actions are fated or not. It only matters that I feel responsible for them.
I don’t think there is any conflict between the two and it is not the question of “either/or”. Free will is the instrument in our hands to make the choice of whether to do or not to do. Having made the choice, the consequence flowing from that choice is not up to us. If one can accept the outcome, whatever that is, with equanimity and as a will of God, that is the fate. The problem is that we want to exercise the free will in our choice, but are not prepared to accept the outcome handed to us by the fate.
Personally I thought that life was both Fate and Free will. Fate in that you were meant to meet certain people and that when you look back you will see that you always had a choice and that God gave you Choice and didn't always decide for you .
Thanks Anya! Just a quick clarification that the swerve concept appears no where in the extant texts of Epicurus, including his three important letters which contain his most salient ideas. The swerve appears in Lucretius, as you know, who was writing a couple of hundred odd years later. I’m enjoying Classical Wisdom!
In my mind, we are all here to walk our own path. If we do nothing different, and just ride the tides, then we don’t grow as much spiritually. Not enough lessons learned. Not as many failures learned from. If, by our free will, we try new things. If we go outside the comfort zone for example, we could grow our knowledge and understanding of who we really are exponentially. Why are we here……THIS could be answered. I think we can change our fates every day by how we choose to live.
The double-slit experiment comes to mind here.
Free will is an incoherent concept. We have thoughts but do not choose them consciously. Thoughts, sensations, feelings, etc. simply appear in conscious awareness. We cannot “will” the underlying processing.
So interesting. It is hard to imagine a disconnect between Epicurean and Stoic's. I like both - - as i learn about figures of the classics.
I think whether we have free will or whether all is predetermined is a question of viewpoint. From the point of view of a god or some entity outside our universe, all could be considered predetermined in a static structure where time is one of the dimensions. However, for us as human animals, being part of a universe developing over time, it appears to us that we have free will, and for all intents and purposes we do. Science is presently trying to come to grips with the fact that we have to consider ourselves as participants in the process, not as observers separate from it. My opinion is that if we want to make a moral story out of it we are on shaky ground, but I don't think it should be an essential element for us in deciding how we behave. There are other reasons for choosing Epicurus or the stoics, based on how we view happiness.
I am gonna have to side with the Epicureans and free will on this one, though I may disagree with how they came to their conclusion.
Sadly, for the whole of human civilization, people competing for the same market share, whether in a actual products, or if your product/brand is ideas, go to great lengths to differentiate themselves from each other, no matter how similar they are in reality, and quite often that rhetoric got nasty, as it does to this very day.