I prefer the Free Will versus Sovereignty(God’s) debate or its cousin Free Will versus Predestination(also a cousin of Determinism). However I find the Deterministic arguments of Parmenides to be absurd. The idea that something cannot be created from nothing is, at the end of the day, the bedrock of a Maerialist worldview, and, until the Big Bang became accepted science(even reluctantly by its haters) the Materialist view predominated science. It still does, but in the 21st century it has developed deep fissures. But Parmenides completely loses me with the idea that an elephant-butterfly is just as real as a butterfly or an elephant simply because I am able to think of such a creature. He somehow lifts the human imagination to the status of omnipotent god. That, I am afraid to say, is unrecoverable.
If we as individuals did not have predetermination, then we would have to disregard most of, if not all, stories from Greek mythology - because they are riddled with oracles who predicted a person’s future (revealing fatalism). One perfect example would be Oedipus, who was told in the future he would do the most horrendous thing; kill his father and marry his mother. No matter what lengths he went to avoid this, it happened because he did not transcend his own personal will (character).
“Both philosophers came to the conclusion that all the universe can be reduced to one thing; this is called “Monism”…
The word Monism relates to what the Gnostics, [including Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Parmenides, and Xenophanes] called “the Monad”- The Supreme Being; God. In a scientific lens, it can refer to the singular and indestructible substance that makes up the entirety of the universe, likely in the metaphysical sense as the fifth element; Aether. The material or physical elements are believed to have started with the element of fire which commingled with wind, as can be seen with the ancient synoptic cosmogony as Saminrum and Usoos. When the forces of fire and wind commingled, it generated heat and cold, thus giving way to wet and dry (water and solids).
Long story short, so I don’t make this reply too long or dive into astronomical mechanism, no one truly has free will, which I would gladly debate. It’s something we can only pursue- just ask Oedipus. However, that is not to say, it is impossible, and in fact I believe it is our true mission. Classical literature and religions sprang various myths of man conquering the forces of the gods and his own nature from the motivation of atonement (e.g. Hercules and Jacob).
This, as I understand, is defeating our character (personal will) in lieu of agape- the will of the Monad. As a reminder, Heraclitus wrote: [ἦθος ἀνθρώπῳ δαίμων] the destiny of man is his own character/ A man's character is his fate. I very much agree with the notion of defying the laws of nature, so that we may become god-like.
Enjoyable and thoughtful post Warren. Seems there’s a paradox: Attonement (at-one-ment) implies that it is the merger of one’s individual character with the will of Monad which optimizes an individuals destiny. Also true of the individual subjects experience of free will? Would the experience/illusion of free will be enhanced by becoming one with Monad or by defying the unfolding pattern of determination?
“A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness.”
Great observation and question Dr. B. I would say. becoming one with Monad is defying determination- meaning overcoming our lower will nature (desires and attachment), just as it is written, in Buddhist conception of the Samsara. The will of man without the grace of the Monad is not free at all, but is the permanent prisoner and bondslave of evil since it cannot turn itself to good.
As I had mentioned with Oedipus, his mistake I believe, was that he was always looking outward to escape, instead of making the changes within his own character (self will).
Therefore the path between the two (free will vs determination) is very well explained with the allegory by Plato, regarding the charioteer and two horses. These two duad 'forces' in our lives can be compared to our own personal virtue and vices. One leads to unity, and the other towards division.
If true wisdom is accepting that we know nothing, pondering this topic leaves me feeling wiser by the moment. It feels like running on a möbius strip. Didn’t I just pass that spot a minute ago?
I think part of the challenge is the conceptual flip that occurs when pondering a question which intersects both subjectivity and objectivity. For example, one can easily imagine circumstances in which the objective absence of free will is nonetheless experienced subjectively by the individual as occurring by choice. A simple example would be a hypnotized person who was given a post hypnotic suggestion to perform a specific action. Objectively, the behavior was “determined” unconsciously by the suggestion given by the hypnotist. Subjectively, the hypnotized person could be experience the action performed as self determined by their own “free” choice. It’s also possible to imagine circumstances under which it might seem objectively clear that a person is making a free (non-coerced) choice to behave in a certain way but the behavior is experienced by the subject as determined externally (i.e. “the devil made me do it”).
It’s a sticky wicket. To simplify, I’m going to mostly stick with the subjective domaine. The question then becomes something more akin to “What is the relationship between a persons “lower” (animal instincts, urges, emotions) and “higher” (ideals, values, virtues) domains and their experience of personal agency or “free will”. To detour back to objectivity for a moment, one could make the case that both the lower and higher domains are not self determined. Both were either present from birth, or derived from one’s environment or a product of their interaction. Since neither of those were “chosen”, they or their interaction effects are wholly non chosen objectively. Yet people vary greatly about their own subjective feeling of self determination and free will.
You mentioned Oedipus and his absence of looking inward (to his “self”) as leaving him in destiny’s wake. Freuds favorite myth seems a good one to raise in this context as it implies that it is remaining unconscious of our own inner forces which determines whether they are unfolding in a manner which is experienced subjectively as tragically determined externally or as “decided” by a conscious person who is aware or the forces operating within themselves. The Monadic forces in Freuds tripartite model of the mind would be those of the superego (values, ideals) which can be in conflict with inborn instincts pressing for immediate expression. The “egos” job is to expand consciousness and to mediate between these two forces when in conflict striving for the realization of both in a compromise. The experience of personal agency increases proportionate to the success of that endeavor.
The similarity between Freuds tripartite model and Plato’s metaphor of the charioteer and two horses suggests to me that Freud borrowed a bit from Plato here during his theorizing.
So is it possible that both human animal instincts and virtues are inborn? That would suggest that without alignment and awareness with the intrinsic structure of both there is no consciousness (choice) of how to follow both programs and mediate conflicts between them? Without inward facing awareness the person would be destined to not only live sub optimally, but also to be deprived of the subjective experience of “free will”?
I have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion and topic. Assuredly, one of the most important topics of all time. Your statement gives a great premise, and an answer left to each reader to consider. For me it’s a resounding yes, to us being born with dual natures. Just as it’s written in Genesis, mankind has two natures and a spiritual guide, one force called the neshama (the immortal psyche) and the other nephesh (the mortal or animalistic sentient being), along with the Ruah (Spirit), which is said to expresses itself through nous.
As you had mentioned, Freud’s theory of the psyche also has 3 parts (ego, id, and superego). In analytical psychology, from what I have read, the id does not correspond with the outer ego personality. Therefore it can be viewed as the blind spot or subconscious part of the psyche. Comparatively, the id personality is the aspect that relates to the nephesh; the driving force of our character, via desire and will. It represents the parts of us that is hidden, or as you stated the external determination, what some may chalk off as thoughts from the devil, or some other outward influences, due towards ignorance of the truth.
Noticeably in both cases, these separate parts of the psyche all refer to the natures of our will. According, the Myth of Er plays an important aspect for understanding the will and ‘programmed’ character, as it states:
“Hear the word of Lachesis, the daughter of Necessity. Mortal souls, behold a new cycle of life and mortality. Your genius will not be allotted to you, but you will choose your genius, and the life which he chooses shall be his destiny (character). Virtue is free, and as a man honors or dishonors her he will have more or less of her; the responsibility is with the chooser—God is justified.”
The genius mentioned above chooses the path in our lives to teach us something unique to everyone. Heraclitus calls this genius a “Daimon” where he argued that people failed to comprehend reason (Logos), through the universal principle of which all things are interrelated and all natural events occur, and thus lived like dreamers with a false view of themselves and the world. In Heraclitus’s fragment labeled B119, it states; “ethos anthropos daimon,” usually translated as “a man’s character is his fate.” This fragment shows how one can perceive his thoughts and actions to what will be his outcome. The connection of ethos and daimon is what lifts the human soul to heaven and away from continual reincarnations- that which is separate from our personal will. The “free” gist we are given, according to Er is Virtue. In conclusion the only “free-will” we have is through our Daimon and not in our human nature, which is predetermined.
As mentioned beforehand, Plato’s Allegory of the Chariot in the Phaedrus clarifies how this works. In the allegory, the soul is described as a chariot with two horses and one charioteer. The word for charioteer, can also mean “guide” or “governing one,” suggesting an analogy, at least, between it and the daimon. While the ‘bad’ horse represents a person’s character led by its desire for physical pleasure, pulls the chariot downward. The ‘good’ horse, representing virtue and the charioteer, representing reason may pull and guide the chariot upward. The chariot is best when it rides alongside the virtues; guided by their daimon to escape the imprisonment of the mundane world.
Hi WB. I’ve also enjoyed this discussion and appreciate your deeply considered point of view. It’s interesting to me how often this trinity of animal, virtue and executor has presented itself. I’m fairly certain that as a determinists Freud would have viewed both the content of these three factors and most of the interactions between these three as “unconscious” and not freely chosen anymore than the regulatory functions of our respiratory system are freely chosen. We did not choose their determinants. We can effect them consciously but not choose them per se and they are automatic and ongoing. Yet regardless, most of us do “feel” we are freely choosing many of our day to day “decisions”. My way of understanding this (at this moment) is to view the animal impulses and drives as feeling less chosen because of their felt push towards actions. We feel their force upon us. Conversely, our values/choices (both inborn or acquired) present us with a hierarchy of options vs motivational force per se. So while being “pushed” by drives, we must “decide” upon the most ingenious path our actions will take based on optimizing their fit with our values. Picking among options (even if those options were not in themselves “freely” chosen) is experienced as free will.
Just a short comment. To have free will, there must be something that does not follow the laws of physics. A "ghost in the machine". But we have no evidence of such a thing existing. No ghost. No soul. Given no evidence, there is no reason to believe that such a thing exists other than we really want it to. Everything we know of follows the laws of the universe. We know of no exceptions. No matter how much we want to think we are free of such constraints, there is no good reason to think that we actually are. Given all this, there cannot be free will. There cannot be a ghost in the machine.
But could I be wrong? Of course. If so, then I am responsible for my actions, and it behooves me to act in a virtuous manner to the extent that I can. I have to try.
I have no choice but to act as if there is free will.
You are describing a decision to act with faith in a will that you cannot logically comprehend. Wouldn’t you also have a choice to act without faith as if there is no free will?
The idea is that I do not believe in free will. I am essentially a determinist. I am willing to change my mind (in fact, I have done so already), but have not found the arguments persuasive. But while determinism guides my actions, it also forces me to act as if I had free will.
I chose to like this article very much. Or did I?
"Indeed."
Spock, Son of Sarek
Vulcan. 😉
Ha ha! Nice!
I prefer the Free Will versus Sovereignty(God’s) debate or its cousin Free Will versus Predestination(also a cousin of Determinism). However I find the Deterministic arguments of Parmenides to be absurd. The idea that something cannot be created from nothing is, at the end of the day, the bedrock of a Maerialist worldview, and, until the Big Bang became accepted science(even reluctantly by its haters) the Materialist view predominated science. It still does, but in the 21st century it has developed deep fissures. But Parmenides completely loses me with the idea that an elephant-butterfly is just as real as a butterfly or an elephant simply because I am able to think of such a creature. He somehow lifts the human imagination to the status of omnipotent god. That, I am afraid to say, is unrecoverable.
If we as individuals did not have predetermination, then we would have to disregard most of, if not all, stories from Greek mythology - because they are riddled with oracles who predicted a person’s future (revealing fatalism). One perfect example would be Oedipus, who was told in the future he would do the most horrendous thing; kill his father and marry his mother. No matter what lengths he went to avoid this, it happened because he did not transcend his own personal will (character).
“Both philosophers came to the conclusion that all the universe can be reduced to one thing; this is called “Monism”…
The word Monism relates to what the Gnostics, [including Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Parmenides, and Xenophanes] called “the Monad”- The Supreme Being; God. In a scientific lens, it can refer to the singular and indestructible substance that makes up the entirety of the universe, likely in the metaphysical sense as the fifth element; Aether. The material or physical elements are believed to have started with the element of fire which commingled with wind, as can be seen with the ancient synoptic cosmogony as Saminrum and Usoos. When the forces of fire and wind commingled, it generated heat and cold, thus giving way to wet and dry (water and solids).
Long story short, so I don’t make this reply too long or dive into astronomical mechanism, no one truly has free will, which I would gladly debate. It’s something we can only pursue- just ask Oedipus. However, that is not to say, it is impossible, and in fact I believe it is our true mission. Classical literature and religions sprang various myths of man conquering the forces of the gods and his own nature from the motivation of atonement (e.g. Hercules and Jacob).
This, as I understand, is defeating our character (personal will) in lieu of agape- the will of the Monad. As a reminder, Heraclitus wrote: [ἦθος ἀνθρώπῳ δαίμων] the destiny of man is his own character/ A man's character is his fate. I very much agree with the notion of defying the laws of nature, so that we may become god-like.
Enjoyable and thoughtful post Warren. Seems there’s a paradox: Attonement (at-one-ment) implies that it is the merger of one’s individual character with the will of Monad which optimizes an individuals destiny. Also true of the individual subjects experience of free will? Would the experience/illusion of free will be enhanced by becoming one with Monad or by defying the unfolding pattern of determination?
John 6:38; "For I (Jesus) came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me."
Mark 10:18 (AMP); "Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is [essentially] good [by nature] except God alone."
“A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness.”
- Albert Einstein
Great observation and question Dr. B. I would say. becoming one with Monad is defying determination- meaning overcoming our lower will nature (desires and attachment), just as it is written, in Buddhist conception of the Samsara. The will of man without the grace of the Monad is not free at all, but is the permanent prisoner and bondslave of evil since it cannot turn itself to good.
As I had mentioned with Oedipus, his mistake I believe, was that he was always looking outward to escape, instead of making the changes within his own character (self will).
Therefore the path between the two (free will vs determination) is very well explained with the allegory by Plato, regarding the charioteer and two horses. These two duad 'forces' in our lives can be compared to our own personal virtue and vices. One leads to unity, and the other towards division.
If true wisdom is accepting that we know nothing, pondering this topic leaves me feeling wiser by the moment. It feels like running on a möbius strip. Didn’t I just pass that spot a minute ago?
I think part of the challenge is the conceptual flip that occurs when pondering a question which intersects both subjectivity and objectivity. For example, one can easily imagine circumstances in which the objective absence of free will is nonetheless experienced subjectively by the individual as occurring by choice. A simple example would be a hypnotized person who was given a post hypnotic suggestion to perform a specific action. Objectively, the behavior was “determined” unconsciously by the suggestion given by the hypnotist. Subjectively, the hypnotized person could be experience the action performed as self determined by their own “free” choice. It’s also possible to imagine circumstances under which it might seem objectively clear that a person is making a free (non-coerced) choice to behave in a certain way but the behavior is experienced by the subject as determined externally (i.e. “the devil made me do it”).
It’s a sticky wicket. To simplify, I’m going to mostly stick with the subjective domaine. The question then becomes something more akin to “What is the relationship between a persons “lower” (animal instincts, urges, emotions) and “higher” (ideals, values, virtues) domains and their experience of personal agency or “free will”. To detour back to objectivity for a moment, one could make the case that both the lower and higher domains are not self determined. Both were either present from birth, or derived from one’s environment or a product of their interaction. Since neither of those were “chosen”, they or their interaction effects are wholly non chosen objectively. Yet people vary greatly about their own subjective feeling of self determination and free will.
You mentioned Oedipus and his absence of looking inward (to his “self”) as leaving him in destiny’s wake. Freuds favorite myth seems a good one to raise in this context as it implies that it is remaining unconscious of our own inner forces which determines whether they are unfolding in a manner which is experienced subjectively as tragically determined externally or as “decided” by a conscious person who is aware or the forces operating within themselves. The Monadic forces in Freuds tripartite model of the mind would be those of the superego (values, ideals) which can be in conflict with inborn instincts pressing for immediate expression. The “egos” job is to expand consciousness and to mediate between these two forces when in conflict striving for the realization of both in a compromise. The experience of personal agency increases proportionate to the success of that endeavor.
The similarity between Freuds tripartite model and Plato’s metaphor of the charioteer and two horses suggests to me that Freud borrowed a bit from Plato here during his theorizing.
So is it possible that both human animal instincts and virtues are inborn? That would suggest that without alignment and awareness with the intrinsic structure of both there is no consciousness (choice) of how to follow both programs and mediate conflicts between them? Without inward facing awareness the person would be destined to not only live sub optimally, but also to be deprived of the subjective experience of “free will”?
I have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion and topic. Assuredly, one of the most important topics of all time. Your statement gives a great premise, and an answer left to each reader to consider. For me it’s a resounding yes, to us being born with dual natures. Just as it’s written in Genesis, mankind has two natures and a spiritual guide, one force called the neshama (the immortal psyche) and the other nephesh (the mortal or animalistic sentient being), along with the Ruah (Spirit), which is said to expresses itself through nous.
As you had mentioned, Freud’s theory of the psyche also has 3 parts (ego, id, and superego). In analytical psychology, from what I have read, the id does not correspond with the outer ego personality. Therefore it can be viewed as the blind spot or subconscious part of the psyche. Comparatively, the id personality is the aspect that relates to the nephesh; the driving force of our character, via desire and will. It represents the parts of us that is hidden, or as you stated the external determination, what some may chalk off as thoughts from the devil, or some other outward influences, due towards ignorance of the truth.
Noticeably in both cases, these separate parts of the psyche all refer to the natures of our will. According, the Myth of Er plays an important aspect for understanding the will and ‘programmed’ character, as it states:
“Hear the word of Lachesis, the daughter of Necessity. Mortal souls, behold a new cycle of life and mortality. Your genius will not be allotted to you, but you will choose your genius, and the life which he chooses shall be his destiny (character). Virtue is free, and as a man honors or dishonors her he will have more or less of her; the responsibility is with the chooser—God is justified.”
The genius mentioned above chooses the path in our lives to teach us something unique to everyone. Heraclitus calls this genius a “Daimon” where he argued that people failed to comprehend reason (Logos), through the universal principle of which all things are interrelated and all natural events occur, and thus lived like dreamers with a false view of themselves and the world. In Heraclitus’s fragment labeled B119, it states; “ethos anthropos daimon,” usually translated as “a man’s character is his fate.” This fragment shows how one can perceive his thoughts and actions to what will be his outcome. The connection of ethos and daimon is what lifts the human soul to heaven and away from continual reincarnations- that which is separate from our personal will. The “free” gist we are given, according to Er is Virtue. In conclusion the only “free-will” we have is through our Daimon and not in our human nature, which is predetermined.
As mentioned beforehand, Plato’s Allegory of the Chariot in the Phaedrus clarifies how this works. In the allegory, the soul is described as a chariot with two horses and one charioteer. The word for charioteer, can also mean “guide” or “governing one,” suggesting an analogy, at least, between it and the daimon. While the ‘bad’ horse represents a person’s character led by its desire for physical pleasure, pulls the chariot downward. The ‘good’ horse, representing virtue and the charioteer, representing reason may pull and guide the chariot upward. The chariot is best when it rides alongside the virtues; guided by their daimon to escape the imprisonment of the mundane world.
Hi WB. I’ve also enjoyed this discussion and appreciate your deeply considered point of view. It’s interesting to me how often this trinity of animal, virtue and executor has presented itself. I’m fairly certain that as a determinists Freud would have viewed both the content of these three factors and most of the interactions between these three as “unconscious” and not freely chosen anymore than the regulatory functions of our respiratory system are freely chosen. We did not choose their determinants. We can effect them consciously but not choose them per se and they are automatic and ongoing. Yet regardless, most of us do “feel” we are freely choosing many of our day to day “decisions”. My way of understanding this (at this moment) is to view the animal impulses and drives as feeling less chosen because of their felt push towards actions. We feel their force upon us. Conversely, our values/choices (both inborn or acquired) present us with a hierarchy of options vs motivational force per se. So while being “pushed” by drives, we must “decide” upon the most ingenious path our actions will take based on optimizing their fit with our values. Picking among options (even if those options were not in themselves “freely” chosen) is experienced as free will.
Just a short comment. To have free will, there must be something that does not follow the laws of physics. A "ghost in the machine". But we have no evidence of such a thing existing. No ghost. No soul. Given no evidence, there is no reason to believe that such a thing exists other than we really want it to. Everything we know of follows the laws of the universe. We know of no exceptions. No matter how much we want to think we are free of such constraints, there is no good reason to think that we actually are. Given all this, there cannot be free will. There cannot be a ghost in the machine.
But could I be wrong? Of course. If so, then I am responsible for my actions, and it behooves me to act in a virtuous manner to the extent that I can. I have to try.
I have no choice but to act as if there is free will.
You are describing a decision to act with faith in a will that you cannot logically comprehend. Wouldn’t you also have a choice to act without faith as if there is no free will?
I hate it when a joke falls flat.
The idea is that I do not believe in free will. I am essentially a determinist. I am willing to change my mind (in fact, I have done so already), but have not found the arguments persuasive. But while determinism guides my actions, it also forces me to act as if I had free will.
I got it conceptually. Missed your tongue lodged there in your cheek.
The dangers of textual communication!