Does Man Have Free Will?

[Bookworm4Him]

Big topic here that I would love to discuss, but the other one was closed, so let's discuss this without ad hominem, or going off the subject. If you don't, we will get kicked off. So, Does Man Have Free Will?

My belief- yes. Proof? First, I need an opponent.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

No. Spinoza's philosophy abolished Descartes' idea of the dualism between the soul and matter by logically showing that the soul is a direct function of that which affects it; Descartes' view of the soul being separate and free from physical constraints is widely held by Christians today. As he abolished this dualism, the paradoxes that went along with it were abolished as well.

He also showed that two substances cannot exist together, claiming that there is only one substance that can exist; Einstein showed this mathematically about 300 years later, and displayed it during world war two with an atomic bomb.

Spinoza's Proof:
1. Substance exists and cannot be dependent on anything else for its existence.

2. No two substances can share the same nature or attribute.
Proof: Two distinct substances can be differentiated either by some difference in their natures or by some difference in one of their alterable states of being. If they have different natures, then the original proposition is granted and the proof is complete. If, however, they are distinguished only by their states of being, then, considering the substances in themselves, there is no difference between the substances and they are identical. "That is, there cannot be several such substances but only one." [2]

3. A substance can only be caused by something similar to itself (something that shares its attribute).

4. Substance cannot be caused.
Proof: Something can only be caused by something which is similar to itself, in other words something that shares its attribute. But according to premise 2, no two substances can share an attribute. Therefore substance cannot be caused.

5. Substance is infinite.
Proof: If substance were not infinite, it would be finite and limited by something. But to be limited by something is to be dependent on it. However, substance cannot be dependent on anything else (premise 1), therefore substance is infinite.

Conclusion: There can only be one substance.
Proof: If there were two infinite substances, they would limit each other. But this would act as a restraint, and they would be dependent on each other. But they cannot be dependent on each other (premise 1), therefore there cannot be two substances.


Truthfully, there can be only energy, and if this is the case, then it can be said to be infinite and as having infinite attributes, because that is all that is; after concluding this, he stated famously: "Deus sive Natura," or God is Nature. Spinoza ultimately claims that all that exists is God, and that God is infinite. Of all the modes which God may be said to have, the two modes, or aspects, that are apparent to humans are Thought and Extension, where Thought is roughly defined as God's infinite intellect, and where Extension is matter itself.

Spinoza's philosophy was only studied during the 1800's, around 200 years after it was finalized. It was repressed for being against the church and he was threatened and almost killed several times during his life. Even by today's standards, it is among the best philosophy the west has ever produced. Although western religions don't agree, his metaphysics is demonstrably complete and final.

[NickAdams]

Bookworm,

You should have added a poll.

There was another thread on free will with a definition posted:

Definition of Free Will
- A condition that exists when an agent, such as a human being has the ability to change the outcome of future events by its actions.
- The existance of free will, as defined above, runs contrary to the doctrines of determinism, which holds that all future events are fixed, and of indeterminism, which holds that future events are variable but cannot be changed by force of will.

Future events would have to be fixed in order for an agent to alter them. If they a variable, then an agent would be choosing from a fixed option. Before we can determine free will, I believe we first have to determine if the future is fixed.

[hyperborean]

Future events would have to be fixed in order for an agent to alter them. If they a variable, then an agent would be choosing from a fixed option. Before we can determine free will, I believe we first have to determine if the future is fixed.

True, however, man can accomplish greater things by rejecting determinism. That's why I refuse to even ponder the possibility of a fixed future.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

True, however, man can accomplish greater things by rejecting determinism. That's why I refuse to even ponder the possibility of a fixed future.

I don't think so. In fact, I'd say that being truthful with oneself and our place would allow for more inspiration and veracity in one's work. Here's a short list of determinists:

Goethe
Voltaire
Camus
Spinoza
Schopenhauer
James
Holbach
Hobbes
Hardy
Hawthorne
Laplace
Einstein
Kant
Searle
Most notable scientists from last century

I think these guys were a little successful...

[Pendragon]

A point here, please, Dr. Ralph.

When you decided that Spinoza's philosophy was corect rather than Descartes', was that in and of itself not an exercise of your free will? No one forced you to believe one over the other, that was a choice. When man is given a choice and may decide for himself which road to take, that is a very plausible argument in favor of the fact that free will exists.

[NickAdams]

A point here, please, Dr. Ralph.

When you decided that Spinoza's philosophy was corect rather than Descartes', was that in and of itself not an exercise of your free will? No one forced you to believe one over the other, that was a choice. When man is given a choice and may decide for himself which road to take, that is a very plausible argument in favor of the fact that free will exists.

We only have choice in an unfixed future. But, it would be choice not free will. Free will depends upons a fixed future in order to alter it; however, if it is fixed then the diviation is the fixed and inevitable decision. Free will is a paradox.

Hmm ... anybody familiar with the theory that anti-matter, might be matter coming back from the end of time?

[Lote-Tree]

Big topic here that I would love to discuss, but the other one was closed, so let's discuss this without ad hominem, or going off the subject. If you don't, we will get kicked off. So, Does Man Have Free Will?

My belief- yes. Proof? First, I need an opponent.

I will be your opponent.

But what context is this topic?

Omniscient God or without God?

[Bakiryu]

I live with my parents so I don't think so, man does not have free will (until he's 18!)

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

A point here, please, Dr. Ralph.

When you decided that Spinoza's philosophy was corect rather than Descartes', was that in and of itself not an exercise of your free will? No one forced you to believe one over the other, that was a choice. When man is given a choice and may decide for himself which road to take, that is a very plausible argument in favor of the fact that free will exists.

No, Spinoza logically demonstrates that Descartes is false, much like how one can show that three line segments may form a triangle. It's not a choice, but in fact a logical necessity, and need not involve me at all. My brain is a causal system like anything else; the idea of choice is illusory and derived solely from the ego.

Men think themselves free, in so far as they are conscious of their volitions and desire, and ignorant of the causes by which they are disposed to will and desire... - Spinoza

[Redzeppelin]

No, Spinoza logically demonstrates that Descartes is false, much like how one can show that three line segments may form a triangle. It's not a choice, but in fact a logical necessity, and need not involve me at all. My brain is a causal system like anything else; the idea of choice is illusory and derived solely from the ego.

Men think themselves free, in so far as they are conscious of their volitions and desire, and ignorant of the causes by which they are disposed to will and desire... - Spinoza

Then who (or what) decided what Spinoza would say? If Spinoza isn't responsible for his "truth" then why should it carry any weight whatsoever? Why should any utterance of "truth" be considered such if not freely arrived at? Who's in charge here? Determinists attempt to argue from outside the frame of determinism (exempting their statements because to not do so would render their statements meaningless), but that cannot be so: if there is no freewill, then the words of determinists become meaningless.

And, by extension: who or what chose what you just now posted? Why should anything you (or I) say have any meaning if we did not choose those words and the viewpoints that drive them? You didn't choose Spinoza's views (because in philosophy it's not that easy to empirically prove that someone else's philosophic view is "right" or "wrong")?

[DeathAngel]

Man is free to do what he wants but it has its limitations in reality. However in the bible, man still does have his free will, but he must a path of rightousness in order to achieve a good afterlife, so in that sort of reality, no man does not have free will...
Even in general man does not have free will, we are limited to only so much, especially with these times n these days coming...

I hope I didn't say anyting bad or whatever..................................SCORPIOS RULE!

[Pendragon]

No, Spinoza logically demonstrates that Descartes is false, much like how one can show that three line segments may form a triangle. It's not a choice, but in fact a logical necessity, and need not involve me at all. My brain is a causal system like anything else; the idea of choice is illusory and derived solely from the ego.

Men think themselves free, in so far as they are conscious of their volitions and desire, and ignorant of the causes by which they are disposed to will and desire... - Spinoza

So, your brain does not function indepently. You have no other choice than to act, think, or believe as you do, your brain is but a subsystem of a larger whole called "logic." I find that very illogical. If every one functioned without choice, we would all just be stamped out carbon copies of each other, driven by logic to all act the same. Your brain's function doesn't need to involve you at all? OK. I must then logically asume that you are dead. Anyone who isn't at least brain dead has to think to act. Even those who have trained themselves to think and act at the same time, must use their brainpower themselves. Choice is the gift and curse of man.

[Turk]

According to İslam everything happened and will happen are written in a book called Levh-i Mahfuz. Though man have free will. God's knowledge is beyond our will. He knows what will happen in future and according to this everything already happened somewhere. Though in our time. Today; we have free will.

[Lote-Tree]

According to İslam everything happened and will happen are written in a book called Levh-i Mahfuz.

Really then there is no Free Will.

Though man have free will. God's knowledge is beyond our will. He knows what will happen in future and according to this everything already happened somewhere.

Where is "somewhere"?

Though in our time. Today; we have free will.

This is not possible.