Do we have free will?

This seems to be a very popular discussion among philosophers, so I tried to make sure no thread like this already existed by looking it up in the search bar, but the results said that "free" and "will" were too common words to be taken into consideration... Sorry if such a thread already exists then, I haven't found one.

So do you believe humans are really free to choose what they do? And from this question also stems the other question that is: If we don't have free will, should people really be held responsible for their actions?

I suggest we go by the Wikipedia definition of "free will" to make sure we're all talking about the same thing: "Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints."

I used to think that it was evident that humans had free will (I am the one who chose to come to this forum and write this post after all), but after really thinking it through, determinism seemed more and more probable. I am writing this because I have an interest in this topic and want to read other people's opinions about it, but why does it interest me? Why do I want to do this? I just want it. I don't think it's a choice I made. My decision to make this topic then is only a reaction to that desire I have no control over and so, if everything we do is only a reaction of things that are also a reaction on other things (and the list goes on...), can we still talk of having free will as if we had any control over that chain of reactions?

Hello The philosopher, Exactly what is free will is under Religion - or you can type in Exactly what is free will? in search -

I find it difficult to work with a definition that uses the words "certain kinds" without saying what those certain kinds are. It's a very wobbly definition. I prefer this one from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP):

"“Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. "

If determinism is true and everything is just a chain reaction of events, then there is no free will. But is it true? I haven't studied the subject of free will much yet so I will hold my own opinion back because it's not based on anything else than what I believe in.

I've just been reading up a bit about it on SEP, Harry Frankfurt seems to argue that we have free will if we consider the split of our desires into first-order desires (I'm hungry) and second-order desires (It's not the right time to eat though because I'm in the middle of an exam). Plato also thought about desires in this way and considered the part that does not want to act upon the desire as the one indicating the will of the person. This seems to suggest that whether or not free will exists depends on your definition of what free will is. If it is a concious decision in a moment where you desire the opposite of your decision, it seems like free will does exist. But I suppose determinism would argue that sooner or later you have to eat whether or not you want to. If you don't ever want to eat you will die but I think that drifts away from what people understand as free will. To give an example, yesterday I was playing a game without really enjoying it because it was too easy. So I was wondering whether to continue. My desires told me to go do something else that's more interesting but I decided to stick with the game. Is that not free will?

I would just like to put a quote from a person in ancient times ." As he thinks in his heart , so is he."

I would just like to put a quote from a person in ancient times ." As he thinks in his heart , so is he."

Where can this quote be found? Thank you

Do we have free will? Good question.

Where to begin... let us start with free will itself.

free will Noun: The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

Let us look at the first part "The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate".

Well we could say that we are constrained by society and the way that we are socialised. We have laws in place that limit what we can or cannot do (with punishments should they be broken), norms which prevent behaviour that encourages social stigma and cultural values that set a persons morality. Norms, laws and values are given to us during primary socialisation and modified during secondary socialisation. In conclusion to this we can say that we have little free will.

Support to the above conclusion can be found in the second part "the ability to act at one's own discretion". Decisions that we make must come from the above norms, laws and values as there are enough of them to cover every aspect of life as we know it (to my knowledge).The little freedom we have comes from choosing what decisions to make as opposed to choosing what decisions must be chosen from (read as "a list of decisions").

Therefore, free will only concerns the act of making decisions, which in turn must satisfy all norms, laws and values. As Neo said, the problem is choice.

Quite a lot of "decisions", "choices" etc in the above paragraphs but there is one final thing I need to make clear so bear with me. Some choices that we make are made as a result of peer pressure. This does not mean you have even less free will than was first mentioned. It simply means that you lack willpower and wisdom (judgement) to choose the course of action that best suits your purposes.

If we allow determinism as the controlling factor in our real world experiences, we can still realize free will within the metaphysical-specifically in religious beliefs and faith: that realm within which one chooses to participate.

This seems to be a very popular discussion among philosophers, so I tried to make sure no thread like this already existed by looking it up in the search bar, but the results said that "free" and "will" were too common words to be taken into consideration... Sorry if such a thread already exists then, I haven't found one.

So do you believe humans are really free to choose what they do? And from this question also stems the other question that is: If we don't have free will, should people really be held responsible for their actions?

I suggest we go by the Wikipedia definition of "free will" to make sure we're all talking about the same thing: "Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints."

I used to think that it was evident that humans had free will (I am the one who chose to come to this forum and write this post after all), but after really thinking it through, determinism seemed more and more probable. I am writing this because I have an interest in this topic and want to read other people's opinions about it, but why does it interest me? Why do I want to do this? I just want it. I don't think it's a choice I made. My decision to make this topic then is only a reaction to that desire I have no control over and so, if everything we do is only a reaction of things that are also a reaction on other things (and the list goes on...), can we still talk of having free will as if we had any control over that chain of reactions?

Our wills are not our emotions. Our wills are not our intellects. Ours wills are something other than emotion or intellect; they are independent from our emotion and intellect. They are, if you will, free. In that sense, we have free wills. A free-will is nothing more than a will free to act according to its nature. However, most often it is used to imply a "necessary will", a will free from being known, a secret will.

Human-wills are not necessary because they change. Anything that is subject to change is subject; it is not sovereign. It is not necessary; it is contingent. Human-wills are contingent and free to act according to that nature.

-- Updated August 10th, 2012, 1:26 pm to add the following --

By the way, the existence of the contingent begs the existence of the necessary. Such a will as many imagin themselves to have when they define a "free-will" must exist; however we are not that.

This seems to be a very popular discussion among philosophers

Do animals, trees or rocks have free will?

Do animals, trees or rocks have free will?

This gets to the nature of a person. A person is a being with intellect, emotion and will.

Human beings have a will that is free to act according to its nature. Our wills are free (independant) from our intellects and emotions. Animals have intellects, emotions and wills; however, their wills may be "more slaved" to their intellects and/or their emotions than are human wills.

Trees are rocks do not exhibit intellect, emotion or will.

What human beings do not have are necessary wills; human wills are contingent.

Human beings have a will that is free

Oh sure. And what is that "free will"?

Oh sure. And what is that "free will"?

Our wills are not: secret, unknown, necessary, sovereign, etc. Our wills are: free to act according to their nature, independant (free) from our intellects and emotions. Our wills are not material, spatial or temporal.

When you talk (?) about trees, rocks etc. you probably refer to biology, chemistry etc. Now when you discuss "free will" - what's the problem with talking about it using references to the periodic table?

When you talk (?) about trees, rocks etc. you probably refer to biology, chemistry etc. Now when you discuss "free will" - what's the problem with talking about it using references to the periodic table?

Life is a process. A process is a prescribed sequence of changes.

We are boilogical, intellectual, emotional and willful processes.

Trees and rocks do not exhibit these processes.

Oh, so you broke free from the periodic table an became a metaphysical (language) structure. How fun.

How does it feel on the other side/in a parallel world/being "someone else"/experiencing infinity?

Quality weed, huh?