Hello Alexander, et. al.,

I agree that the term "free will" is clumsy, as John Locke suggested in the 17th century. 

Philosophy, not being a science, allows such inaccuracies of terms, despite the unnecessary misunderstanding it causes.

I think that those two words together have come to mean something other than what each might mean in other contexts; free will is the act of an agent authoring a choice autonomously. So also, it’s not so much a matter of something to have, but rather a matter of doing. 

I agree, as you stated, that just “choice” alone is a better term, as there is no real choosing if one is determined or coerced; freedom of choice is redundant.

Regards,

Peter

Peter Lloyd Jones
[log in to unmask]
562-209-4080

Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart. 

On May 17, 2019, at 4:56 PM, Alexander Bard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Dear Gregg & Co

But why even discuss free will when this concerns freedom of choice.

Or rather just choice per se.

A will wills whatever it wills. It is neither free nor determined. The combo of will and freedom seems merely a remnant of Abrahamic religion and its eagerness to hold believers accountable for their intentions.

As in good will versus evil will. But there is no such thing. A will is beyond good and evil. It wills whatever it wills.

We should discuss a will's freedom to choose. Not its own freedom. There is apparently no such thing. A will will always try to get whatever it wants. At all times. The question is if it has that choice or not.

Best

Alexander

Den fre 17 maj 2019 kl 22:03 skrev Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]>:

Hi TOK List,

  Thought you might be interested in seeing this article on Free Will. Minus a few technical points, this is consistent with a ToK version of reality:

http://nautil.us/issue/72/quandary/yes-determinists-there-is-free-will

 

  The key is that there are different dimensions of existence (Matter, Life, Mind, and Culture) and different causal processes that operate at those different dimensions. Human persons are self-conscious entities that learn to justify and take responsibility for their actions on the social stage. This is a causal matrix, obvious at the present moment, as I am justifying to you that reading the article is worth the time. As a self-reflective entity, you will decide accordingly.

 

  As the article notes, atoms do not operate (i.e., are not the appropriate causal nexus) at this dimension of complexity.

Best,
Gregg  

 

___________________________________________

Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Graduate Psychology
216 Johnston Hall
MSC 7401
James Madison University
Harrisonburg, VA 22807
(540) 568-7857 (phone)
(540) 568-4747 (fax)

Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.

Check out my Theory of Knowledge blog at Psychology Today at:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge

 

Check out my webpage at:

www.gregghenriques.com

 

 

 

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1