To what extent, and why, is 'freedom' a 'problem'?

[Ibn Khaldoun]

We experience the possibility of choice, and we make choices.

But why is this question important? It is practically useless. What is in its indeterminability that gives us the basis of the question? *Why* is it important?

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Freedom, by the way, as in causality and such.

 

[Knotted]

It is important because it shows us that we part of the world rather than agents acting on the world.

 

[CJohn]

But why is this question important?

I think people individually seek to actualise, to realise all of their potentialities. And unfreedom is an environmental constriction on the realisation of this. I think this unfreedom can then also be structured into our psyches (individually / collectively) such that we come to resistrict, inhibit, or police ourselves and, I think as Zizek put it, struggle to find the language to articulate our own unfreedom. And there opens a gap between our identifications and our potential actualities.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

We experience the possibility of choice, and we make choices.

But why is this question important? It is practically useless. What is in its indeterminability that gives us the basis of the question? *Why* is it important?

Freedom for the stallion

Freedom for the mare and her colt

Freedom for the baby child

Who has not grown old enough to vote

Lord, have mercy, what you gonna do

About the people who are prayin' to you

They got men makin' laws that destroy other men

Made money, God, it's a doggone sin

Oh, Lord, you got to help us find the way



Big ship's a-sailin'

Slaves all chained and bound

Headin' for a brand new land

That someone said he up and found.

Lord, have mercy, what you gonna do

About the people who are prayin' to you

They got men makin' laws that destroy other men

They made money, God, it's a doggone sin

Oh, Lord, you got to help us find the way



Freedom for the stallion

Freedom for the mare and her colt

Freedom for the baby child

Who has not grown old enough to vote

Lord, have mercy, what you gonna do

About the people who are prayin' to you

You know when I look inside my mind

Searchin' for the truth I find

Oh, Lord, you got to help us find the way






Lord have mercy!

 

[Y_I_Otter]

It's just another word for nothin' left to lose.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

I think people individually seek to actualise, to realise all of their potentialities. And unfreedom is an environmental constriction on the realisation of this. I think this unfreedom can then also be structured into our psyches (individually / collectively) such that we come to resistrict, inhibit, or police ourselves and, I think as Zizek put it, struggle to find the language to articulate our own unfreedom. And there opens a gap between our identifications and our potential actualities.

So is the importance really about social unfreedom?

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Stephen Hawkings puts it simply that we still exercise choice no matter what our beliefs about choice being an illusion or not. But the 'determinism' is that we are still compelled to make the same choices under the same circumstances.

Maybe fatalism is advanced against a different kind of determinism - the manichean kind that you are 'baaad agent'. Due to some kind of 'genetic defect' or original sin you are cursed to choosing malevolence. To which it is nice to oppose the position of Islam which is that we are essentially good but get led astray, and we don't control it anyway, except in some 'spiritual' way where our redemptive value is truly known (mashallah!), which is a popular view.

To which I prefer the positivity of freedom and redemption.

It is important because it shows us that we part of the world rather than agents acting on the world.

But these are just two approaches to the world, two interpretations, aren't they, and not mutually exclusive?

 

[Knotted]

But these are just two approaches to the world, two interpretations, aren't they, and not mutually exclusive?

You should interpret them as being mutually exclusive for my purposes. Dualism versus monism.

 

[toblerone3]

According to Buddhist theory co-dependent origination/deterministic karma/subconcious fatalism operates on the eighth level of conciousness/Alaya conciousness/storehouse conciousness.

While Buddhahood/freedom operates on a deeper level of the Ninth level of consciousness.

 

[Knotted]

We experience the possibility of choice, and we make choices.

You see this is an introspective question. What is "our" - as in "each and every single one of us's" - experience?

But is there a satisfactory introspective answer?

The only use of this sort of deep introspection is to show the otherwise worthlessness of deep introspection.

Politically when someone talks about freedom they are almost always engaging in some form of demagogy. There is nothing accountable in such talk and yet it speaks to us a gut level. One of the most manipulative things someone can do is to promise freedom.

Talk of freedom or authenticity or good and evil or personal growth or happiness or spirituality does not challenge us to see the world in a different light. It doesn't grip us, it doesn't force us to turn our heads. Such talk is at best a therapeutic tool to help you along the path you have already taken.

 

[danny la rouge]

It's just another word for nothin' left to lose.

I took my harpoon out of my dirty red bandanna, too, when I saw the thread title.

 

[coccinelle]

When you hear the cry of 'freedom', there's usually a boy with a gun looking for personal power.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

We are intentional beings that make decisions based upon our own aims.

It feels as if seeing our decisions in our consciousness is simultaneous with making them. But in fact, we see those decisions in our consciousness after we have made them.

We conclude that we have free, conscious, will based on this misconception.

This notion of free will is necessarily dualistic, setting up each of us as a god. But all the evidence suggests that we do not have this kind of free will at all.

Whether our feeling of free will, as most of us experience it, is a misconception or not, the answer to this question makes no difference at all to the outcome of the decisions we make. So it is a problem, mostly, only for our sense of pride.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

You see this is an introspective question. What is "our" - as in "each and every single one of us's" - experience?

Any of us who is conscious.

But then there is our self-consciousness, derived from our lived experience, alienation [socialisation - not the other kind], how we are empowered or restricted in autonomy. Yet, even people who don't look before they cross the road and get hit by a car believe in choice.

But is there a satisfactory introspective answer?

I have, personally, come to see it as a non-problem. It is pretty speculative, as such it is a decidedly spiritual problem, yet a meditation on real problems, such as grasping life with both hands.

The real problem may be our need to ask the question.

The only use of this sort of deep introspection is to show the otherwise worthlessness of deep introspection.

Politically when someone talks about freedom they are almost always engaging in some form of demagogy. There is nothing accountable in such talk and yet it speaks to us a gut level. One of the most manipulative things someone can do is to promise freedom.

Perhaps because they are those who deny our ability to excercise freedom, while pretending to grant that same thing. It is viscerally powerful because it is precluded by the demagogue. It is only *their* freedom they speak of.

Talk of freedom or authenticity or good and evil or personal growth or happiness or spirituality does not challenge us to see the world in a different light. It doesn't grip us, it doesn't force us to turn our heads. Such talk is at best a therapeutic tool to help you along the path you have already taken.

Well, I beg to differ. It should call us to act, not resign.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think we need to be careful not to conflate two separate ideas here.

First there is the qualitative concept of freedom as in free will, that is an examination of the process by which we decide to do one thing and not another.

Then there is the more quantitative concept of freedom that looks at the choices we are presented with and the external pressures we are placed under to make one choice rather than another.

The first is a question of natural philosophy. The second is a question of politics in the widest sense of the word.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

We are intentional beings that make decisions based upon our own aims.

It feels as if seeing our decisions in our consciousness is simultaneous with making them. But in fact, we see those decisions in our consciousness after we have made them.

These two statements are contradictory.

Why would they appear in our consciousness if decisions are just reflexes which we needn't consider?

This notion of free will is necessarily dualistic, setting up each of us as a god. But all the evidence suggests that we do not have this kind of free will at all.

What evidence? How can any claim about it be simply verified?

Whether our feeling of free will, as most of us experience it, is a misconception or not, the answer to this question makes no difference at all to the outcome of the decisions we make. So it is a problem, mostly, only for our sense of pride.

But it shouldn't be a problem, then. Whence this lack of esteem? This would be my question. Why do we even ask the question? If 'free-will' is incoherent then so is 'determinism'.

 

[Knotted]

Perhaps because they are those who deny our ability to excercise freedom, while pretending to grant that same thing. It is viscerally powerful because it is precluded by the demagogue. It is only *their* freedom they speak of.

I think what is important is accountability. If you cannot use a politician's words to judge their actions, then their words are merely there to control, to rally, to express superficial empathy etc.

Well, I beg to differ. It should call us to act, not resign.

I don't think you are differing. Once you have made up your mind, all these slogans and catchphrases encourage you to stride forward. These phrases make what you do mundane.

What is more interesting to me is the use of perspicacious language to see things in a new light, even if if forces you to stop and think for a moment.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

I think we need to be careful not to conflate two separate ideas here.

First there is the qualitative concept of freedom as in free will, that is an examination of the process by which we decide to do one thing and not another.

Then there is the more quantitative concept of freedom that looks at the choices we are presented with and the external pressures we are placed under to make one choice rather than another.

The first is a question of natural philosophy. The second is a question of politics in the widest sense of the word.

I did mean the first one. They are, and should be, distinct, but they are related. I think I'm trying to get at how.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

We make our decisions pre-consciously. Remember that your pre-conscious self is you too.

There is experimental evidence that backs this up (Libet's famous experiment has been backed up by recent discoveries), but you shouldn't be surprised - the representation of reality that we make to ourselves in our consciousness takes time to construct – everything in it, including our decisions, has necessarily already happened.

 

[Knotted]

The first is a question of natural philosophy. The second is a question of politics in the widest sense of the word.

I think in both cases there is an interplay between intentional and deterministic explanations. I think this apparent conflict is where the problem is.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What evidence? How can any claim about it be simply verified?

Put it this way – not a single insight has been arrived at in science that requires free will. More than that, there is no place for free will within a scientific framework as it stands now. Add to that explanations for why we feel that we have this dualistic free will (intentional beings feeling that we're deciding after we have in fact decided). Obviously, only certain kinds of claims can be verified – but at the very least, certain Cartesian conceptions of free will can be demonstrated to be false.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Why would they appear in our consciousness if decisions are just reflexes which we needn't consider?

We use our consciousness to consider decisions! But that does not mean that we take our decisions within our consciousness. We don't. But I can only say again that our pre-conscious selves are also us. I think it is unhelpful to think in terms of a divide between 'conscious' and 'sub-conscious' in a Freudian sense. Freud was wrong – this kind of dualistic system isn't how we work.

 

[CJohn]

We use our consciousness to consider decisions! But that does not mean that we take our decisions within our consciousness. We don't. But I can only say again that our pre-conscious selves are also us. I think it is unhelpful to think in terms of a divide between 'conscious' and 'sub-conscious' in a Freudian sense. Freud was wrong – this kind of dualistic system isn't how we work.

I suppose the term the unconscious has connotations of mental life that is repressed, or at least that includes repressed material. I tend to think - if you object to this notion in freudian model as opposed to in phenomenological sense - the term non-conscious is perhaps better. If that is one accepts that what is preconscious can always be made conscious. Whereas nonconscious refers to that which is structurally beyond being transformed, perhaps like certain neurological functions and regulatory systems.

Anyhows, reading your other responses, I wanted to ask if you thought that free-will can still be rescued so to speak, by arguing that preconscious decisions are 'made' by us and of course influenced by who we are. In the sense that this implies that it is still us, i.e. you, me, etc., making certain decisions, though of course prior to any conscious reflection. That is, that the decision is still mine, influenced by all that I am. I say this as I get the sense that when people reflect on freewill perhaps not existing in consciousness (as opposed to the decision arriving there) they feel dethroned, their pride is injured as you say.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

We use our consciousness to consider decisions! But that does not mean that we take our decisions within our consciousness. We don't. But I can only say again that our pre-conscious selves are also us. I think it is unhelpful to think in terms of a divide between 'conscious' and 'sub-conscious' in a Freudian sense. Freud was wrong – this kind of dualistic system isn't how we work.

This pre-conscious - what do you think it is? Is it that which precedes consciousness? Or is it that within consciousness that evades, as it necessitates, rationality, or that which we identify with consciousness itself?

Our pre-conscious selves are us; therefore they are subject our rationality, agency, and everything else.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

I think what is important is accountability. If you cannot use a politician's words to judge their actions, then their words are merely there to control, to rally, to express superficial empathy etc.

so if they don't facilitate the illusion they are the illusion. their self-referentiality cannot save them.

I don't think you are differing. Once you have made up your mind, all these slogans and catchphrases encourage you to stride forward. These phrases make what you do mundane.

well, hold on, what do you say?

they can give it a social importance, whose value you stand against capital. assert freedom and organic labour.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Anyhows, reading your other responses, I wanted to ask if you thought that free-will can still be rescued so to speak, by arguing that preconscious decisions are 'made' by us and of course influenced by who we are. In the sense that this implies that it is still us, i.e. you, me, etc., making certain decisions, though of course prior to any conscious reflection. That is, that the decision is still mine, influenced by all that I am. I say this as I get the sense that when people reflect on freewill perhaps not existing in consciousness (as opposed to the decision arriving there) they feel dethroned, their pride is injured as you say.

Yes, our decisions are most certainly still made by us. The 'I' of consciousness is the same 'I' of preconscious decision-making. I think there can be confusion about this because it is not properly understood what consicousness is, and what it isn't.

I agree entirely with what you write, except that I don't think it quite rescues free will. Rather, it provides clues as to why we feel so strongly that we have free will.

The question 'Do we have free will?' is, I think, ultimately a fruitless one. Do we make choices? Yes. How do we decide which choice we make? Well, we have intention – we act with a purpose, and that purpose comes from within us. We see ourselves taking decisions based on that purposefulness as these decisions arrive in our awareness.

Every attempt at an explanation of free will that limits itself strictly to scientifically justifiable claims always fails. And it strikes me that the motivation for such an explanation comes from the strong feeling we have that we are 'free' (and revulsion for the opposite conclusion). Explain the motivation and you can, perhaps, move on to better questions to answer, such as 'How do intentional beings such as us come about?' 'Where does the intention come from?' These are, I think, questions that can potentially be answered, and so are more interesting. The best we can do with free will is to say that our decision-making process is too complex for us to ever understand it, which is an unsatisfying answer, to say the least.

 

[CJohn]

The question 'Do we have free will?' is, I think, ultimately a fruitless one. Do we make choices? Yes. How do we decide which choice we make? Well, we have intention – we act with a purpose, and that purpose comes from within us. We see ourselves taking decisions based on that purposefulness as these decisions arrive in our awareness.

Yes, that seems like a more productive way of looking at it. I suppose my sense of 'rescuing free will', was more about rescuing an idea of ourselves as intentional, acting upon the world, as you say, with purpose and meaning. Though this is something different from the notion of freewill.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes, meaning is crucial. We are beings that look for and create meaning. This desire for meaning may be a good way into answering the question of where our purpose comes from.