First, clarifying some definitions is necessary before we proceed.
I take freedom to mean that something is unbounded or unrestrained from something else. Freedom=X is free, if and only if, it is not the case, that some other thing Y restricts X.
This is the most metaphysically neutral definition of freedom. It does not rely on any metaphysical presuppositions or theses. It is broad enough to apply to any set of objects. For example, it can apply to prison bars and people. Prison bars restrict people from leaving their cell. Alternatively, it can apply to laws and people. It restricts people from certain actions (e.g. laws against murder). Simply put, freedom is the negation or absence of these restrictions. The notion that freedom is context relative should be evident here.
The word freedom, like many words rely on a particular context to have a clearer meaning. Although, the definition given above is general enough to capture the basic meaning, we must put it into the relevant “context” of particular things to make sense. It may have political, metaphysical, scientific, or economic contexts depending on how we use the word.
Anyway, enough of that and now onto the argument.
My argument below has the following form, which is deductively valid.
~B
______
(Premise 2) There are instances that demonstrate the absence of restrictions. Justification: There are innumerable examples of this being the case. Here are a couple.
The absence of prison bars restricting people is instantiated when a prisoner’s cell door opens, allowing the prisoner to leave. Similarly, the absence of civil laws restricting peoples’ actions is instantiated in some parts of the world. Particularly,
Perhaps what people meant is that we are not free as much as we think we are. That is, we think we have fewer restrictions than we actually do. Another meaning could have been that freedom in some instances are illusions. However, these interpretations are entirely different from the claim discussed during our meeting. One cannot infer the claim that freedom is an illusion from the more charitable interpretations just given. Hence, the claim that the concept of freedom is an illusion is patently false as demonstrated by the above argument.
Addendum
Regarding our previous discussions on determinism vs. freewill, it seems that freewill is the unrestricting of the will by prior causal antecedent conditions (whatever those may be). To what degree these conditions both affect our will, and how deep the effects are to our will, is the question that philosophers have been trying to answer for over two and a half millennia.
Jason
4 comments:
I agree that the idea of freedom being an illusion must be considered in a specific context. Otherwise, we're just running full circle and will always come around to the same freewill/determinism debate. Also, as you pointed out, Jason, it only takes ONE example of an action/effect FREE of any causal agent save for one's utterly unimpeded, unrestricted choice, to disprove the claim that freedom is an illusion.
I don't think the examples you offered prove the case for freewill, however. For example, let's say the prison bars open and the prisoner is "free" to leave. However, he is compelled NOT to leave for, say, reasons of fear or having become institutionalized. One can make the argument that the fears or the emotional dependency on the institution are compelling enough for the prisoner to "choose" to stay, assuming he was "free" to do so. The compulsion to stay might in itself be considered a restriction to his action of leaving. in this case, it's his emotional and even twisted logic that is the CAUSE of his action to stay. It is, therefore, not FREE of a causal agent by which his action is effectuated.
I think the argument has to be taken further.
My examples were not an attempt to prove free will with respect to the determinism debate. I intended them as counterexamples to the claim that freedom is an illusion. The examples were relating to the specific context, between a prisoner’s physical limitations and the bars that keep him in his cell. As stated in my previous post, I defined freedom as the negation of the binary relation, “restriction”. That is, if A restricts B, then B is not free with respect to A. However, if it is not the case, that A restricts B, then B is free with respect to A. The example was only referring to prisoners and prison bars, not prisoners and their emotional (belief) states. That would be applying the term “freedom” to a different context. I see your point but it is altogether moot since that was not my claim.
I do see a problem within the definition of freedom as applied.
First, claiming that X is free as long as it is not restricted by some other thing (Y) overlooks the possibility that X can be restricted by X. Self-restriction seems especially relevant if one considers the discussion of humans being mainly restricted by their fears and desires (or in the language of biology, by their genes).
Secondly; freedom in the applied way turns the concept into something relative. I can say I used to be restricted by Y, X and Z but now I am only restricted by Z. I am indeed relatively freer than I used to be. The prisoner who is allowed to roam free within the confines of the prison building is relatively freer than he used to be when he was in solitary confinement. He is still a prisoner, though. My feeling is when I contemplate the question of freedom, what really concerns me is not relative freedom but absolute freedom. Of course not in the way where I can jump over the Eiffel Tower or live 276 years just because I put my mind to it. The question that piques my curiosity is the potential possibility of single moments of absolute freedom. Is it possible that there was once a person (maybe 276 years ago) that once in her lifetime made a decision that was absolutely free?? If that is true, freedom is not an illusion. We call the Santa Clause that lives at the North Pole an illusion not because he doesn't exist. We call him an illusion because in all of human history he has never once existed, not even for a second. (We don't call Henry IV of France an illusion even though he does not exist now either…He did live once 400 years ago)…In the same way, even a single moment of absolute freedom means freedom is real.
Your entire argument is weak because your definitions/understanding of real and reality are inadequate. A "Reality" is any form of energy that can be experienced, be it physical, mental, or emotional. "Real" means that it is being experienced in present time. Thus, a reality is anything that exists. Real means it is be experienced. A reality may be real or not real at any given time and from any given Point of View.
For example; your thoughts are realities - they exist. However, they are not real to me -- and vice versa-- unless you publish them here. I can then duplicate your reality by understanding your words, although that duplication in my mind is my reality and not yours.
This understanding of Reality and Real resolves millenary debates about reality in philosophy and also opens the doors to great personal power in controlling realities and one's life.
The supreme motivation of all human behavior is to control realities. This statement IS provable, but that is another line of knowledge. Back to the question free will.
There is no way to logically resolve the argument of free will, because you can always claim that the choice was predetermined by a greater and longer chain of cause and effect, all the way back to the Big Bang and beyond to the FIRST CAUSE. The question of free will is part of the greater question of Cause and Effect in the universe.
HOWEVER, we can see that a world in which free will is denied will not work. If there is no free will, then there is no personal accountability for actions. Anybody could do anything they wanted (such as steal, kill) and not be punished or held accountable because they could claim their actions were pre-determined by a Cause other than themselves, wherefore they are not response-able. Therefore, for the world to work we presume and must presume free will and therefore Responsibility and Accountability. Where there is any free will or not is both unprovable and moot.
Furthermore, to choose and live in the reality (NEVER confuse "Reality" with "Truth" - two totally different concepts) that there is no free will, will go against one of your 3 basic Imperatives: the Imperative to Power. It is a denial of having Power = no control over your life. This will take you down into depression and emotional blackness. Not pretty.
Of course, many people are already in that experience of no Power in life, which is why Prozac et al are best selling, mulit-billion dollar products.
Post a Comment