The notion of free-will

Dear All:


I realised quite some time ago that I was consciously incompetent at most things. This relisation was incredibly liberating. It has left me not needing to find 'the answer' but desiring to evolve the eloquence of my questions.


Evolving the eloguence of my questioning will be the bedrock of my postings on this blog. With that in mind I would like to have your thoughts on the notion of free-will.


Fundamentally, I believe, this notion implies that human behaviour is not determined by external causes, but is caused by the choices made by the will of the individual and, in turn, this 'will' is not absolutely determined by external causes. St. Augustine, who some consider to be a historical figure of immense influence in shaping the outlook and teachings of the Christian Church, went so far as to propose that evil did not reside in matter, for matter was God's creation and therefore good. No indeed, evil was a consequence of man's misuse of his free-will.


It has been suggested that even the most diehard materialists are on some level, whether or not they care to admit it, influenced by this concept of free-will because the notion is so deeply entrenched in our psychology (western psyche) to ever enable us to completely render it obsolete. As Minsky states 'No matter that the physical world provides no room for freedom of the will: that concept is essential to our model of the mental realm. Too much of our psychology is based on it for us to ever give it up. We are virtually forced to maintain that belief, even though we know it's false - except, of course when we're inspired to find the flaws in our beliefs.....'.


The concept of free-will and adjacent debates about how free our choices really are and any ensuing implications for self-as-agent being at cause have taken up considerable time and energy for many erudite individuals. Corroboration of diametrically opposed stances is most often presented by attempting to falsify pre-existing and seemingly alternative viewpoints.


Some of the diverse stances and the ensuing arguments in relation to the concept of free-will are outlined be de Quincey:

• Determinstic line of reasoning leave us with two options, that all our choices are (1) effectively random and (2) effectively determined, which means that free-will is refuted, which may be the same as saying that we are not the agent of our choices and that contradicts free-will meaning self-as-agent is the cause


• Volitionist would refute this stance saying that it flies in the face of our most intimate sense of our ability to exercise volition


• Rationalists would say that if the experience of free-will is in fact our general experience of being healthy and whole human beings then it is not that logic as such is inferior, but that the logic of this particular argument must be faulty

Is focusing our individual and collective energy on proving or disproving humanity's ability to make choices free from conditioned preferences (including our beliefs, hopes and fears, which may or may not be deeply embedded in our psyche) crucial to the sustainable evolution of the manifest world?

Is it important to intellectually and scientifically come to a finite conclusion about what, if anything, impacts on causality (e.g. reductionists versus the concept of free-will)?

Does the deterministic claim that we have no way of knowing whether our choices are free from unconscious motivation make redundant any attempt on our part to consciously begin or continue on our journey to self-awareness?

Would love to hear what you think?