Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Cause and Effect: a Philosophical Examination of 'Choice'.
In the various disciplines of philosophy, the most nebulous concepts to grasp are those of 'choice' and 'free will'. Both appear integral to the other, because we are essentially unable to make a choice without free will, and free will is useless without the capacity to choose.
I stand forth on the following position: that choice is an illusion, and irrelevant to the individual. I say this not out of belief in any sort of 'fate' or 'destiny', but rather because the concept of 'choice' itself is unstable.
At the very most minimal level, free will is the ability to choose a course of action as a method of fulfilling some desire. David Hume defines liberty as 'a power of acting or of not acting, according to the determination of the will' (1784, sect viii, part 1). Johnathan Edwards' view is similar, that free will is something that proceeds from our own desires.
Bookstores are some of my favorite places to visit. Something about those pages that hundreds of people have enjoyed, and hundreds more likely will enjoy in future, calls to me. When I actually picked up a book, however, the following train of thought occured to me:
I don't need this book. Yes, I want it, but 'want' is not 'need'. Ownership of the book does not satisfy any particular desire, and I would be spending money that, for example, could better be spent on rent or food. Why do I want it, though? I want it, again, because of my desire (in this case, of knowledge); Aristotle's assertion that all human beings have a desire to know stands good here, because other than the knowledge contained within, the book itself has no intrinsic value in terms of desire. It's just like any other book, with a cover and a spine and pages within. To accquire knowledge for its own sake, and not simply for its utility, gives me the drive to purchase the book.
If I were to put the book back, and walk out of the book store, no desire at all would be fulfilled -- I would have sacrificed the 'desire to know' in favor of other more pressing desires (rent, food, the need to survive). Likewise, were I to purchase the book, and absorb the knowledge within, it would satisfy a desire, but not the desire. I would then be forced to purchase another book in order to further sate my desire to know. Thus, the 'choice' I ultimately make is irrelevant, because I'm still required to return to a certain place (the bookstore), to purchase another book (that I 'want', but do not 'need'). If I do not return to the bookstore, my desire to know will not be satisfied and I will be in denial of self.
I have the will to not return to the bookstore, or to return to it but not purchase a book, but again we run into that roadblock -- that, according to Aristotle's views, by taking either of those choices, we are in denial of self because we are giving up our desire to know.
Thus, I posit that free will, and choice, are both illusion, because choice requires consequince, and that consequince -- as I hope I have shown -- inherently requires us to sacrifice some portion of our free will in order to continue to satisfy our desires.
(Ow....my brain hurts after all that ....Any opinions on my long, rambling (and likely very flawed) proposal?)
Free will is much like free falling when parachuting. Somewhere along the line you have to deploy your chute or that is your last jump. Not really much of a choice is it?
Similarly, arriving at a Tee junction, one can go left or right. Free-will would suggest that going straight is an option too. Usually screws up the car's suspension though.
Unless you have ultimate control over the situation where you have to choose, free-will is an illusion.
Free will is much like free falling when parachuting. Somewhere along the line you have to deploy your chute or that is your last jump. Not really much of a choice is it?
Similarly, arriving at a Tee junction, one can go left or right. Free-will would suggest that going straight is an option too. Usually screws up the car's suspension though.
Unless you have ultimate control over the situation where you have to choose, free-will is an illusion.
Conflating choice with consequence is always confusing. ALL choices have consequences . . . they are still choices! Our distinguishing characteristic is being able to see those consequences and discern among them (good, bad, neutral) . . . unlike animals that are driven to satisfy their drives for pleasure and avoid pain . . . based on experience.
The concept of free will and choice of the individual is where philosophy meets sociology in my opinion. We, in theory, have many choices in our lives but the fact always remains that we belong to a society and in order to be a part of that society we are subject to its restrictions. We can choose not to follow the dictates of our particular society but to do so would lead one to be ostracised or even imprisonment.
We are also subject to the pervasive influences inherent in our society. That of the media, which has grown to become the single largest influence on opinion and behaviour in the world today. We are targeted and influenced without realising it most of the time. Our choices have become limited to what is socially acceptable and what is socially acceptable is dictated by those with the power to influence public opinion through the media, including the Internet. You can choose not to partake of the media but it would be very difficult in this society and those who do not, again are seen as different or abnormal and ostracized from the general community. Made to feel that they are missing out in some way or behind the times.
I wish I had more time to elaborate, but for now I have work to do. Good to see philosophy on the philosophy forum
I tend to think that if an individual was placed into a situation which required a choice that they would make the same so called choice over and over again if the exact circumstances could be duplicated in every possible detail. Of course this isn't something that can be demonstrated or proven but free will may in fact be an illusion. I would really prefer to think that I do have free will because it seems to be the most important component of being a free thinking individual which I consider myself to be. Nevertheless, it might not be the way that it seems. I've wavered on this point many times and gone from one point of view to the other but I do lean towards the belief that free will is an illusion.
I tend to think that if an individual was placed into a situation which required a choice that they would make the same so called choice over and over again if the exact circumstances could be duplicated in every possible detail. Of course this isn't something that can be demonstrated or proven but free will may in fact be an illusion. I would really prefer to think that I do have free will because it seems to be the most important component of being a free thinking individual which I consider myself to be. Nevertheless, it might not be the way that it seems. I've wavered on this point many times and gone from one point of view to the other but I do lean towards the belief that free will is an illusion.
Agreed that free will is sort of an illusion, although it seems to be based on perceptions. To me, free will seems like it's just another term for choice. And choice involves making a conscious decision between two or more things.
A choice could be repeated over and over again, if the choice proves to provide a successful or positive result. For example, if you stick your hand in a fire and burn it, you'll probably avoid doing that again with any other fire. The best choice is to not put your hand in a fire.
On the other hand, if you come to a fork in the road, and you already know where one side of it leads, then you might choose to try the other path to see where it goes. If you don't know where either path goes, then your choices are either one of the paths or simply turn back. In that case, you have three options to choose from.
The free will is that you can choose to do something or not. Even if you're forced to do something you wouldn't otherwise do, you still have to make a decision about it. It's a pretty much an individual thing for all forms of life, but varies in the degree of complexity.
Agreed that free will is sort of an illusion, although it seems to be based on perceptions. To me, free will seems like it's just another term for choice. And choice involves making a conscious decision between two or more things.
A choice could be repeated over and over again, if the choice proves to provide a successful or positive result. For example, if you stick your hand in a fire and burn it, you'll probably avoid doing that again with any other fire. The best choice is to not put your hand in a fire.
On the other hand, if you come to a fork in the road, and you already know where one side of it leads, then you might choose to try the other path to see where it goes. If you don't know where either path goes, then your choices are either one of the paths or simply turn back. In that case, you have three options to choose from.
The free will is that you can choose to do something or not. Even if you're forced to do something you wouldn't otherwise do, you still have to make a decision about it. It's a pretty much an individual thing for all forms of life, but varies in the degree of complexity.
A choice could be repeated, that's true -- but when the choice is repeated, it ceases to be a choice, because the neccessity of making a decision between two options is removed by the decision.
In the example I gave, it's possible to take three courses of action -- to not return to the bookstore, to return to the bookstore (but not purchase anything), or to return and make a purchase.
In the first two cases, we deny our desire for knowledge by not taking the steps to increase that knowledge. In the latter, we purchase a book and indulge the desire to accquire knowledge, but in doing so we turn from freely making a choice to fulfilling a requirement (albeit one that is self-imposed).
If Aristotle was correct, then to deny the quest for knowledge is to deny ourselves and our nature. If we are, on the other hand, to satisfy that quest for knowledge, there is no choice -- we either buy the book, or deny ourselves.
It's this 'either-or' concept that intrigues me; the paradoxical choice-that-is-not, where either option is equally detrimental.
A choice could be repeated, that's true -- but when the choice is repeated, it ceases to be a choice, because the neccessity of making a decision between two options is removed by the decision.
In the example I gave, it's possible to take three courses of action -- to not return to the bookstore, to return to the bookstore (but not purchase anything), or to return and make a purchase.
In the first two cases, we deny our desire for knowledge by not taking the steps to increase that knowledge. In the latter, we purchase a book and indulge the desire to accquire knowledge, but in doing so we turn from freely making a choice to fulfilling a requirement (albeit one that is self-imposed).
If Aristotle was correct, then to deny the quest for knowledge is to deny ourselves and our nature. If we are, on the other hand, to satisfy that quest for knowledge, there is no choice -- we either buy the book, or deny ourselves.
It's this 'either-or' concept that intrigues me; the paradoxical choice-that-is-not, where either option is equally detrimental.
I completely agree with your example of three options. But even if you only repeat one particular option, the other options don't cease to be a choice. They still remain as potential choices in the event that you want to choose one of those as an alternative. The exception would be if an option no longer exists at a later date, then of course it ceases to be an available choice. It's also possible there may be other options that you aren't aware of, or new options that become available at a later date. So rather than just three options, you might later find there are dozens of options. Or you might find the other two options are no longer available.
With regard to the choice to either buy the book or not buy the book, as to denying the ability to add to your knowledge, it may also be simply delaying such an addition until later. In such a scenario, realistically, we can't acquire everything. That means we have to establish certain priorities of what's most important for now. We can always change those priorities at a later time, unless the option is a 'now or never' thing. But even then we'd have to choose between 'get it now' or 'live without it'.
In the 'either/or' concept where either option would be a bad choice, such as to be executed by hanging or drowning, you'd likely want to choose neither. It presumes you know what the choices are. However, you might decide to leave it up to someone else to choose. It complicates things because of knowing the end result, but you still have a choice: you can choose to decide either option, or you can let someone else decide between the options. Ultimately, the choice is still made by you. In cases where there are no positive alternatives to choose from, you'd probably decide to choose whichever you perceive to be the least detrimental, even though the outcome would end up the same, unless your mental state is unable to discern any outcome difference between either choice.
In a nutshell, choosing from options requires that you have some kind of perception of what the possible outcomes of those options might be, even if the actual outcomes are not what you perceived them to be.
"Free will" is an illusion, for it assume you can willfully make a choice that has no cause or effect, hence the word "free". For any choice you make there is a cause behind it and if there is a cause there will be an effect.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
....Any opinions on my long, rambling (and likely very flawed) proposal?)
