What is free will?

@Cyracuz,

(As I see it right now) art is seeing the extraordinary in the ordinary and mysticism is seeing the unity of everything*, the extraordinary and the ordinary.

*especially the unity of this subject and all its perceieved objects.

1 Reply

@coolcubed,

coolcubed wrote:

Anyway, as part of my quest for enlightenment

If you are really seeking enlightenment, not just an epiphany, you need to associate with someone or group that teaches it. Landmark Education (an est spinoff) is a good place to start.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

coolcubed wrote:
You could say that although "we" are capable of making
choices, "we" are not capable of deciding who "we" are, and how "we" will
make those choices.

That's pretty much what Schopenhauer said.

coolcubed wrote:
Both of them agreed that there is more to free will than the ability to
make choices, but beyond that, I didn't get any real answers.

No, that's what free will is -- the ability to make undetermined choices. There's really nothing more to it.

Today's choices are mostly replays of similar choices we made before, feeling that it's the right thing to do, feeling, not deciding, but we can and do change our choices when and if our feelings favors it.

0 Replies

@Rickoshay75,

Quote:

If you are really seeking enlightenment, not just an epiphany, you need to associate with someone or group that teaches it. Landmark Education (an est spinoff) is a good place to start.

You don't need that actually. You only need to want it and work towards it. Do you think the famous Buddha enrolled in a school where they taught enlightenment? Smile

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
If you are really seeking enlightenment, not just an epiphany, you need to associate with someone or group that teaches it. Landmark Education (an est spinoff) is a good place to start.

You don't need that actually. You only need to want it and work towards it. Do you think the famous Buddha enrolled in a school where they taught enlightenment?

The Buddha was closer to nature than we are today, and nature and metaphors are important parts of enlightenment

1 Reply

@Rickoshay75,

"Closer to nature" is your perspective, and frankly, your opinion. We have little or no information about that.
An important part of the journey is questioning one's own assumptions...

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

"Closer to nature" is your perspective, and frankly, your opinion. We have little or no information about that.
An important part of the journey is questioning one's own assumptions...

How does one question his own assumptions, with more assumptions?

2 Replies

@Rickoshay75,

Perhaps. Perhaps not. A good question to ask oneself is "what do I really know".

What can be known? Are there things that cannot be known, things we can only form beliefs and assumptions about? Which things are those? Are such things and concepts valid just because we can think them up?

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

That depends on what an individual considers to be valid knowledge.

1 Reply

@Procrustes,

Perhaps. There's an irony in this, because every day we meet individuals who are so sure they are right in what they know, and walk around in self-justified misery. They just don't understand. All we can know is illusion because at the base of it all is the knower, to whom knowledge is merely a function. Without that context, all we know is useless. So if what you think you know makes you miserable, what is the greater sacrifice; admitting to yourself that you might be wrong, or enduring a life that you understand to be miserable? To me the answer is simple...

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Understand what exactly? And what is this simple answer?

1 Reply

@Procrustes,

The simple answer is that I'd sacrifice my pride for peace of mind every time. To say "I don't know" is opening oneself up to knowledge and understanding. If a person is miserable and unhappy with life, and still thinks he or she has it all figured out, that person isn't very wise.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Yes, the very need to have everything figured out is both a symptom and cause of a miserable life.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Indeed. Yet I still don't know why... But not really phased.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

What can be known? Are there things that cannot be known, things we can only form beliefs and assumptions about? Which things are those? Are such things and concepts valid just because we can think them up? >>

Maybe it's because there are no unexplained mysteries, Just incomplete investigations.

0 Replies

@Rickoshay75,

Rickoshay75 wrote:

Cyracuz wrote:

"Closer to nature" is your perspective, and frankly, your opinion. We have little or no information about that.
An important part of the journey is questioning one's own assumptions...

How does one question his own assumptions, with more assumptions?

...you managed to make a point...go figure. Wink

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

especially the unity of this subject and all its perceieved objects.

Subject? I thought there was no such thing as a self?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Subject? I thought there was no such thing as a self?

That 'there is no such thing as self' means that if you try to deconstruct it and look for the things that make up 'self', you will find that the concept is far more elusive than if first appears. Hand to eye is easy. But when we evaluate our own internal processes, as we do in trying to identify and define 'self', we find that there is no object behind the idea.
The most solid thing about self is the impression, or perhaps experience of it.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

But when we evaluate our own internal processes, as we do in trying to identify and define 'self', we find that there is no object behind the idea.

Maybe the self doesn't like to be self-evaluated, and keeps in hiding... Only half-joking here: my take is the self is very bad at looking at itself, its only Darwinian advantage being in looking at the world.

In any case, if there is no self, there is no subject, and hence no subjectivity.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

There is appearance of subject and of self.
In a different conceptual place there is neither.

Quote:

my take is the self is very bad at looking at itself, its only Darwinian advantage being in looking at the world.

Perhaps. Or perhaps that is just our materialistic bias? Besides, looking at one's own self is less interesting than experiencing interaction without consideration of 'self' involved. Mostly, 'sense of self' is perhaps just an afterthought.

1 Reply

What is free will?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know