WHAT is free will?

truth
Rufio, it is generally acknowledlged that Schopenhauer was influenced by the Upanishads, and as such I interpret his "you can't will as you will" to refer to the idea that ultimately our willing is really that of nature (The Will in Nature). He is here challenging--I presume--the reality of the self as an autonomous agent. But I'm not sure of this because some of his comments suggests a free-will orientation. Remember my own position? that "I" am not free because there is no "I" to be free, but the determinants of behavior are ultimately of the character of what the Hindus (the Upanishads again) call Brahman, the only absolute reality. And since there is nothing apart from Ultimate Reality to "cause" or "limit" it, it's "behavior" is, in effect, spontaneous (free). This ultimate spontaneity is our ultimate freedom. You can see from this why I interpret Schopenhauer as I have. It may be projection. I would have to study him more carefully to see if that is or is not so.
You say you accept the idea of man being "forced" to be free because in that he is "forced to be human." I think Sartre would agree with your phrasing. He said, after all, that man is "condemned" to freedom in that it is in his very (human) nature to not be able to "choose" not to choose. If Schopenhauer agrees with this it would be because he sees that condemnation to be the Will in Nature. (pardon my use of the historical present)

I haven't studied Schopenhauer, I was just commenting on the wording your posted, so you're going to have to help me out a little here. Is Nature human nature, biology, god, or anything that influences us in general, our "natural environment" as it were? If it's the latter, than it's not spontaneous or free, or at least it's not that simple, since we are influenced primarily (I would say) by other people, and those people's actions are influenced by us, etc. They are not any more spntaneous or free than we are, and what influences them (other people) is not spontaneous or free either. There is nothing to limit our behavior, but influence is something to be considered here, since influence creates want, which is the whole root of free will.

Even if Shopenhauer is dead, I don't mind you talking about him in the present tense, because despite what the logical positivists believe, he really is an abstract concept and not a man or a collection or tomes.

But anyway.

free will
My basic idea on free will is that we do have it in the context of our situation. We are born from nature, and our nature is that of the external world devoid of whatever one may believe. The context of our free will is that we must conform to reality in order to survive. Taking this to its logical conclusion we must conform to the physical laws that govern our world. I do not believe in a divine presence, it is arbitrary and so is the argument opposing free will. There are no valid arguments proving a zero(divine presence).

welcome to a2k jaco;

your comments seem quite valid, but i would like to point out one flaw as i see it;
you refer to the "physical laws that govern our world".
that phrase is missleading, and anthropomorphosizes the discovered nature of the universe.
these are not laws (implying that they have been laid down by someone, or an official body, which determines such things), they are merely a description of how the physical elements of this world interact, and function.
I always cringe at the term 'laws'! The term is a vestige of our superstitious past.

Re: truth

Yes, it's definitely a projection, JLN. Schopenhauer may have been influenced by Eastern mysticism, but he was, at heart, a thorough-going Kantian, and he firmly believed in subject-object dualism.

to restate jlN's comment;
'chaos', the true nature of the universe, is the ultimate state of 'freedom', and within that state, while it may be somewhat overpowering, one can willfully choose anything.

Harnesing chaos, and thereby controlling the nature of human society, is i feel, what life is ultimately about; and we approach that task by constantly making, and editing, 'free choices'.

[to err is human; to screw up completely, divine!]
(and, for everything else, there's Mastercard!)

truth
Great comments, folks.
BoGoWo, I don't know, of course, but it's my intuition that Spontaneity, rather than chaos, is the freedom of the Absolute totality of the universe. Remember, it's absolute only in so far as there are no causal forces APART from that totality. Makes sense to me, despite its lack of precision and aempirical intuititve basis.
Jaco, I like your equation of our nature with that of the World. For that reason I believe my freedom is that of the World. In the Taoist sense conformity to Nature is conformity to my true self, and thus the highest freedom.
BoGoWo, I interpret Jaco's "laws" to mean "regularities", not statutes.
Joe, my knowledge and/or recollection of the philosophical literature is not as extensive as yours, but it does seem to me that you are right about the dualism of Kant. His Noumena (about which we cannot have direct knowledge) is dualistic in terms of its "separateness" from phenomona. And Schopenhauer's WILL in nature, does seem to parallel Kant's Noumena. Both are all pervasive and the infra-reality of all we do experience. It is that which we can't will, because it is our ground; it even wills our willing. Nietzsche, also a neo-Kantian insofar as everthing is IDEA, criticizes Kant-Schopenhauer dualism. He is a Monist by his own admission. There is variety with unity, very similar to views stated in parts of the Upanishads.

jaco; an aside:
i meant my comments re: 'laws' as what i consider to be an important clarification, not a criticism; you were using 'common' parlance, of course.

Wow, did not think my comments would create such a stir. I commend your agreements!

there is no 'fellowship' that can approach mutual 'perfection'!

Freedom is choosing your own boundaries.

truth
Rex, your highness , I do draw some of my boundaries, especially social ones, but I wish I could choose ALL my boundaries. That would be freedom of a sort. But to be (paradoxically) free of the illusion of a "me" who draws and chooses boundaries would be freedom of another sort, what the Buddhists call Liberation.

Obviously not a Tolkien fan.