Friday, December 12, 2014
Confined Free Will?
In this week's and last week's classes, we spoke about free will. We came up with so many different theories about whether we actually have free will, and then decided if it was without restriction. After thinking about it, I understood that we must have free will. The fact that God created us with a conscience that would be able to recognize good and bad, and choose between them, means that we must have free will. If he knows every outcome, as well as the method taken to achieve them, aren't we just His puppets? The fact that Eve gave in to the serpent's temptation is proof of free will. Temptation, or desire, is part of the evil. Our job is to overcome it and choose the good side in every situation. As St. Augustine says, every time we choose good, we become closer to God. What do you guys think? Is life full of these tests, or 'karma moments,' in which we decide between good and bad?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your theory of free will as contingent on a strict moral code of good and bad is only justifiable if we have some objective, incontestable knowledge of those two categories. But we don't. There is not foundational or metaphysical bedrock upon which we can ground all our value systems and say "THIS is the unassailable basis of all moral deliberations." Skepticism and objections to knowledge claims can go on forever. It is true that at some point, we cease to discuss these matters and do accept certain statements as foundational, be it the existence of God, the facts of Nature, logical necessities, scientific consensus, or whatever. But we ourselves make these distinctions. They are not "out there" in the world, in need of discovery so as to full justify our epistemic claims. You believe in God and appeal to an absolutist Christian morality to justify the existence of free will through these "facts". Fine. That is your choice and your own narrative. The further crisis of free will, which you did not address, is that everything can be subject to choice, redescription, reinvention etc. One chooses the grounds of one's propositional attitudes without excuse, without recourse to something "external" or "objective", without further justification. If, for example, I contested your belief in God you might say "This is simply what I do, what I believe". And that would be perfectly correct. Such would be an ungrounded choice which grounds all other choice. And what we take to be grounds for belief or plausible justification reveal important aspects of our various forms of life.
ReplyDeleteI think it is very easy to get caught up in the “free” part of free will. Today we think about free will as the ability to do what we want and choose our own actions. It is hard to see Augustine’s view without first looking through the lens of our own modern interpretation. If, like we discussed in class, Augustine’s view is that free will means turning towards God and goodness and that if we are sinning we are not exercising free will, then like Jesse brings up, we must be born with a moral compass to tell what is good and right and what is sinful. However, like Even points out, things are not as black and white and absolutist in reality. To some extent people spend life trying to figure out what they believe is good and what is bad. Most people believe that there are things that are inherently absolutely wrong, like rape and murder. I would say that the majority of people today see people who do these things as acting of their own accord. However, if we take Augustine’s view of free will and apply it to these acts as sinful acts that are not a part of free will, then it brings the responsibility and fault away from the perpetrator.
ReplyDeleteI see both of your points. Evan, like I said, it's all about faith. To me, there's really no other way of explaining it. That's probably why it is a topic that is so often discussed in philosophy and religion. And Cece I think what St. Augustine said about free will is not what he said about sin. I remember a list being written on the board that stated that free will was not consistent with sin. Divine Providence, or the 'totality of all causes,' holds within it sin, justice, and all other outcomes. So free will, to Augustine, is not applicable to the bad. Only sin is. (Not that my understanding, like you said-'the modern interpretation'- agrees with this view at all)
ReplyDeleteIn regards to free will I believe that a perfect example of this is The Ramayana. In the book, the main character follows the basic principles of dharma which is basically to make the right decision. This is in hopes that as he goes along the higher power he believes in will be with him. This in my opinion is the same thing as the "tests" that god throws at us, & by believing in karma we think that in the end we may be able to reap the rewards of it later. It seems to be that free will is there, but subconsciously the decisions are made in some aspect of what god might deem acceptable or correct.
ReplyDeleteAugustine's view of free will makes us question the ideas we have about personal responsibility in relation to our decisions. In Book XIII, Chapter 27, there is a passage that reads "God's further purpose was to reveal to all rational creatures...the difference between the fruits of presumption...and the protection of God...No one would dare to believe or declare that it was beyond God's power to prevent the fall of either angel or man." I think this quote really justifies the idea that though we may have free will, there is always the looming idea that God still has ultimate control over any situation. Despite the actions taken, whether they are believed to be your own, or the work of God, can still be affected in the end by God's judgement.
ReplyDeleteTo answer this: "Is life full of these tests, or 'karma moments,' in which we decide between good and bad?" I believe that yes, life is full of these. I feel like based on these readings, free-will is said to be given by God, who ultimately leaves it up to us to decide which path we want to take with our free will. This is why consequences and rewards exist; God wants human beings to go towards the good direction without forcing them too because they have to prove their devotion to him first by leaning towards the good on their own.
ReplyDeleteGoing back to Evan's comment..I think you have a point in saying that we really have no "foundational or metaphysical bedrock" for our definition of right and wrong. In fact, I think it would be safe to say that people's notions of good and bad, regardless of whether they are religious or not, stem from religion. This makes right, wrong, and every decision we make seems seem very subjective and not 'free' at all. Or maybe the reason free will is free is precisely because it is subjective? I really do not know
ReplyDelete