Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gargoyle.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
From: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Free Will Definitions
Message-ID: <526@gargoyle.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Jul-85 18:50:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.526
Posted: Tue Jul 23 18:50:20 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Jul-85 06:07:00 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: U. Chicago, Astronomy & Astrophysics
Lines: 41

In article <> tmoody@sjuvax.UUCP (T. Moody) writes:

> It is a howler to suppose that "free will"
>has some single univocal meaning that is historically entrenched.  This
>concept has been under philosophic scrutiny for a *long* time; it has
>worn many "definitions."  
>...
>...the task of philosophy is
>not to prove that [free will] does or does not "exist", 
>but to *understand* it and fit it into a larger worldview.  

Buy that man a Classic Coke -- Todd Moody makes some excellent
points.  Freud, like Rosen, argued that freedom is an illusion
because our actions are determined by mechanisms beyond our
awareness.  But one of the principal strands of meaning in the
complex notion of freedom has been the ability to do as one wishes,
or (a more sophisticated notion) the capacity to make rational
choices.  We call a man who has been "liberated" (from prison,
oppression, bondage to sin, neurosis, ignorance) "free" not only
because the previous constraints have been removed, but also because
in a positive sense he can now achieve his goals, fulfill his
desires, take action according to rational criteria, etc.  The fact
that his goals, desires, and choices may be determined by "chemicals"
(why not quarks and leptons?) or prior events does not negate this
new ability of his, just as when Paul (of Tarsus, not Torek) became
"a slave to Christ" (i.e. his will was determined by Christ's) he
experienced it as freedom from bondage to sin and the law, and wrote
about it in those terms (in the Epistle to the Romans, I think).
(Rich please note:  this comment is not directed against Jewish
beliefs about the Law.)

Understanding how rational choice-making is possible, given our
scientific worldview, seems to be the current philosophical task in
this area, requiring a philosophical finesse akin to the theological
finesse required for steering between the Pelagian and Manichaean
heresies.  (Augustine's *Confessions* is one of the more interesting
discussions of freedom.)

Hope this confuses things.

Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes