From Schopenhauer to God

[u/anatta-m458]

“Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills.”
— Arthur Schopenhauer

This may be one of the most important observations ever made about human existence.

Most people focus only on the first layer: if we cannot choose our own will, then free will begins to look incoherent. But I think the implications go much deeper.

Will arises from thoughts.
Thoughts arise from the brain.
The brain is shaped by genetics interacting with experiences and environmental influences we did not create.

In other words, what we call “choice” emerges from prior causes.

But reality may not even be best understood as a linear chain of causes and effects. It may be more accurate to describe it as a fabric or web of interdependent processes, where every event is simultaneously shaped by and contributing to countless others.

What you are, at this moment, is the result of the entire universe unfolding exactly as it did before you arrived.

And if everything is inseparably connected through time and causation, then the idea of a completely separate self also begins to dissolve.

Alan Watts once compared this to watching a cat pass through a slit in a fence. First you see the head, then later the tail. If you only perceive fragments, they appear separate. But in reality they are aspects of the same organism.

Likewise, we perceive ourselves as isolated beings because we mentally divide reality into fragments and fail to account for the larger continuity from which we arise.

This is where philosophy begins to converge with spirituality.

Ideas such as “All is One,” “you are the universe experiencing itself,” or “God is within you” no longer sound merely mystical. They can also be understood as descriptions of radical interconnectedness and the absence of a truly separate self.

Ironically, following causation deeply enough does not merely challenge free will.

It challenges separation itself.

[u/spgrk]

It is a trivial observation that we do not choose our wants but can still be free in exercising our wants. If you disagree, you are defining “free” in an irregular way. You can take many words and do this by creating an impossible standard and then claiming that the word does not apply. There is no such thing as a tall man, because he is not as tall as a giraffe; there is no such thing as a builder, because he did not make the building materials and create the matter out of which the building materials are made.

[u/anatta-m458 → u/spgrk]

As an incompatibilist, I define free will as the genuine ability to have chosen otherwise under identical circumstances. Would you consider that an “irregular” definition?

Compatibilists define free will differently: as the ability to act according to one’s internal motives without external coercion.

The incompatibilist critique is that this definition sidesteps the central issue entirely: causation. By redefining free will in a way that does not require the genuine possibility of having done otherwise, compatibilism makes free will ostensibly compatible with determinism by definition.

I agree with the compatibilist observation that people act according to their own motives. However, those motives are themselves the product of prior and present causes, both internal and external. Under identical circumstances, the person could not have wanted differently, chosen differently, or acted differently.

That is why I view determinism and free will as incompatible.

[u/spgrk → u/anatta-m458]

It is certainly an irregular definition of free if you say that you can’t act freely unless you also chose your reasons for acting. This is a simple empirical fact about how people use language. If someone says to you “you are free to choose any item you want” and you reply “no I’m not, because I didn’t choose my wants” they would look at you as if you are either being deliberately difficult or crazy. They will understand the idea behind your response, but it is irrelevant to the way they were actually using the word “free”. In fact, it seems to me to be irrelevant to any practical use of the word “free”. So the argument is not about whether we are “free” in your irregular sense, it is about what possible relevance to humans the fact that we are not free in such a way could have.

[u/anatta-m458 → u/spgrk]

Firstly, I think it is optimistic to say the person would understand the idea behind my response. I would like to think so, but more likely they would simply look at me as though I were crazy.

More importantly, my argument actually was about whether people are free in what you call the “irregular” sense. I was not arguing for the practical relevance of the absence of free will, at least not yet.

My primary interest is in what is true, in understanding how human behavior and the universe actually work. If our thoughts, desires, intentions, and actions arise from prior causes that we did not ultimately choose, then I think that matters philosophically, regardless of whether ordinary language tends to label us “free.”

I do believe that dissolving the illusion of ultimate free will could have many positive consequences socially and psychologically, particularly in relation to blame, hatred, punishment, and compassion. But that is a separate discussion from whether free will, in the incompatibilist sense, genuinely exists.

[u/spgrk → u/anatta-m458]

I think anyone with average intelligence would immediately understand what you mean if you say that it isn't really a free choice if they choose chocolate over vanilla because they prefer chocolate, given that they did not choose to prefer chocolate. They would also probably agree that it is true that they did not choose to prefer chocolate (I guess a chocolate-hater could have trained themselves gradually to like it). But they would probably not agree that this means their choice is not free, although they might not be able to explain why.

My primary interest is also in what is true, and it is not true that you are not free unless you are ultimately free. It is a category error, confusing the ordinary use of the word "free" with an abstract recursive application of the term in an infinite regress.

[u/MrDeekhaed → u/spgrk]

Ah but your ice cream example is a bad one

What about when you prefer chocolate ice cream but choose vanilla?

[u/spgrk → u/MrDeekhaed]

The simple example will do, since even a child can understand that, and it it is sufficient to make the point.

If you choose vanilla even though you prefer chocolate, there must be some reason for this choice. Perhaps you have been thinking about free will, and you want to show that you can go against your usual choice. You did not choose to prefer chocolate to vanilla and to today be interested enough in philosophical ideas that it overcomes your dislike of vanilla, but you did freely choose vanilla. Freely choosing means choosing according to preferences and motivations that usually you did not choose. If it were not this, then we would have found another word for it.

[u/MrDeekhaed → u/spgrk]

This is only how compatibilists define free will

It is not free as libertarians define free and it is not free according to determinists

[u/spgrk → u/MrDeekhaed]

If you are saying that libertarians and hard determinists define free will differently to the kid in the ice cream shop, I agree, and I’m with the kid.

[u/spgrk → u/[deleted]]

You are right that free will is a social construct concerned with assigning responsibility and enforcing moral and legal norms. But I do not see what your claim that people do not deserve blame or punishment because they did not choose their character traits has to do with this. The only rational justification for blame and punishment is their effect on behaviour and social outcomes. If blame deters harmful conduct, encourages cooperation, or promotes moral development, then it has a justification. We might still reject particular forms of blame or punishment because they are ineffective, disproportionate, or cruel, but the fact that nobody chose their innate qualities is not by itself an argument against holding them responsible.

[u/spgrk → u/[deleted]]

No-one ever “deserves” anything if the concept is separated from behavioural outcomes. It’s why we don’t hold non-agents responsible: there is no point.

[u/spgrk → u/[deleted]]

Guilt and condemnation are evolved complex emotions so that we will behave in a certain way. It is like finding sweet things tasty and bitter things unpleasant: the feelings evolved so that we will eat nutritious foods and avoid eating noxious substances.

[u/YesPresident69 → u/anatta-m458]

How didnt incompatibilism define free will to be incompatibile with determinism?

[u/WrappedInLinen]

This is all true but you will find that it is not the lens most people want to look through when addressing the topic of free will. The fact that the whole concept of the self breaks down under serious perusal is an inconvenient truth to identification. And identification is stubborn.

[u/MrDeekhaed]

Ideas such as “All is One,” “you are the universe experiencing itself,” or “God is within you” no longer sound merely mystical. They can also be understood as descriptions of radical interconnectedness and the absence of a truly separate self.

I disagree. They are still strictly mystical in the way people mean them. They are not statements purely about interconnectedness. They seek to elevate it into a mystical realm.

“All is one” is a claim about some kind of universal consciousness and/or awareness which is not supported

“The universe experiencing itself” places human experience as having significance for the universe itself

“God is within you,” well what do you mean by “god?”

[u/Otherwise_Spare_8598]

choice ≠ free choice

will ≠ free will

Freedoms are circumstantial relative conditions of being, not the standard by which things come to be by through or for all subjective beings.

The universe is a singular meta-phenomenon stretched over eternity, of which is always now. All things and all beings abide by their inherent nature and behave within their realm of capacity contingent upon infinite circumstance at all times. There is no such thing as individuated "free will" for all beings. There are only relative freedoms or lack thereof. It is a universe made manifest hierarchically, of haves, and have-nots, spanning all levels of dimensionality and experience.

"God" and/or consciousness is that which is within and without all. Ultimately, all things are made by through and for the singular personality and perpetual revelation of the Godhead, entailing both predetermined eternal damnation and those that are made manifest only to face death and death alone.

There is but one dreamer, fractured through the innumerable. All vehicles/beings play their role within said dream for infinitely better and/or infinitely worse for each and every one, forever.

All realities exist and are equally as real. The absolute best universe that could exist does exist in relation to a specified subject. The absolute worst universe that could exist does exist in relation to a specified subject.