"A man can do what he wills, but not will what he wills," — Janus

I agree.

I like this, and agree with the spirit of it, but it's not necessarily literally true - you can want something, but also will not to want it, and turn that will into reality. People who, for example, fight their own addictions can be argued to be doing that.

The reason I agree with the spirit of it, though, is because that higher level drive over your wants isn't infinite, in the way recursive self authorship might require it to be. Eventually, you go back far enough, you're dealing with wants that you didn't choose to want.

Women do that for us to save us the bother thankfully! :D

you can want something, but also will not to want it, and turn that will into reality. — flannel jesus

Yes, but that's just another will you can't will. The stronger will will win.

yeah that's what I was getting at in my second paragraph

I would be happy to be proven wrong. — Truth Seeker

If you are the only one who could do that for yourself, what does it mean to appeal to others?

If you are the only one who could do that for yourself, what does it mean to appeal to others? — Paine

We all make choices, but our choices are never free from determinants (genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences), constraints and consequences. — Truth Seeker

How would I prove myself wrong about the above statement of mine? The statement is based on a lifetime of introspection, observations, studying and research. Why would I be the only one who could prove myself wrong?

If you are satisfied by your own efforts, what is the purpose of seeking validation from others?

what is there when all past experiences are pointed?

Some theists might push it onto God. But I do still believe that if you think divinely guided evolution because of which we are rational beings is right, then that also robs us of free-will as we are robbed of the capability to be irrational, specifically if you use it as an appeal that we should always be able to trust our rationality.

I am not seeking validation from others. I am simply curious about what others think. I don't require anyone to agree with me about anything.

"The will" is a misnomer and it certainly isn't free. The will is a word which almalgamates a number or even all our drives and forces behind an action into a single easy to use word/idea. Freedom of will may perhaps come down to whether one is strong enough to overcome harmful compulsions.

I think you have this backwards, it should be “Determinants, constraints, consequences are never free from our choices.” Why? Because we are free to think otherwise. And in fact, we do.

↪Truth Seeker I like this, and agree with the spirit of it, but it's not necessarily literally true - you can want something, but also will not to want it, and turn that will into reality. People who, for example, fight their own addictions can be argued to be doing that. — flannel jesus

It seems to me that's not willing not to want the addiction. It seems like choosing one or more wants (to be healthy; to be strong; to not have your life destroyed, and eventually ended, by a drug/gambling/whatever) over another want (the addicting)?

I think you have this backwards, it should be “Determinants, constraints, consequences are never free from our choices.” Why? Because we are free to think otherwise. And in fact, we do. — Richard B

Our choices are not free from the determinants i.e. genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. These variables not only determine our choices, they even constrain them. You can prove me wrong by instantly becoming fluent in a language you have never learned - it's an impossible task, or by going back in time and changing the past at will, or by becoming all-knowing and all-powerful at will. We can have delusional beliefs, but even they are not free from the determinants.

choosing them over the other want, to the point that you.. maybe... want to destroy the want? And then act to destroy the want? And then sometimes succeed?

All these question marks are making me sound very sassy. Let me say it without all the sass.

Many people who overcome addiction literally want not to want some of their wants, and destroy those wants through deliberate action.

Pretty much what I'm saying. One want overpowering another want. I wasn't sure how you meant it.

you started with "seems to me that's not willing not to want the addiction". I don't think I agree with that opening sentence. You are willing not to want something.

I wouldn't phrase it as "willing not to want the addiction", the addiction is the want, so if someone's addicted to cigarettes it would be "willing not to want cigarettes".

You said "you can want something, but also will not to want it". It's competing wants, and one overrides the other.

I wonder in what cases any want is actually destroyed. I often hear ex-smokers say they miss it every day. It's the want to be healthier overriding the want of the cigarette, every single day. And multiple times every day. The want for the cigarette is never gone.

yeah maybe it's particularly rare to entirely destroy the want just through will.

Doesn't mean you can't want not to want something, can't will not to want something, even if it might be true that that's not always achievable.

And yes it does come down to competing wants.

I guess I'm just not sure of how you're using the word "will". If you don't use the word, does it change the meaning?
"You want to not want something."
"You will to not want something."

Maybe this discussion doesn't come up about things we only want, and don't also not want? Like health. We only want health. We don't want to not want health. The wanting to not want is only for the thing we're addicted to that prevents health, which we never don't want.

Is "will" better than "want" anywhere in that paragraph?

I guess I'm just not sure of how you're using the word "will". If you don't use the word, does it change the meaning?
"You want to not want something."
"You will to not want something." — Patterner

Without looking into the deep deep library of philosophical writings, I would say "want" is something kinda passive, and "will" is when you have a want and you actually do something about it.

Passively wanting to stop smoking is one thing, but actively taking steps to counter your addiction is another. That's the difference between want and will, to me, speaking semi-casually.

We don't want to not want health.

I can <kinda> probably think of a counter example, and would bet that my counter-example exists in reality. You want to hear it?

Without looking into the deep deep library of philosophical writings, I would say "want" is something kinda passive, and "will" is when you have a want and you actually do something about it.

Passively wanting to stop smoking is one thing, but actively taking steps to counter your addiction is another. That's the difference between want and will, to me, speaking semi-casually. — flannel jesus

That makes sense.

I can <kinda> probably think of a counter example, and would bet that my counter-example exists in reality. You want to hear it? — flannel jesus

Well what else am I here for?!? :grin:

I don't believe you see the absurdity of your belief in determinism but let us try.

Assertion #1, I assert that I am free from such determinants.

Assertion #2, You assert that you are not free from such determinants.

However as a consequence of determinism, the explanation for both assertions is dependent on prior determinants, genes, environment, law of nature, etc.

No problem so far. But which is true, which is proven? Neither, fundamentally they are not a consequence of rationale justification, but consequences of laws of nature, etc. Truth is a casualty of causation.

My belief that I am a free agent and your belief that you are not is not a consequence of rationale demonstration but a consequence of causation. This conflict cannot be resolved by appealing to determinism and causation.

But a more appealing position is we are free agents that develop rationale arguments based on logic and evidence, and then decide which is more convincing.

In this argument, I assume I am a free agent that can construct such arguments, and as a free agent I decide to conclude "I am a free agent"

someone with a chronic illness may spend a lot of their time envying people with health, may spend hours each day in maladaptive daydreams imagining they were more healthy. Eventually they may realise that what they're doing isn't the best way for them to live, and they may choose to chase a more Buddhist approach - it's the Buddhists who say that want is the source of suffering, right? So they may become interested more in acceptance of their health and body and life as it is, rather than wanting more of it, more of what other people have.

If you are a free agent, please prove that you are a free agent whose choices are not determined and constrained by doing the following tasks:

1. By instantly becoming fluent at will in all the languages you have never learned.
2. By going back in time at will and preventing all suffering, injustice, and death.
3. By becoming all-knowing and all-powerful at will.
4. By beheading yourself and growing your head and brain back at will, the way planarians grow their head and brain back.

We can have delusional beliefs, but even they are not free from the determinants: genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.

Here is a thread I recommend that you read: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15933/what-is-real-how-do-we-know-what-is-real