@Hippyhead. So what is the extent to which or the matters in which you do have free will?

A lottery ticket and the winner is determined! Wow!
A dice throw is determined? Counterfactuals regret or deciding choosing are all meaningless language!!!
Beware of dogmatic words and concepts that have no relation to human experience,and I daresay Common Sense.

Yes, because all the actions done by the production and lottery company, and the store, and all the workers, and shipment, lead for that lottery ticket to be there, and his conditions, his inability to control his wants, his past experiences and actions lead him to buying that specific lottery ticket. — Augustusea

Done by human action using their free will... somewhere down the line there's some guy doing what he wanted to just because. The guy who created the lottery company chose to do so? The workers chose to work in said store versus another? The shipping company founder chose to start up the company?

Well, and I can gather the response already, say he literally flipped a coin one day and decided to either spend his last extra entertainment money either on renting a movie or buying a lottery ticket. That coin flip- and nothing else- literally determined him buying the lottery ticket. I suppose we'll say it's literally the exact amount of force used as determined by whatever circumstance determined his mood at the time of flipping... that determined precisely how many times the coin would flip and what side it would land on, yeah?

I dunno... sure. Every cause has to have an effect. We're getting into the territory of refuting Newton's Laws of Motion at that point. But human will generally determined things again if not somewhere down the line. I think that's what we're forgetting.

Other people's free will determines other people's choices. Agree or disagree and why?

Bonus: Thoughts on the butterfly effect concept and resulting book and later movie?

Yes, determinism 101, a huge pile of bunk. — Hippyhead

Of course it is.

To say that we have no control over anything we do implies equally that we have no control over anything we think or say. Thought epitomizes the awareness of the exercise of the freedom of will (Descates: Nor, moreover, can I complain that God has not given me freedom of choice, or a will sufficiently ample and perfect, since, in truth, I am conscious of will so ample and extended as to be superior to all limits.)

Determinism is valid within the constraints of closed systems, but whether there actually are completely closed systems in nature is dubious. Certainly the universe in toto isn't one. The idea of a universal determinism is self-contradictory, since it eliminates the possibility of the thinking mind that presents it.

Determinism is just an incoherent dogma. A restatement of the religious doctrine of predestination.
If things can only be one fixed way,how to account for diversity movement creativity novelty art?
If a mind can ponder over the question are we free or determined and decide or Express we Are free then what happened to determinism? Determinism cannot explain Individuality or diversity.
And causation,if everything has something causing its behaviour what is the first cause and why could there not be multiple causes?
And how do you identify primary causes? Obviously through the
Individual intellect. Thus showing the intellect is a primary
cause of understanding. Irrefutably so.

Determinism is just an incoherent dogma. A restatement of the religious doctrine of predestination.
If things can only be one fixed way,how to account for diversity movement creativity novelty art?
If a mind can ponder over the question are we free or determined and decide or Express we Are free then what happened to determinism? Determinism cannot explain Individuality or diversity.
And causation,if everything has something causing its behaviour what is the first cause and why could there not be multiple causes?
And how do you identify primary causes? Obviously through the
Individual intellect. Thus showing the intellect is a primary
cause of understanding. Irrefutably so. — Asif

I've always thought so. Bemuses me though the number of people who are willing to argue that they are logically incapable of....arguing.

Determinism is just an incoherent dogma — Asif

There's truth in it, up to a point. But college sophomore types sometimes try to exaggerate it in to a kind of universally binding principle applicable to every situation, mistaking drama for philosophy. There's no crime in that, and we've all been there I bet.

But if we're going to join threads started by people in trouble, maybe we should strive to make constructive suggestions, observations and comments etc? If a poster wishes to tell us that we're all doomed and there's nothing we can do etc, perhaps they should start their own threads for that?

@Pantagruel Yep! I suspect science philosophy and religion have scared these folks from expressing the fact they actually express!
Its like asking for proof that I exist.
The bedrock of logic has to be our free ability to think and decide. Seems extremely obvious....

@Hippyhead I do agree the thread could be split from the original post. I did leave a message to the first poster and hope everything is good. Maybe the determinism discussion might help them?
I feel the concept of determinism or laws of nature as is commonly used is very misleading and inaccurate.
But I get some people use it as a rough shorthand or jargon.

But if we're going to join threads started by people in trouble, maybe we should strive to make constructive suggestions, observations and comments etc? If a poster wishes to tell us that we're all doomed and there's nothing we can do etc, perhaps they should start their own threads for that? — Hippyhead

Obviously we should always act with compassion. But this isn't a therapy forum. If you ask a question about suicide on a philosophy forum then you should expect philosophical information. Suicide is primarily an "affective" thought pattern. So to me, bringing suicide up here suggests a desire to learn something new, to counter affect with reason. That's why I brought up Durkheim: he contextualizes suicide as a social phenomenon, providing an avenue to potential insights, and lessening the sense of isolation that invariably accompanies suicidal ideation. I've been there myself. As close to all the way there as you can get and still be around to write about it (i.e. I was revived).

The bedrock of logic has to be our free ability to think and decide. — Asif

:up:

Obviously we should always act with compassion — Pantagruel

My complaint, which I don't want to get too carried away with, is that selling pessimism in a thread about suicide doesn't really qualify as compassion. That said, I will agree that it's very common on philosophy forums for a poster to start some personally dramatic thread like this, and then vanish. So I guess if they have abandoned the turf then it no longer belongs to them.

If you ask a question about suicide on a philosophy forum then you should expect philosophical information. — Pantagruel

Fair enough. But hopefully, if life and death is on the line, one would hopefully receive better philosophical information than has been made available here.

If a poster wished to claim that death is better than life, and then act on that conclusion themselves thus making their claim credible, then ok, that's a claim that really can't be challenged and they have every right to it.

Otherwise is seems reasonable to proceed upon the assumption that life is better than death, if for no other reason than that is a screaming demand built in to our bodies at a very fundamental level. Should we be willing to accept such an assumption as a valid way to proceed, then the rational act is to fill the thread with constructive ideas of how suffering can be alleviated, to the degree that is possible.

Although I agree I have failed at this, as I so often do, the constructive insight I've been attempting to share is this.

Suffering is made of thought.

Five words, which open a door to very accessible (partial and imperfect) solutions to any serious person. The problem we face here, is that there appear to be no serious folks in this thread, but only honking blowhards such as myself. :-) It's a "get what you pay for" deal here folks! :-)

Suffering is made of thought. — Hippyhead

Yes, I advocate and practise a Stoic-Buddhist philosophy of life. Very much begins with this insight.

Yes, I advocate and practise a Stoic-Buddhist philosophy of life. Very much begins with this insight. — Pantagruel

Ok then, so we could rehabilitate this thread with that if you wish. Or start another thread on the subject perhaps? Or let it go. Agreeable to any of the above.

Ok then, so we could rehabilitate this thread with that if you wish. Or start another thread on the subject perhaps? Or let it go. Agreeable to any of the above. — Hippyhead

Hmmm. Well, vis a vis pessimism and free-will I can share this.

My wife's cousin came for a visit with her four year old son. She's a corporate lawyer, very intelligent, but also with some palpable anxiety issues, which are manifested a lot around her son. As we talked, she started to relate some events, her worry responses were coming up as a theme, and eventually she said to me, "I guess I am a pessimist." So I said, and are you a pessimist by choice?

That stopped her cold. She thought about it and thought about it, then we didn't really go any further. When she got home she emailed my wife, and mentioned that she was still thinking about that question.

Sartre has a conception of radical freedom, that we are free even to the point of not having to follow our own already developed patterns of thought and action. I embraced this conception a long time ago, and I implemented it. There were social things, for example, that I didn't do because I didn't like them. So I decided just to make an intellectual decision and to do them. And the more I did this, the easier it became. Like anything, if you do it enough it becomes a habit. So by embracing the idea of my own limitless freedom, I found it easier and easier to make positive choices, even when these were contrary to my own "inclinations."

So if we are pessimistic, I'd suggest that is by choice. And if we recognize that, then it becomes possible to make a different choice.

So if we are pessimistic, I'd suggest that is by choice — Pantagruel

My sense is that the answer lies somewhere in the muddled inconvenient middle. If true, this is not likely to be a popular theory with philosophers as it would then be difficult to strike some bold pose, a favorite pastime of we world leading philosophers peeps. :-)

I have a friend who was literally born hysterical. Not a choice. But she's also a MAJOR spoiled brat, which she mostly shares only around people she knows will put up with it. A choice. Her biological situation and her psychological situation are meshed together in a complex manner which seems impossible to untangle. So you never really know whether you should be compassionate with her, or hit her upside of the head with a phone book. :-)

I think the determinists have a reasonable point to a degree, but some of some just take it to ridiculous extremes.

My only counter would be, if you really feel that you have not the power of the freedom of choice, you are pathologically impaired in some sense and probably should seek professional assistance (which would be the "free choice of last resort") Some people are broken, and most likely that was environmentally caused (organic pathologies aside). Even recognizing that something impacted you this way can relieve some of the suffering (it's not entirely your fault). I've seen the inside of enough therapeutic systems to know this is a common strategy. Assuming full responsibility is the other approach.

if you really feel that you have not the power of the freedom of choice, you are pathologically impaired in some sense — Pantagruel

You're making the same error as the determinists. Are you proposing that I have freedom of choice about EVERYTHING? They exaggerate in one direction, you exaggerate in the opposite direction.

You're making the same error as the determinists. Are you proposing that I have freedom of choice about EVERYTHING? They exaggerate in one direction, you exaggerate in the opposite direction. — Hippyhead

I totally believe that not everyone is capable of enacting free choice to the same extent. Even though "theoretically" everyone does have the same capacity. I've lived the life of being trapped within my own inability to exercise the full power of my free choices; and I've experienced the opposite.

If you FEEL that you are trapped by the inability to exercise free choice, then obviously there IS a problem. You alone make that call.

If a general gives a private an immoral order, is the private free to disobey? You are the general of your own mind.

I have to agree with @Pantagruel here. We are the general of our minds. It's your attitude to your ability to Express your freedom that is the prime factor. Of course as said above traumatic experiences can hinder you but still it's only your own personal responsibility and attitude that stops you being freer. @Hippyhead

You are the general of your own mind — Pantagruel

Just more simplistic exaggeration to make a point which sounds dramatic, confusing dramatic with philosophical. Ok, I'll leave you and the determinists in peace now. Perhaps we'll have more luck on another subject.

Sure, it can be a touchy subject, no doubt about it!

It's not touchy. It's boring. The wild exaggerations in any and every direction so as to strike a bold pose. Blatant disregard of common sense. College sophomore stuff. But, if a poster actually is a college sophomore, then ok, everything has it's time and place.

@Hippyhead I fail to see how saying a person has free will and is in charge of their mind isnt eminent common sense? Nor is it in any way exaggerated. There are varying subjectivities but everyone is responsible for their actions.

If one is physically hungry, it's more rational to go to the kitchen and make some food than it is to bemoan the chronic need to eat which nobody chose, and nobody can do anything about. — Hippyhead

Needing and wanting and all the underlying desires that go into that. All the work needed to sustain. There are literally billions and billions of interactions of the economy, all based on our demands to sustain things like "going to the kitchen to get some food".

In your scenario where birth is acceptable, people are meant to play the need and want game, to overcome challenges necessary to sustain needs and wants, etc. You think this is okay to force someone else into. The outcome for my scenario where no one is born, is that no one is forced to play the "overcome challenges" game. No one is alive to care if they are deprived of some "good" that supposedly comes from it either. Win/win.

My argument is that it's not rational to declare "life equals suffering" until all these constructive remedies have been explored. — Hippyhead

I have thousands of posts on here discussing just that. I call it necessary suffering (the dissatisfaction of the human animal,, becoming but rarely being) with contingent suffering (the suffering based on circumstances of time/place, but is also inevitable nonetheless).

Necessary and contingent suffering can be avoided by simply not having new people. Once born, for those who understand the situation rather than simply live it out without this understanding, may find consolation in community. Thus that was part of my solution that there is catharsis in understanding the situation with others of likemind, if one sees the picture this way.

Just because we are born, doesn't mean that everything about life must be acceptable. It is simply the case that we are born and must live it out or not. By living it out, we are not accepting, but dealing with the situation and making do. This life is not a paradise or utopia. We can imagine a universe that is, even knowing it doesn't exist.

I fail to see how saying a person has free will and is in charge of their mind isnt eminent common sense? Nor is it in any way exaggerated. — Asif

It's exaggerated to turn free will, or determinism, in to a principle that applies to everything. Some things we have free will for, somethings are determined, and there are a billion combinations of the above. Common sense.

@Hippyhead Well,this principle definately applies to humans.
I'm always careful not to make a principle of compromise or ",the mean or middle way is the truth".
There should never even have been a serious concept of determinism. Even for matter it lacks nuance.

Even for matter it lacks nuance. — Asif

Quite. R.G Collingwood says philosophy is a "poem of the intellect." I also recently read a comment that what substantiates a metaphysical theory is its "elegance"....

@Pantagruel I couldn't agree more! Poetry is the most elegant and accurate description of reality and human Intellect. No wonder plato and muhammed hated poets!
The truth hurts the ideologue and propagandist!
Poetry is the most sublime Logic.
Poetry is the true Phenomenology.

Done by human action using their free will — Outlander

Nope, their actions were determined too, and you keep going back, for it all to be determined.

omewhere down the line there's some guy doing what he wanted to just because. The guy who created the lottery company chose to do so? The workers chose to work in said store versus another? The shipping company founder chose to start up the company? — Outlander

Choice is an illusion as I illustrated, in order to choose you must want to choose that specific thing, you cannot control your wants, or outside forces, so you truly have no free will of your own here.

Well, and I can gather the response already, say he literally flipped a coin one day and decided to either spend his last extra entertainment money either on renting a movie or buying a lottery ticket. That coin flip- and nothing else- literally determined him buying the lottery ticket. I suppose we'll say it's literally the exact amount of force used as determined by whatever circumstance determined his mood at the time of flipping... that determined precisely how many times the coin would flip and what side it would land on, yeah? — Outlander

a coin flip, would be interesting to say the least, here he didn't actually choose himself, the coin chose for him, he still doesn't have free will, meaning it's still determined.

I dunno... sure. Every cause has to have an effect. We're getting into the territory of refuting Newton's Laws of Motion at that point. But human will generally determined things again if not somewhere down the line. I think that's what we're forgetting. — Outlander

I personally don't believe there is any randomness to any living beings actions,
because in order for an action to be truly free it has to not be affected by anything else, not even the self,

The thing I explained about wants defeats any notion of such, since you have to want to do something in order to do it, otherwise you're forced to do it, but one could say, there may have been, a totally random action, however improbable, that was done once, not affected by anything, and that action would have been different if we went back in time, it would prove some randomness, although it wouldn't prove free will, because free will requires an agent of it.

Other people's free will determines other people's choices. Agree or disagree and why?

Bonus: Thoughts on the butterfly effect concept and resulting book and later movie? — Outlander

Hmm I agree kind of, I would say other people's determined actions determine other people's actions to and so on, this would be Hard determinism.

The Butterfly effect is a really interesting concept, one that is deterministic, and perhaps has truth, everything down the line will determine other actions and condition many other things, its like the domino effect, just more complex.
I've never read the book personally, as for the movie it was a 6/10 for me.