So I stumbled upon Kristor’s post on free will, which was a response to Alrenous’ earlier post titled ‘free will is analytically impossible‘. Both talk about free will and both come to opposing conclusions.
Alrenous concludes that “the desire for ‘free will’ is an evopsych thing, not a philosophy thing. It’s about not being in physical chains. It’s about my values not being overridden by someone else’s. Not being in logical/causal chains is impossible.” Ergo there is not such thing as free will.
Kristor concludes “with the opposite notion: that we do really act; that our wanting and so our willing is free; that it is, truly, ours, and not that of some other; and that it is not merely a determinate logical function of its causal antecedents.” Ergo there is such a thing as free will.
Here’s my 2 cents: they’re both right as long as they respect Gnon. Alrenous’ analysis fits that prerequisite slightly better because he explicitly mentions the chains of nature and forces us to acknowledge that we are stuck in them. Kristor is also right but struggles in his explanation. In my opinion his distinction between ‘wanting’ and ‘doing’ is semantical. You do what you do and you want what you want.
Still Kristor is right because free will is whatever you believe it to be. Philosophers have hit a brick wall on the concept. Theology > philosophy. “Free will” has no use in a scientific discussion because there is no freedom in an unfree world. A problem can not be solved on the same level it was created. Do I have free will? Yes because X! No because Y! Either answer is unfalsifiable. The same thing goes for concepts like destiny, kharma and the existence of your soul. Real? False? Who knows. Unfalsifiable. Believe whatever you believe.
Of course I solve this problem by thinking of all those words as synonyms for God. But that’s me.