Free Will

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

The origins of freewill is irrelevant for the fact and importance is that it is present currently................still allowing us the freedom of choice.

It is of no importance if this freewill was bestowed upon us because we have freewill presently.

Why is that? Thats like saying just because we exist doesnt mean its important to know ways to help pregnant women remain safe and healthy. Just because i exist doesnt mean its irrelevent learning how i was brought into existence. Thats total ignorance to the fact.

It is important to judge all together what you wish to imply by free-will if you do in fact believe some almighty creator gave us the power of free-will then it is no longer free-will, but a requirement and condemnation for that supreme being to give the power of choice upon me. It makes the argument entirely thoroughly inexplicit to the concept that even though god created everything it deliberately condemned me to make choices and condemned me to question him. That makes no sense to me and i see in no way how you wish to continue debating with that super-philosophy.

If you speak of the idea that freedom is a condemnation then it is of course consisting this argument upon the level that god made that condemnation. If this were so it would no longer be freedom considering you constitute free-will into a basis of your argument that was given to us by god. It would make the condemnation of freedom a more thorough explanation of the condemnation to not be in gods grace since by our free-will we question god who as the supreme being gave us the power to choose between it and not believing in it. Unless god wishes for us, if it existed to go to hell when we decide to not worship him, then i find that god would be like a chess player killing off his pawns. We would be mere toys to that creator. Such and idea that comes from the creationist theory of free-will is heartless, for i would like to think i wasnt a mere play-thing for something.

The condemnation of freedom does not constitute god, and the free-will that it gains from this condemnation are not alterations of some supreme being. It is free-will because i realize through the concept that i did not choose to exist, i must in this case choose what i do with my existence. It is through the concept that i realize god does not exist and that i am the soul proprietor of my life making me the free-will i wish to personify. I contain a "nothingness" of capablity for that free will to be expressed. God is not a factor in the argument.

If also you wish to personify your free-will i would wish to include the fact that with free-will comes to thought that even if god did exist, it would not matter. Why would someone with free-will wish to accept god when they are the only thing controlling themselves in existence? It would, especially in existentialist, and post-modernist cases that this is the fact that many atheistic philosophers that can be associated with these fields find god irrelevent to the individual because through free-will we learn we are the only thing controlling our life....making god totally irrelevent to our existence...we realize our life is a contingency upon ourselves, not upon the set rules and naturalities that god created us for. The irrelevency of god to an atheist comes from this realization of freedom, which negates your argument in the favor of the individual over the god. I dont see why a god would give free-will to its worshippers when those worshippers realize this free-will makes them souly responsible. Again this would make the contingent idea of god(your contingent idea) mediocre compaired to myself...who having full responsibility, is the only proprietor capable of creating my destiny.

 

[ManOfTheAmish]

Why is that? Thats like saying just because we exist doesnt mean its important to know ways to help pregnant women remain safe and healthy. Just because i exist doesnt mean its irrelevent learning how i was brought into existence. Thats total ignorance to the fact.

It is important to judge all together what you wish to imply by free-will if you do in fact believe some almighty creator gave us the power of free-will then it is no longer free-will, but a requirement and condemnation for that supreme being to give the power of choice upon me. It makes the argument entirely thoroughly inexplicit to the concept that even though god created everything it deliberately condemned me to make choices and condemned me to question him. That makes no sense to me and i see in no way how you wish to continue debating with that super-philosophy.

If you speak of the idea that freedom is a condemnation then it is of course consisting this argument upon the level that god made that condemnation. If this were so it would no longer be freedom considering you constitute free-will into a basis of your argument that was given to us by god. It would make the condemnation of freedom a more thorough explanation of the condemnation to not be in gods grace since by our free-will we question god who as the supreme being gave us the power to choose between it and not believing in it. Unless god wishes for us, if it existed to go to hell when we decide to not worship him, then i find that god would be like a chess player killing off his pawns. We would be mere toys to that creator. Such and idea that comes from the creationist theory of free-will is heartless, for i would like to think i wasnt a mere play-thing for something.

The condemnation of freedom does not constitute god, and the free-will that it gains from this condemnation are not alterations of some supreme being. It is free-will because i realize through the concept that i did not choose to exist, i must in this case choose what i do with my existence. It is through the concept that i realize god does not exist and that i am the soul proprietor of my life making me the free-will i wish to personify. I contain a "nothingness" of capablity for that free will to be expressed. God is not a factor in the argument.

If also you wish to personify your free-will i would wish to include the fact that with free-will comes to thought that even if god did exist, it would not matter. Why would someone with free-will wish to accept god when they are the only thing controlling themselves in existence? It would, especially in existentialist, and post-modernist cases that this is the fact that many atheistic philosophers that can be associated with these fields find god irrelevent to the individual because through free-will we learn we are the only thing controlling our life....making god totally irrelevent to our existence...we realize our life is a contingency upon ourselves, not upon the set rules and naturalities that god created us for. The irrelevency of god to an atheist comes from this realization of freedom, which negates your argument in the favor of the individual over the god. I dont see why a god would give free-will to its worshippers when those worshippers realize this free-will makes them souly responsible. Again this would make the contingent idea of god(your contingent idea) mediocre compaired to myself...who having full responsibility, is the only proprietor capable of creating my destiny.

There is things outside of your control and it seems that you have trouble meeting these things in your exaltation of your own self as being the only true God in your own sense.

The things outside of your own control would be the things of nature or creation coinciding with natural law that your selfhood is intricately dependent on beyond your exaltation of yourself.

In the views of naturalism I accept my fate being totally independent on freewill of all my day to day choices but I also accept the fact that there are intricate natural limitations on me from all of creation too.

The difference between myself and you is that I see this natural creation that spawned all of existance as God with yourself seeing such things as mere unknowable phenomena.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

There is things outside of your control and it seems that you have trouble meeting these things in your exaltation of your own self as being the only true God in your own sense.

The things outside of your own control would be the things of nature or creation coinciding with natural law that your selfhood is intricately dependent on beyond your exaltation of yourself.

In the views of naturalism I accept my fate being totally independent on freewill of all my day to day choices but I also accept the fact that there are intricate natural limitations on me from all of creation too.

The difference between myself and you is that I see this natural creation that spawned all of existance as God with yourself seeing such things as mere unknowable phenomena.

Not unknowable, scientifcally and philosophically observed phenomena. Life is viewed through the action of phenomena of being. Unknowable phenomena are known as myths and legends, which bring superstition for your information. And i can assure you that i do not see superstition and myth nor does anyone else. I still dont understand how you are arguing my statement, your merely stating your opinion not bringing up proof to your statement so as i may retort in a better and thorough account that does not coincide with mere degeneration of your statements. If you would be so kind to elaborate on your claims of free-will based upon the almighty creator i would be glad to constitute better statements, but i still as said before see no reason why to explain myself when you are yet to explain how free-will is still in fact free when it is placed upon me by another individual. If you had said i was "condemned to be free" and not "condemned to have free-will" i would of argued about how the condemnation of freedom is something that we realize, not actually condemned to us.

 

[ManOfTheAmish]

not unknowable, scientifcally and philosophically observed phenomena. Life is viewed through the action of phenomena of being. I still dont understand how you are arguing my statement, your merely stating your opinion not bringing up proof to your statement so as i may retort in a better and thorough account that does not coincide with mere degeneration of your statements.

Like anything of the human perception even these scientifical,philosophical studies are in a state of incompletion in knowing existance by the full limitation of the human condition because man in the beginning of time has started from zero and in man's own birth presently man also starts from zero in his perception of the world.

By chance even if we keep our search for the immortal question I am sure you are familiar with Kurt Godel's theorem of physics that speaks of the incompletion of mathmatical knowledge or knowledge itself and such a incompletion not only goes for a quantitative structure like that of mathmatics but it also goes for the qualitative structure of faith.

Also there is more to life than observed phenomena beyond empirical or materialistic ways of perception.

Are you at all familiar with transcendentalism? The tenets of transcendentalism even says such and I also believe such a belief is in no contradiction with the belief of existentialism just look at Soren Kierkegaard.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Like anything of the human perception even these scientifical,philosophical studies are in a state of incompletion in knowing existance by the full limitation of the human condition because man in the beginning of time has started from zero and in man's own birth presently man also starts from zero in his perception of the world.

By chance even if we keep our search for the immortal question I am sure you are familiar with Kurt Godel's theorem of physics that speaks of the incompletion of mathmatical knowledge or knowledge itself and such a incompletion not only goes for a quantitative structure like that of mathmatics but it also goes for the qualitative structure of faith.

Also there is more to life than observed phenomena beyond empirical or materialistic ways of perception.

Are you at all familiar with transcendentalism? The tenets of transcendentalism even says such and I also believe such a belief is in no contradiction with the belief of existentialism just look at Soren Kierkegaard.

Yes im aware of transcendentalism. And no, its very aware that life is directly observed by the action of the individuals and persistent existent's in existence. We cannot for instance observe a rock in its present fact, but of the phenomenon of reflection of the rock in our consciousness onto our consciousness. I cannot for instance observe myself, but must see a mirror to observe myself.

Existentialism is not a belief, but a reproach against belief in the belief that non-belief is the gateway to consideration and freedom. We deny such institutions and labels that create traditional philosophy. It is a philosophy of anti-tradition.

Man may start from zero, as you stated but the perceptablity of non-existent instincts and naturalities allow us to learn, we make the choice, through the condemnation of freedom, to learn.

How can you say then, if these philosophical and scientifically concieved notions are incomplete in their perceptablity of existence, not only in physical existence, but also of the un-deterministic states of the consciousness through metaphysics? How has faith even come close to these considerations and values, and how has the bible completed the contributions you say philosophy and more so the logical reasoning required to understand metaphysics of the consciousness and of the individual in general along with the physical structure and physical capabilities of the consciousness and how it affects the individual in existence? I dont understand how you concieve faith to be a center more so in the study that free-will based upon such an infinite idea such as god and how it is still free-will despite the fact it is not in actuality free anymore in your argument, but merely a condemnation of free-will which is no longer possible to your definition of free-will.

 

[ManOfTheAmish]

Yes im aware of transcendentalism. And no, its very aware that life is directly observed by the action of the individuals and persistent existent's in existence. We cannot for instance observe a rock in its present fact, but of the phenomenon of reflection of the rock in our consciousness onto our consciousness. I cannot for instance observe myself, but must see a mirror to observe myself.

Existentialism is not a belief, but a reproach against belief in the belief that non-belief is the gateway to consideration and freedom. We deny such institutions and labels that create traditional philosophy. It is a philosophy of anti-tradition.

Man may start from zero, as you stated but the perceptablity of non-existent instincts and naturalities allow us to learn, we make the choice, through the condemnation of freedom, to learn.

How can you say then, if these philosophical and scientifically concieved notions are incomplete in their perceptablity of existence, not only in physical existence, but also of the un-deterministic states of the consciousness through metaphysics? How has faith even come close to these considerations and values, and how has the bible completed the contributions you say philosophy and more so the logical reasoning required to understand metaphysics of the consciousness and of the individual in general along with the physical structure and physical capabilities of the consciousness and how it affects the individual in existence? I dont understand how you concieve faith to be a center more so in the study that free-will based upon such an infinite idea such as god and how it is still free-will despite the fact it is not in actuality free anymore in your argument, but merely a condemnation of free-will which is no longer possible to your definition of free-will.

Yes im aware of transcendentalism. And no, its very aware that life is directly observed by the action of the individuals and persistent existent's in existence. We cannot for instance observe a rock in its present fact, but of the phenomenon of reflection of the rock in our consciousness onto our consciousness. I cannot for instance observe myself, but must see a mirror to observe myself.

Are you aware of religious forms of beliefs centered around philosophical transcendentalism?

Existentialism is not a belief, but a reproach against belief in the belief that non-belief is the gateway to consideration and freedom. We deny such institutions and labels that create traditional philosophy. It is a philosophy of anti-tradition.

There are religious forms of existentialism as well.

Existentialism was never meant to be utilize as a tool against all human beliefs and it certainly wasn't meant to destroy religion as deeming itself a better alternative.

I find people who use such forms in the name of existentialism to be rather unnecessarily extreme.

Man may start from zero, as you stated but the perceptablity of non-existent instincts and naturalities allow us to learn, we make the choice, through the condemnation of freedom, to learn.

To me freedom and freewill are one.

How can you say then, if these philosophical and scientifically concieved notions are incomplete in their perceptablity of existence, not only in physical existence, but also of the un-deterministic states of the consciousness through metaphysics? How has faith even come close to these considerations and values, and how has the bible completed the contributions you say philosophy and more so the logical reasoning required to understand metaphysics of the consciousness and of the individual in general along with the physical structure and physical capabilities of the consciousness and how it affects the individual in existence?

Spiritual transcendentalism and existentialism.

I dont understand how you concieve faith to be a center more so in the study that free-will based upon such an infinite idea such as god and how it is still free-will despite the fact it is not in actuality free anymore in your argument, but merely a condemnation of free-will which is no longer possible to your definition of free-will.

What do you mean?

 

[Aradia]

It is important to judge all together what you wish to imply by free-will if you do in fact believe some almighty creator gave us the power of free-will then it is no longer free-will, but a requirement and condemnation for that supreme being to give the power of choice upon me. It makes the argument entirely thoroughly inexplicit to the concept that even though god created everything it deliberately condemned me to make choices and condemned me to question him. That makes no sense to me and i see in no way how you wish to continue debating with that super-philosophy.

Your parents deliberately condemned you to exist. Do you lash out at them in the same way?

Give it up. You would decry god whether he gave you free will, or made all of your actions predetermined. You just want to decry god for no particular reason.

 

[quatona]

The reason of free will is to choose our own purpose in the eyes of God or not.........

And this serves which purpose and whose purpose is that?

What exactly to you would be a better alternative then free will?

No "freewill".

 

[quatona]

Your parents deliberately condemned you to exist. Do you lash out at them in the same way?

Nobody ever has claimed that my parents were perfect, omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

My parents acted within given conditions; such conditions allegedly didn´t exist when god created.

Give it up. You would decry god whether he gave you free will, or made all of your actions predetermined. You just want to decry god for no particular reason.

I understand you have no argument and evade to ad hominems and mind reading instead?

 

[ManOfTheAmish]

And this serves which purpose and whose purpose is that?



No "freewill".

The purpose is being and freedom with the purpose being essentially ours.

Why would you choose no freewill?

 

[tcampen]

As long as the choice is up to me and I make it, it is free will.

Respectfully, I just don't think you are getting the philosophical concept of free will. If the answer to this logical problem were as simple as you put it, then I guess philosophers and theologians have been spending a lot of useless time attempting to reconcile a contradiction that could have been resolved in a single sentence.

No. It is not as simple as you make it out to be. Free will requires, by definition, an unwritten future. If the future is absolutely known, by any person, then all future acts, choices and responses are locked in, unable to be changed. Your overly simplistic concept that God "just knows what the choice will be" is a logical falicy because it equates future knowledge of events with current or past knowledge of events - you make no distinction between the them, and that is just plain wrong. I submit that it is more than a than just a
symantic relationship.

The past is done and locked in. It cannot be changed. Your characterization of the future being no different than the past in this regard really proves my point. Such knowledge of the future makes it equally locked in and unable to be changed.

So I ask you again...if the future cannot be changed, if it is locked in place (as your premise of god's foreknowledge requires), then where is the free will?

 

[elman]

Respectfully, I just don't think you are getting the philosophical concept of free will. If the answer to this logical problem were as simple as you put it, then I guess philosophers and theologians have been spending a lot of useless time attempting to reconcile a contradiction that could have been resolved in a single sentence.

No. It is not as simple as you make it out to be. Free will requires, by definition, an unwritten future. If the future is absolutely known, by any person, then all future acts, choices and responses are locked in, unable to be changed. Your overly simplistic concept that God "just knows what the choice will be" is a logical falicy because it equates future knowledge of events with current or past knowledge of events - you make no distinction between the them, and that is just plain wrong. I submit that it is more than a than just a
symantic relationship.

The past is done and locked in. It cannot be changed. Your characterization of the future being no different than the past in this regard really proves my point. Such knowledge of the future makes it equally locked in and unable to be changed.

So I ask you again...if the future cannot be changed, if it is locked in place (as your premise of god's foreknowledge requires), then where is the free will?

My free will is in the future that is locked in which I create as I go along. It is as simple as I make it out to be. What cannot be changed is the choice that I make and own and is orginated and created by me and no one else.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Are you aware of religious forms of beliefs centered around philosophical transcendentalism?




There are religious forms of existentialism as well.

Existentialism was never meant to be utilize as a tool against all human beliefs and it certainly wasn't meant to destroy religion as deeming itself a better alternative.

I find people who use such forms in the name of existentialism to be rather unnecessarily extreme.




To me freedom and freewill are one.






Spiritual transcendentalism and existentialism.





What do you mean?

There is no such thing as religious existentialism. There are christian, agnostic, and atheist sects of existentialism but by saying such a philosophy partaking in some institutionalized concepts such as religion is totally misunderstanding the associate message of existentialism.

Existentialism was created to rebel against long held philosophies, the traditional philosophers and philosophies that followed religious guidelines.

THe entire argument of atheistic existentialism is and utterly the concept that we live in a godless world. You dont seem to exactly understand the concepts of existentialism so maybe ill give you a simpler context by which to review it.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm

If you do notice, his entire reproach is against religion and philosophy, primarily the dualistic nature of the two. You sir, are the one in self-deception of the messages of existentialism.

And im not speaking of freedom, and free-will, you are speaking of a condemnation of free-will which is totally contradictory in its creation. Condemnation of freedom and condemnation of free-will are totally different in their review.

Also, as i might wish to add you concieve this notion that existentialism in some-way supports religion...let me take a direct quote from Walter Kaufman on this one.."Existentialism is the refusal to belong to any school of thought, the repudiation of the adequacy of any body of beliefs(religion, labels, etc.) whatever, and especially of systems, and a marked dissatisfaction with traditional philosophy as superficial, academic, and remote from life-that is the heart of existentialism."

"Existentialism is not a philosophy but a label for several widely different revolts against traditional philosophy."

Existentialists, even Kierkegaard denied belief in religion. Kierkegaard persecuted the church of Denmark to his death. His belief in god is irrelevent to his philosophy as it does not involve the actual moral basis of religion that we existentialists challenge. You may be thinking i challenge god, but no i am not, i am merely challenging your basis for argument. I am challenging the conflicts that your sort of christianity wishes to propose to the individual because i find it superficial and deniably mediocre and contradictory. You may think i challenge god, but i merely challenge the set ethical moralities that it proposes, for we existentialists merely state god does not exist, not challenging it, but merely backing up our claim to ourselves as to explain it to ourselves. I wrote this in class today, concerning your argument, and maybe you can see why we dont challenge god, for we find it totally irrelevent to our life:
No being controls us because were are free, condemned to be free, to create a will of our own...and even if god did exist, it could not take away that realization, thus we deny the existent, and overall purpose to god, through a negatite that makes its entire purpose entirely irrelevant to our existence.

I must say also that transcendentalism is not in anyway close to the perpetual considerations of existentialism, for we deny such infinite ideas as spirit, and soul. Transcendentalism reached its zenith nearly a hundred years before the zenith of existentialism. We must say though, you say it is based off many retorts and compassions of Kierkegaard. This is because Kierkegaard merely made conceptions, im sure he would of denied the label of existentialists like many such as Heidegger and Camus have done. He was a fervant christian(though he challenged the institute of the church every chance he had), and the concept of existentialism would of apalled him. He found god the only thing that keeps us capable of living, while we believe we live in a godless world. Christian existentialists avoid such perspectives of existential thought unless to challenge the claim since as i have said before, existentialism is a wide ranging philosophy of anti-belief.

 

[ManOfTheAmish]

Anti belief sounds like a adherence to nothingness but human beings are too emotional and elaborate of creatures to settle for nothingness.

Also I think existentialism was originally meant to transcend the worldly barriers of man not a belief in nothingness. A transcendance doesn't lead to nothingness.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Anti belief sounds like a adherence to nothingness but human beings are too emotional and elaborate of creatures to settle for nothingness.

Also I think existentialism was originally meant to transcend the worldly barriers of man not a belief in nothingness. A transcendance doesn't lead to nothingness.

The entire concept of existentialism is based upon nothingness, if you know what that is of course. The nothingness of choice the consciousness creates, not the set standards of human naturalities that many say govern our life.

 

[ManOfTheAmish]

The entire concept of existentialism is based upon nothingness, if you know what that is of course. The nothingness of choice the consciousness creates, not the set standards of human naturalities that many say govern our life.

For a moment I'd like to pause and take a look at your username ExistencePrecedesEssence and in taking a look at your own belief I would argue for mine that my essence is my existance for everything of my existance is the very essence of my being.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

For a moment I'd like to pause and take a look at your username ExistencePrecedesEssence and in taking a look at your own belief I would argue for mine that my essence is my existance for everything of my existance is the very essence of my being.

You of course show self-deception of the depth of what my name commends. Also i must say, its not a belief, just a message.

 

[ManOfTheAmish]

You of course show self-deception of the depth of what my name commends. Also i must say, its not a belief, just a message.

It could of been a misinterpretation and if it is I would really like to know more about your beliefs for understanding.

What did you think of my last post however in regards of your username? In all honesty that is to me what existentialism stands for in myself.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

It could of been a misinterpretation and if it is I would really like to know more about your beliefs for understanding.

What did you think of my last post however in regards of your username? In all honesty that is to me what existentialism stands for in myself.

Read post 153, and click on the link, its the most simple thing on existentialism and its ethics i can find, it is also one of the greatest philosphy thesis' ever written. Existence just gives the allowance of one to find essence, since existentialists to who i associate myself with find that life is contingent. Existence is merely the road for our body to walk on. Essence is what we choose in existence, since our life and existence(which is essence as you pointed out) are contingent upon our actions. If that makes it simple to what existence is to essence. Our existence is contingent upon our choices and actions, and thus our essence can be composed to this contingency through existing.

 

[ManOfTheAmish]

Read post 153, and click on the link, its the most simple thing on existentialism and its ethics i can find, it is also one of the greatest philosphy thesis' ever written. Existence just gives the allowance of one to find essence, since existentialists to who i associate myself with find that life is contingent. Existence is merely the road for our body to walk on. Essence is what we choose in existence, since our life and existence(which is essence as you pointed out) are contingent upon our actions. If that makes it simple to what existence is to essence. Our existence is contingent upon our choices and actions, and thus our essence can be composed to this contingency through existing.

Very well I will check out that link and at the sametime I will brush up on existentialism as it has been awhile since I have read about the subject although I have a assorted collection of Kierkegaard in my own personal library.

Also I have a question for you while I am thinking about it.........

Is it impossible to believe that existance and essence comes together simaltaneously?