Nobody argues free will is being independent from external influence. Free will is the ability to make choices especially to love or not love in spite of external influences.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Nobody argues free will is being independent from external influence. Free will is the ability to make choices especially to love or not love in spite of external influences.Schopenhauer was dead on. The concept of free will, that is, the ability for an individual actor to act entirely independent from external influence, is the most asinine of the long-lived and nigh-universally-believed philosophical falsities.
Nobody argues free will is being independent from external influence. Free will is the ability to make choices especially to love or not love in spite of external influences.
You could say anything you like but it is not the argument of proponents of free will that this means we can do supernatural things simply because we want to do them. "In spite of" would also be "irregardless of" or "notwithstanding" . It means we chose to be loving and are not forced to do by our environment.Yes, some do argue that definition. In fact, unless you define "in spite of", I'd say you were doing just that.
"In spite of" would also be "irregardless of" or "notwithstanding" . It means we chose to be loving and are not forced to do by our environment.
Explain. That makes no sense. How do you define environment?Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
"In spite of" would also be "irregardless of" or "notwithstanding" . It means we chose to be loving and are not forced to do by our environment.
Thank you. Yes, you just made exactly the claim I claimed you did. Unless of course you would now like to bait and switch on what you mean by "environment".
Is there such a thing as free will?
You're the one who used the word. You define it please.
You are the one that said I did not know what it meant, or at least that is what it sounds like you said. So tell me why you think I don't know what environment is.
I don't know if you don't know what it means, because you haven't defined it. So far, you have not used it in a way which seems to do anything but verify what I said earlier.
Now, are you going to define what you mean when you say "environment" or not? For all I know, you could be talking about any number of things. It's pointless to continue unless you define your terms.
No I am waiting for you to explain why my understanding of enviorment is flawed.
It's standard practice to define your terms when you make a claim and someone asks you to do so. That way it doesn't lead to confusion later. Otherwise, I'm simply going to have to assume you mean "x" by "environment" when you might actually mean "y". I'm not sure how you expect me to explain why your defintion of environment is flawed if you don't explain it first.
I am not sure why you think my defintion of environment is different from yours.
Are you listening? I can't know that until you give me your defintion. Or is this simply a method of stalling because you don't know what you mean when you say "environment"?
Just go with my defintion being the same as yours until we know it is not. You are the one claiming they are different. I cannot know that unless you define environment. Until you do, I would assume we are talking about the same thing.
Is there such a thing as free will?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?