1 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | February 10, 2025
These are some interesting ideas. I've got a couple things to suggest.
There's a massive literature with suggests that free will can exist in a deterministic world. Have you considered that idea?
Also, your use of the excluded middle is somewhat incorrect. The excluded middle of "caused" would be "not caused", and not "random". Now, you might want to argue that anything that is not caused is random, and that's fine but that's going beyond the excluded middle! And some Libertarians would disagree with you.
Comment by Comprehensive_Today5 at 12/02/2025 at 12:42 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I haven't seen a compelling argument on how free will can exist in a deterministic world. I have certainly considered it (compatibalism). I think it all depends on how you define "free". If free means "doing whatever you want", I agree. We are radically free in that sense. If we define "free" as being fully in control of willing your will, then I simply haven't found a good argument for it (or perhaps I just don't find it satisfying).
You're right, it would be "not caused". Equating them needs argumentation on my part.
My comment was basically me reconsiling the rosicrusian idea of becoming good/pious by observing nature with my beliefs of free will, realizing that this is one of those cases, because you cannot blame one who doesn't have free will.