gibran2 said:
Virola78 said:
Sorry, cant let go...
"Only that thing is free which exists by the necessities of its own nature, and is determined in its actions by itself alone."
- Spinoza
If
everything can be seen as a whole, a collective, of which everything is part...
then its movement (or action, flow) is the movement of all... in one continuous movement..
If this movement is undertermined because there is nothing else determining it (since everyhting is part of it),
then this movement is free...
This (every)thing is free. Do you think you are part of this free thing?
Or maybe you think it is not free?
Let us resurrect this dead horse, if only for a while.
I like the Spinoza quote, but I don’t really understand the first part – “which exists by the necessities of its own nature”. What does that mean? Also, was he talking about metaphysical free will, or was he talking about human freedom and free, independent human beings?
Anyhow, the second part seems understandable. There is nothing that is “determined in its actions by itself alone”, depending on how you look at it. Are the rules that govern the actions of an atom a part of the atom? Do they lie outside of the atom? If yes, then where are the rules? Isn’t the behavior of each subatomic particle (protons, electrons) influenced by all of the others? At the smallest scale, it is clear that there is no freedom.
What about the largest scale – what you are calling “everything”? If we think of everything as a unitary whole, isn’t it true that the actions of the whole are determined by (and a reflection of) the sum of the actions of its parts?
All systems either follow rules or behave chaotically/randomly. Since an object/entity following rules is not exhibiting free will, and since an object/entity behaving chaotically is not exhibiting free will, and since there are no behavioral choices other than following rules or behaving chaotically (or some combination), I conclude that the whole concept of free will is an indefinable abstraction.
I like the Spinoza quote, but I don’t really understand the first part – “which exists by the necessities of its own nature”. What does that mean?
Well he says:
"A substance cannot be produced from anything else : it will therefore be its own cause, that is, its essence necessarily involves existence, or existence appertains to the nature of it."
And also:
"No two or more substances can have the same attribute and it appertains to the nature of substance that it should exist. It must therefore exist finitely or infinitely. But not finitely. For it would then be limited by some other substance of the same nature which also of necessity must exist: and then two substances would be granted having the same attribute, which is absurd. It will exist, therefore, infinitely."
"But if men would give heed to the nature of substance they would doubt less concerning the Proposition that Existence appertains to the nature of substance: rather they would reckon it an axiom above all others, and hold it among common opinions. For then by substance they would understand that which is in itself, and through itself is conceived, or rather that whose knowledge does not depend on the knowledge of any other thing. "
"An Attribute (attributum) I understand to be that which the intellect perceives as constituting the essence of a substance."
www.spaceandmotion.com
Also, was he talking about metaphysical free will, or was he talking about human freedom and free, independent human beings?
So yes metaphysical. I wont get into the ethics here..
Anyhow, the second part seems understandable. There is nothing that is “determined in its actions by itself alone”, depending on how you look at it. Are the rules that govern the actions of an atom a part of the atom? Do they lie outside of the atom? If yes, then where are the rules? Isn’t the behavior of each subatomic particle (protons, electrons) influenced by all of the others?
If everything is happening all at once then there can be no outside rules. Everything that is happening, is all that is happening.
- From our perspective as individuals, yes "the behavior of each subatomic particle (protons, electrons) is influenced by all of the others."
- From our perspective as aspect of a unity, then no, there is no such thing as an individual (each) subatomic particles.
Do you think the one perspective is more valid then the other?
If Spinoza is right and there is logically only one substance that is infinite, then time would be the illusion... Then what about the cause-effect relation that seems to be the argument for determinism?
At the smallest scale, it is clear that there is no freedom.
From that perspective you are as free as you were free to be born.. So no, the individual is not free but ignorant (to a degree). How can you be only an individual? Because you see your body separated from other things? You see other things separated from you when you (quite literally) take the perspective of the body. Unfortunately this is apparently very hard to overcome. At least Zeno said:
"....every man has perfect freedom, provided he emancipates himself from mundane desires."
Then Nietzsche:
"It is true, there could be a metaphysical world; the absolute possibility of it is hardly to be disputed. We behold all things through the human head and cannot cut off this head; while the question nonetheless remains what of the world would still be there if one had cut it off."
What about the largest scale – what you are calling “everything”? If we think of everything as a unitary whole, isn’t it true that the actions of the whole are determined by (and a reflection of) the sum of the actions of its parts?
No i think it is the other way around. The snake that bites its tail...
