This piece was very helpful in clarifying my thinking on free will. (By the way, I appreciate your nod to the book Philosophy: Who Needs It with the title of this essay.)
I have several questions:
1. Is there a difference between agency, willpower, volition, will, and free will?
2. What do you think of the phrase "the will of the people" and similar expressions?
3. The term "free will" implies the existence of some form of "will" that is not free because free is modifying will. What are your thoughts on this?
4. You state that reason operates, in part, by means of *perceptual* observation. This seems to imply one of two things: (A) Introspection is a faculty *outside* of reason since it involves *non-perceptual* observation, or (B) Introspection itself is a form of perceptual observation, which does not align with my experience. Did you mean to say that reason operates by means of *observation* (whether extrospective or introspective), or do you hold that introspection qualifies as a form of *perceptual* observation? In my experience, introspection is definitely does not happen through any of the five senses, but through what I can only call a "sixth sense"—the "inner eye," if you will. It sounds woo-woo, but its very real.
5. What are your thoughts on compatibilism? I lean toward this view, holding that if I choose to think less than fully, by the same degree of my not thinking, I am determined by either nature or nurture. So, in a way, determinism and "self-determinism" (free will) can exist simultaneously. What you think of this view?
I’m glad you found the article clarifying, Maddox.
Thank you for your note and good questions. Each of your questions could prompt an essay in itself, and I want to be brief, so bear in mind that these are only indications, not comprehensive answers.
I think free will, agency, and volition are essentially synonyms. To have agency or volition is to have the capacity to choose among alternatives, and that’s essentially what free will is. Sometimes compatibilists try to make a distinction here by saying ~ “You do make choices, so you have agency, but those choices are not free in the sense that you could have done otherwise.” Ironically, Sam Harris falls into this category. Although he derides compatibilists, he actually is one. (There’s a footnote in my piece about him trying to deny that determinism is the same thing as fatalism. Part of his effort there is to say that we do make choices, so our future is not fated, but our choices ultimately are not under our control, so we’re determined. But that eviscerates the meaning of choice.)
Willpower is the use of free will to do something you find difficult or unpleasant. So it’s a narrowing of the concept of free will. For instance, it takes willpower for me to do my workout because it’s extremely unpleasant. But I can and do project the greater value of doing it—and thus want that value—sufficiently to make myself do the workout even though it’s no fun. So willpower is the choice to think and project and thus be able to do something that you wouldn’t do if you didn’t think and project.
Will and free will are the same thing—in the same way that egoism and rational egoism are the same, capitalism and laissez-faire capitalism are the same, and economics and free-market economics are the same. In all such cases, the adjectives are helpful because of the confusion surrounding the idea in question. But fundamentally they all are redundancies. So I don’t think free will implies some kind of will that isn’t free. It’s just a helpful emphasis. (It’s especially helpful because compatibilists muddy the waters here per above.)
The phrase “the will of the people” is fine and useful when you are talking about majority opinion, consensus, or the like. The will of the people that elected Donald Trump as president.
Introspection is a type of perception. You literally observe yourself choosing to focus, or choosing to consider an emotion, or choosing to examine an idea or an argument. You directly perceive these choices via introspection (i.e., by looking inward at the functions of your mind). Introspection is not identical to your other senses, but neither are they identical to each other. Your sense of sight is very different from your sense of touch or smell. Each capacity follows from the nature of the entity (or sense organ) involved. In the case of introspection, the entity (or organ) involved is your mind, your rational faculty, and one of the things it can do is reflect on itself. This is what self-awareness, self-reflection, and the like mean. So introspection is not a sixth sense in the sense of your extrospective senses, but it is a capacity to perceive directly what you are doing with your mind. It’s not spooky or woo-woo; it’s just a capacity that comes with the faculty of reason.
Compatibilism is not recognition of the fact that if you don’t choose to think, then you will be determined by nature and nurture. (Recognition of free will properly understood is recognition of that fact.) Compatibilism is an effort to affirm free will and deny it, too. The reason I didn’t mention it in the article is that I don’t regard it as a philosophically serious position, as it directly violates the law of excluded middle. And once you understand what free will is and what determinism is, the notion that there could be some mixture of the two is clearly impossible.
Again, thanks for your note and questions. I hope this reply was helpful!
This piece was very helpful in clarifying my thinking on free will. (By the way, I appreciate your nod to the book Philosophy: Who Needs It with the title of this essay.)
I have several questions:
1. Is there a difference between agency, willpower, volition, will, and free will?
2. What do you think of the phrase "the will of the people" and similar expressions?
3. The term "free will" implies the existence of some form of "will" that is not free because free is modifying will. What are your thoughts on this?
4. You state that reason operates, in part, by means of *perceptual* observation. This seems to imply one of two things: (A) Introspection is a faculty *outside* of reason since it involves *non-perceptual* observation, or (B) Introspection itself is a form of perceptual observation, which does not align with my experience. Did you mean to say that reason operates by means of *observation* (whether extrospective or introspective), or do you hold that introspection qualifies as a form of *perceptual* observation? In my experience, introspection is definitely does not happen through any of the five senses, but through what I can only call a "sixth sense"—the "inner eye," if you will. It sounds woo-woo, but its very real.
5. What are your thoughts on compatibilism? I lean toward this view, holding that if I choose to think less than fully, by the same degree of my not thinking, I am determined by either nature or nurture. So, in a way, determinism and "self-determinism" (free will) can exist simultaneously. What you think of this view?
I’m glad you found the article clarifying, Maddox.
Thank you for your note and good questions. Each of your questions could prompt an essay in itself, and I want to be brief, so bear in mind that these are only indications, not comprehensive answers.
I think free will, agency, and volition are essentially synonyms. To have agency or volition is to have the capacity to choose among alternatives, and that’s essentially what free will is. Sometimes compatibilists try to make a distinction here by saying ~ “You do make choices, so you have agency, but those choices are not free in the sense that you could have done otherwise.” Ironically, Sam Harris falls into this category. Although he derides compatibilists, he actually is one. (There’s a footnote in my piece about him trying to deny that determinism is the same thing as fatalism. Part of his effort there is to say that we do make choices, so our future is not fated, but our choices ultimately are not under our control, so we’re determined. But that eviscerates the meaning of choice.)
Willpower is the use of free will to do something you find difficult or unpleasant. So it’s a narrowing of the concept of free will. For instance, it takes willpower for me to do my workout because it’s extremely unpleasant. But I can and do project the greater value of doing it—and thus want that value—sufficiently to make myself do the workout even though it’s no fun. So willpower is the choice to think and project and thus be able to do something that you wouldn’t do if you didn’t think and project.
Will and free will are the same thing—in the same way that egoism and rational egoism are the same, capitalism and laissez-faire capitalism are the same, and economics and free-market economics are the same. In all such cases, the adjectives are helpful because of the confusion surrounding the idea in question. But fundamentally they all are redundancies. So I don’t think free will implies some kind of will that isn’t free. It’s just a helpful emphasis. (It’s especially helpful because compatibilists muddy the waters here per above.)
The phrase “the will of the people” is fine and useful when you are talking about majority opinion, consensus, or the like. The will of the people that elected Donald Trump as president.
Introspection is a type of perception. You literally observe yourself choosing to focus, or choosing to consider an emotion, or choosing to examine an idea or an argument. You directly perceive these choices via introspection (i.e., by looking inward at the functions of your mind). Introspection is not identical to your other senses, but neither are they identical to each other. Your sense of sight is very different from your sense of touch or smell. Each capacity follows from the nature of the entity (or sense organ) involved. In the case of introspection, the entity (or organ) involved is your mind, your rational faculty, and one of the things it can do is reflect on itself. This is what self-awareness, self-reflection, and the like mean. So introspection is not a sixth sense in the sense of your extrospective senses, but it is a capacity to perceive directly what you are doing with your mind. It’s not spooky or woo-woo; it’s just a capacity that comes with the faculty of reason.
Compatibilism is not recognition of the fact that if you don’t choose to think, then you will be determined by nature and nurture. (Recognition of free will properly understood is recognition of that fact.) Compatibilism is an effort to affirm free will and deny it, too. The reason I didn’t mention it in the article is that I don’t regard it as a philosophically serious position, as it directly violates the law of excluded middle. And once you understand what free will is and what determinism is, the notion that there could be some mixture of the two is clearly impossible.
Again, thanks for your note and questions. I hope this reply was helpful!