[.ca] Essay on the Freedom of the Will (ISBN 0486440117)

Worthy of Praise:
This essay deserved to be the winning entry. It deals with what many have deemed the greatest evidence for free will, that is self-consciousness right off the bat and doesn't slow down from there. An absolute must read for philosophy students. The idea that we have free will has been held up to the stature of a god-like idea, which cannot be contested. This is most evident in the very definition of free will most people, even scholars refer to, that is the ability of the will to do as it wills. Laypeople and ignorant philosophers alike, make it seem like determinists are questioning the ability of a person do as they will. Which is obviously true, and therefore many leave a first year phiosophy course convinced of the idea of free will without even knowing the proper definition. The definition of free will as Schopenhauer puts it, is to defy causality in particular and nature in general. To rise above all other beings and 'like gods' be originators of each of our actions. It is no whether you can do as you will, but whether that will is free! Not only free physically, or mentally, but free from everything in the universe. To defy the universe with each of our actions is what it means to have a free will. That is exactly why Christians and other religious people assume this a priori, eg. Descartes. If you are still confused, READ THIS BOOK. It's very important, honestly. You will understand it. You must try.

Clear and readable:
Schopenhauer shows that freewillists don't understand, and often haven't even tried to understand, what the position of no-free-will entails and asserts. Freewillists assume that the no-free-will position asserts "we can't do what we will". Freewillists assume they understand the no-free-will position, without carefully thinking about the key problematic question, which is whether we can will (or control) what we will. A gem of a book; enjoyable and clear.

Best Book Ever Written in All Philosophy:
It was while reading about Einstein that my attention was drawn to Schopenhauer, for Einstein often quoted Schopenhauer's saying: "One can do what one wants but not want what one wants." Einstein never believed in free will, only freedom to do what we will. And Schopenhauer was the first person who inspired this thought in him. Schopenhauer proves by rational reasoning why this is so. People in other cultures (especially East Asia) arrive at the same conclusion by instinct; they believe in Fate. So do many Muslims. In fact, if you believe in Fate, then not even the freedom to do what we will is really free. You only do what you must, and whatever you have done, you cannot have prevented yourself from doing it. I think Schopenhauer makes this point clear also. Einstein himself said, "Everything is determined." Whether it's an insect or a human being, everything from the tiniest particles to the largest galaxies - "we all dance to the tune of a mysterious piper," said Einstein. Read this book, and see if Schopenhauer would have said the same thing. (He would.) I'm in complete agreement with Schopenhauer and Einstein. And although this book does not have the same impact on me that it did on Einstein, I count myself lucky to have found it. But then, all this was "written".... There is one other English translation of this book. Both are good. I happen to have both - my German is only elementary - and they are now among the most treasured of my possessions.

Best Book Ever Written in All Philosophy:
It was while reading about Einstein that my attention was drawn to Schopenhauer, for Einstein often quoted Schopenhauer's saying: "One can do what one wants but not want what one wants." Einstein never believed in free will, only freedom to do what we will. And Schopenhauer was the first person who inspired this thought in him. Schopenhauer proves by rational reasoning why this is so. People in other cultures (especially East Asia) arrive at the same conclusion by instinct; they believe in Fate. So do many Muslims. I'm in complete agreement with Schopenhauer. And although this book does not have the same impact on me which it did on Einstein, I count myself lucky to have found it. But then, all this was "written"....

A powerful examination of free will and determinism:
For those who are convinced that determinism has been refuted (ie. Popper, Sartre, Kierkegarrd) it is quite obvious that they haven't read this essay because if they had they might put their own presuppositions about the validity of free will into question. Schopenhauer does a fantastic job at dissecting the concept of the 'freedom of the will' by first showing that it cannot be proven from self-consciounsess. He follows this by meticulously distinguishing between the changes that occur in inorganic objects (cause), plants (stimulus), and animals(intuitive and particularly for humans, abstract motives). He points out that in regards to the automatic organic function of animals bodies, changes occur in the form of a "stimulus" but in willed action motivation is the cause (but not in the mechanical sense that the narrow definition of casaulity implies). Schopenhauer writes, in regards to motivation, "causality that passes through cognition... enters in the gradual scale of natural beings at that point where a being which is more complex, and thus has more manifold needs, was no longer able to satisfy them merely on the occasion of a stimulus that must be awaited, but had to be in a position to choose, seize, and even seek out the means of satisfaction." Schopenhauer thinks that humans have "relative freedom" but that relative freedom is to act in accordance with the motives that are necessitated by the Will-- which in turn is the determining factor of human behavior. In humans the linkage of cause and effect is of a far greater distance than that of intuitive animals-- causing us to mistakingly exclude our behavior from the law of casaulity-- but in the end 'the Will' still determines actions by what he calls "sufficient necessitiy". "For he (human beings) allows the motives repeatedly to try their strength on his will, one against the other. His will is thus put in the same position as that of a body that is acted on by different forces in opposite directions - until at last the decidedly strongest motive drives the others from the field and determines the will. This outcome is called decision and, as a result of the struggle, appears with complete necessity." Unlike Sartre's treatise on freedom, which ultimately collapsed into obscurity and contradiction, Scophenhauer's rightly contends that a fixed essence is inborn (what we would today call DNA). In other words, it contradicts Sartre's saying that "existence precedes essence." For Schopenhauer, neither precedes the other. The two are inseparable. The expression of the essence can change through experience within the environment but the fundamental aspects of it remain instrinsic to the organism (Genes/Biology). Schopenhauer responds to the proponents of absolute free will, who haven't carefully analyzed what it means for the 'will' to be free, by writing: "Closely considered, the freedom of the will means an existentia without essentia; this is equivalent to saying that something is and yet at the same time is nothing, which again means that it is not and thus is a contradiction." So my guess is that if Sartre had happened to stumble upon this particular essay he might have realized that it was he who was in "bad faith" about man being condemned to be free. It should also be noted that if Schopenhauer is wrong about mans intrinsic nature then all of the social sciences are a fraud and particularly psychology is wrong when it takes genes, biology, and the environment into consideration when interpreting and analyzing human behavior. The reason people object to philosophical determinism is that it makes morality and personal responsibility a precarious thing. One valuable thing we can adopt from Sartre's ideas is that it is imperative that we take responsibility for our choices. But being that pragmatism is the philosophy of the U.S. and not existentalism, it is more than likely the masses will always assume that Free Will exists because the stability of civil society depends on it. In light of all of this it should be mentioned that Schopenhauer does not think that people can't be morally reformed. In other words he thinks that the expression of behavior can be cultivated. Many people credit Nietzsche for coming up with the idea of sublimation that would later be used by Freud, but it was actually Schopenhauer who was the first speak of the idea. "Cultivation of reason by cognitions and insights of every kind is morally important, because it opens the way to motives which would be closed off to the human being without it." Schopenhauer also condemns a moral system that tries to root out the defects of a person's character rather than utilizing sublimation. For those who consider this type of philosophy immoral because it seems to exclude the possibility of moral responsibility we should remember that in Christianity there is the concept of predesination, and in Islam there is a religious fatalism. On top of that fact, many of the church fathers (Augustine and Luther) didn't accept the notion of free will either. I highly recommend this book!