i-am-your-idea
pretty vacant
i dont feel free to do that
Are free-will and self-control mutually incompatible?
- Thread starter max_freakout
- Start date
max_freakout
Nothing matters
what is stopping you? What is this thing restraining your freedom in this way? Is it you that is stopping you?
i-am-your-idea
pretty vacant
deep set human instinct
max_freakout
Nothing matters
It seems to me as if this is a lie i tell to myself, there is no such thing really, nothing is stopping me, i am on the edge of an abyss
I was talking more about my lived experience of agency, my feeling of choosing, of having freewill.
i-am-your-idea
pretty vacant
no, its not me, not my idea of of myself, that stops me. not the me i think conciously with. even if i really started convincing myself it was a good idea, i still wouldnt do it in the end.
its waay bigger than that me!
its waay bigger than that me!
Cid
Proper break this time
Nothing except pray to the transcendent author
Quite... Max, you are - I'm afraid to say - a numpty.
max_freakout
Nothing matters
i-am-your-idea
pretty vacant
maybe they mean you have the freedom in how you control it?
Don't be an arse, Max.
Free will allows you to exercise self-control. You're setting up a bogus circular argument where control over yourself is a negation of that free will. It's not. You're also taking the term 'self control' literally, as if your self can act WITHOUT your will.
Self-control itself is a fairly daft term - it creates a kind of psychic split which isn't really there. It's a handy term which actually means "deciding to one thing rather than another, even though you'd quite like to do the other". Self-control merely describes the tension between wanting one thing for one reason and not wanting it for another. It's not in any way DIVORCED from an act of will the way you claim it is.
Example:
I have lots to do tomorrow, so I shouldn't go out and get fucked up tonight. Even though I really want to get fucked up tonight.
Therefore I choose to exercise "self-control", ie, choose one thing over another. It's still my will.
If you think self-control is actually separate from will in some way, you're an idiot.
Free will allows you to exercise self-control. You're setting up a bogus circular argument where control over yourself is a negation of that free will. It's not. You're also taking the term 'self control' literally, as if your self can act WITHOUT your will.
Self-control itself is a fairly daft term - it creates a kind of psychic split which isn't really there. It's a handy term which actually means "deciding to one thing rather than another, even though you'd quite like to do the other". Self-control merely describes the tension between wanting one thing for one reason and not wanting it for another. It's not in any way DIVORCED from an act of will the way you claim it is.
Example:
I have lots to do tomorrow, so I shouldn't go out and get fucked up tonight. Even though I really want to get fucked up tonight.
Therefore I choose to exercise "self-control", ie, choose one thing over another. It's still my will.
If you think self-control is actually separate from will in some way, you're an idiot.
max_freakout
Nothing matters
Assuming that this example ends up with you NOT going out and getting fucked up, you could say that not getting fucked up is what you 'willed yourself' to do, because you are in control of your will, you decide what to do
But this means that you are controlling your will, so therefore your will is not free, because to be free means to be uncontrolled
I think self-control is logically inconsistent with free will, a person cannot have both self-control and free-will
max_freakout
Nothing matters
But if it is controlled by you in any way, it is not free
No, you daft twat. The freedom is about choosing what you do. Self-control is essentially a description of a decision-making process: using your free will, you choose one thing (staying in) over another (going out) and call it 'self-control' because it tells a story about uncertainty or delayed gratification or some such. Choosing to stay in is EXACTLY as free will based as choosing to go out.
To claim otherwise is to introduce some fucked-up notion of a split brain
max_freakout
Nothing matters
If you are 'using' your will (ie controlling it), then it is not free, it is being controlled by the person 'using' it
to be free means to be uncontrolled
So the concept of "using your free will" is a logical contradiction, if it is free, it cannot be used
max_freakout
Nothing matters
Oh fuck off
Are you for real?
in your post you used the expression "using your free will"
this statement can be perfectly substituted by the statement "Excersising control over your free will"
and this is a logical contradiction-in-terms (or so it seems to me)
Because, if the will is truly free, then you couldnt possibly control it. If you can control it, it isnt free
So which is it?
Being free = being uncontrolled
So is your will free, or is it being controlled by you?
max_freakout
Nothing matters
i think the very notion of 'self-control' implies not really a split-brain, but rather a paradoxical, infinitely regressive hierarchy of control within the brain
max_freakout
Nothing matters
Where did you get this definition of self-control from? There are an infinite number of possible wants, never just 2, that is an absurd simplification of reality/the decision making process
As i understand it, self-control is the ability to control the thoughts and actions of the self, not necessarily anything to do with any tension,
Self-control is limited by circumstances, experience, emotions, fears. So we only have limited self control.
i-am-your-idea
pretty vacant
thats a song...right?
didnt read all of thread, but someone must have spotted that...??
i-am-your-idea
pretty vacant
bobby mcgee sang by janis
of course
...ive played it enough!! must be all the wine...memory blank
i-am-your-idea
pretty vacant
which is another model in itself, but one i definately identify more with.
so, el jefe, you see it as a tension between two different wants? thats equally valid. but im interested in how you would describe the sources of these wants. are they coming from one source? or do you imagine one centre for the ego, and another centre for the whole self?
i find freedom in believing in determinism, cause there is Nothing i can do about it.
What does this 'nothing' mean
i-am-your-idea
pretty vacant
recognition of the mystery (and how that helps me/is me)
mystery: the unknown - percieved nothingness
mystery: the unknown - percieved nothingness
Could that be perceived as Gothical.
