Why we don't have free will using logic

Echogem222

Edited for clarity (3/14/24):
[Edited: Socrates famously proclaimed that he knew that he knew nothing. However, I disagree both with the notion that he knew that he knew nothing and with the idea that he knew that he knew anything at all. You might find this contradictory but allow me to explain. (Also, I am aware that Socrates never once meant that he thought that he knew nothing at all, when he said, "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance", he said so poetically, not literally.)]

Our "awareness" may not actually be awareness at all; it could merely seem like awareness of the way things truly are. Even something as seemingly concrete as the math equation 1+1=2 could, in reality, equal 3, 500, or even 0, or perhaps something beyond our current comprehension. Just because we are not aware of it being anything else does not mean that no other possibilities exist. After all, we do not have full awareness of everything even if we know anything, as knowing everything would allow us to know if it's possible to be mistaken or not due to reality existing in a way that prevents our knowledge from being incorrect or correct.

So, how then do we believe we know anything? It's through faith that we believe we know things, as faith is belief in something without evidence. We lack evidence to assert that our awareness of anything is truly awareness of anything with 100% certainty, after all, it could just be a deception.

But why do we have faith in anything if our faith in logic is correct? If we began with uncertainty, not knowing anything or even nothing at all (requiring faith), we could not have reached this point if we had free will. Having free will would imply knowing (though faith) that knowing things is important before knowing anything... which contradicts logic. Therefore, we must have been influenced to learn things not by our own will, in other words, to gain faith in things without free will. So, how then would we conclude that it makes sense that we have free will when we didn't initially use free will to learn anything? It doesn't. The logic does not follow such a possibility. Of course, I assume that those of you reading this believe that logic exists through faith, since if that is not the case, then I guess I wouldn't be right within your faith (whatever that is).

[Edited: In conclusion, for those who have faith in logic, my argument is that Socrates did not know that he knew nothing; he had faith that he knew nothing, whereas I have faith that he actually knew at least some things he thought he did not, because to know that you know nothing in any sense means you have enough knowledge surrounding that void of knowledge to say that you know nothing, but nothing is not truly nothing, though it is true that nothing describes the absence of something, it is not to say that something does not exist, it just does not exist in that context. So, when we say something becomes nothing or that something is nothing, we are actually saying that something no longer exists or does not exist in the context we're understanding. Therefore, nothing exists, just not in the context it doesn't. So, to say you know that you know nothing means that you actually know something, which is why I believe that every time Socrates said he knew nothing, he actually knew something, that is my faith regarding this matter in any case.]
+++
Added:
Premise 1: If we began with uncertainty, not knowing anything or even nothing at all, we could not have reached this point if we had free will, as it would contradict logic.
Explanation: If we started without any knowledge or even the concept of nothingness, our ability to make meaningful choices (free will) would be paradoxical. Free will implies the ability to make choices based on knowledge or beliefs, but if we started without any knowledge or beliefs, there would be no basis for making any choices, undermining the concept of free will.

Premise 2: Having free will would imply knowing (though faith) that knowing things is important before knowing anything, which contradicts logic.
Explanation: If we had free will, we would have to know (either through direct knowledge or faith) that knowing things is important before we knew anything. This would create a logical contradiction because it would require a pre-existing knowledge or belief in the importance of knowledge, which contradicts the idea of starting from a state of complete ignorance or uncertainty.

Premise 3: We must have been influenced to learn things not by our own will, in other words, to gain faith in things without free will.
Explanation: Since we could not have started with free will due to the contradictions outlined in the first two premises, our acquisition of knowledge and beliefs must have been influenced by factors outside of our control. This suggests that our learning process is guided by external influences, rather than by our own free will.

Conclusion: We do not have free will.
Explanation: Given that our acquisition of knowledge and beliefs is not based on free will, and starting from a state of complete ignorance or uncertainty would make the concept of free will paradoxical, it follows that we do not have free will. Our learning and decision-making processes are shaped by external influences and do not stem from a truly autonomous free will.

+++
Added:

First Note:

To clarify, I do believe free will exists, but I do not believe we gain it until after death, and even then, we only have free will within ourselves. We already have a will, we are just not free to use it, it is restricted. To have a free will within yourself means that your body/mind is truly you, so the actions of your body/mind came from just you, but are limited by how things are around you, for if this were not true, our free wills would contradict each other.

Our freedom would allow us to not only have bodies/minds which are truly us, but also have knowledge which is truly us. We would each be unique in a way that others are not. The reason why I believe we don't have free will right now is because this world is not perfectly good, in that it would be irresponsible to give us free will in this situation, as it would be like telling us to figure out things ourselves.

Second Note:

I realize that some of you reading this may still be able to come up with counterarguments that we can know logic is real, that we don't need faith as I claim is true. But for one thing, if logic were truly like that, such absolute certainty, why am I able to doubt it? If it were truly so true, myself doubting it should not even be possible, I would have to be lying, yet to lie, seems strange, after all, who would I be trying to convince? Obviously not someone who "knows" logic, and yet, I stand firm that logic requires faith even now.

But to that, someone might argue that I just don't understand logic correctly, that's why I'm coming to such a conclusion. After all, I'm using logic right now to make this argument, aren't I? But if logic isn't actually real, that would mean that right now, I'm not actually using logic at all, I'm just using something that seems like logic due to our limited awareness.

Is it truly so bad to not know if logic, or if anything, or even nothing is true? For me, I feel freed after realizing that everything and nothing requires faith to believe is real, after all, fears come from knowing things exist which scare us, but to not know anything or nothing prevents such fear from taking hold as deeply as it would if we truly knew we knew anything.

So, in summary, not even nothing is certain, and therefore us, being in such a position of uncertainty, cannot possibly have free will.

AmadeusD

In conclusion, for those who have faith in logic, my argument is that Socrates did not know that he knew nothing; he had faith that he knew nothing, whereas I have faith that he actually knew at least some things. — Echogem222

This seems to forego what his point actually was - to remain humble in the face of apparent knowledge.

I doubt many, if any, would claim Socrates actually claimed to know no things whatever. Then again, some claim he didn't exist.. so..

We lack evidence to assert that our awareness of anything is truly awareness of anything with 100% certainty. — Echogem222

This seems standard.

Philosophim

Socrates famously proclaimed that he knew that he knew nothing. — Echogem222

I don't think this was meant to be taken literally, but word play to convey that the essence of philosophy and seeking knowledge is to come to every situation as if you know nothing. Thus you leave your preconceptions behind, you listen to others in discussions, and you seek to understand the topic before telling others how it should be.

As for, "How do we know that we know?" there's an entire field of philosophy called epistemology. I've written a bit on the subject as well here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1 Its a bit lengthy, but there's a summary from the next poster besides me that captures it very well. Feel free to read and ask questions if you're curious.

Echogem222

↪AmadeusD

↪Philosophim

He claimed to not know anything at all, which is why he sought after "knowledge", however, many times he taught others they were ignorant with certainty, however, if he believed that people only knew things through faith, that would mean that he wouldn't then say for certain that others knew nothing, since he would not know such things, he would have faith of such things, which could then in turn mean that others who were "ignorant" might actually know things after all, they just weren't truly aware of that.

Philosophim

↪Echogem222

Once again I think you're misreading the intent and going down a path no one else is taking. What about yourself? Do you think we know things, or is our knowledge all faith?

Echogem222

↪Philosophim

I do not know if we know things, but I believe we know things though since I believe reality is real in the way it seems to be... Did you actually read my full post? Because I did explain this in my post clearly enough.

AmadeusD

↪Echogem222

My reply would just be an exact restating of my previous. You haven't engaged it. No worries.

Echogem222

↪AmadeusD

I agree that Socrates was wise in many ways, but as my post title stated, I disagree with part of his philosophy, and I have explained why, because yes, his faith was not ever claimed as a faith, that was not the direction he went with things, he truly believed he knew when he lacked knowledge, not as faith, but as knowing, this is reflected in his philosophy, but hey, if you want to believe that that's not what he meant, then you do you.

Tom Storm

I agree that Socrates was wise in many ways, — Echogem222

You can't be 'wise in many ways' without knowledge.

When I studied Socretes at university we were taught that the claim was not to be read as a concrete absolutist proclamation, but a poetic expression about the limitations in Socrates' knowledge.

He obviously knew things or he wouldn't have been able to forensically drill down into people's claims using provocation and irony to make his points, which were obviously predicated on the knowledge of the limitations of other's presuppositions.

So, how then do we believe we know anything? It's through faith that we believe we know things, as faith is belief in something without evidence. We lack evidence to assert that our awareness of anything is truly awareness of anything with 100% certainty. — Echogem222

No. There are things we can have confidence in and things we don't know. Faith can be left to religious claims. There's a continuum from total ignorance to certainty. If this wasn't the case, you wouldn't be typing your response on a website based on technology maintained by knowledge and then reading and responding. Sure, we know nothing with absolute certainty, but we don't need certainty.

Try cutting off your hand off with a power saw. I bet you'll form an opinion pretty soon that you are certain there is pain and that you have done something injurious to yourself. To deny this would be decadent and even childish. Thoughts?

Echogem222

↪Tom Storm

Socrates believed at one point that he knew that he knew nothing, if he did not have this belief, he would not ever seek knowledge. My claim is that he knew things even while he thought that he knew nothing.

"When I studied Socrates at university, we were taught that the claim was not to be read as a concrete absolutist proclamation, but a poetic expression about the limitations in Socrates' knowledge."

Yes, limitations, he thought he knew that he knew nothing in certain areas, not that he thought he had faith that he knew nothing in certain areas. I'm not an idiot, I of course understand he believed he knew some things when he said that he knew that he knew nothing.

"No. There are things we can have confidence in and things we don't know. Faith can be left to religious claims. There's a continuum from total ignorance to certainty. If this wasn't the case, you wouldn't be typing your response on a website based on technology maintained by knowledge and then reading and responding. Sure, we know nothing with absolute certainty, but we don't need certainty."

I do not believe I gained awareness of logic and other things through free will, since I don't believe in free will, so now, after being exposed to such things, I feel influenced to believe such things are true because I have no influence swaying me to think differently, and I see no benefit in doing differently. So, I believe I started out my beliefs with zero certainty because I lacked the free will to do differently, and since my faith in anything was originally started out with zero certainty, everything I have faith in is founded on faith of zero certainty, disproving your reasoning. I did explain this in my post, but I guess you couldn't be bothered to fully read it before stating your opinion.

Tom Storm

↪Echogem222

If you are going to quote someone highlight the words wanted and then click on the 'quote' option which comes up. Much easier to read.

Yes, limitations, he thought he knew that he knew nothing in certain areas, not that he thought he had faith that he knew nothing in certain areas. I'm not an idiot, — Echogem222

:up:

I do not believe I gained awareness of logic and other things through free will, since I don't believe in free will, so now, after being exposed to such things, I feel influenced to believe such things are true because I have no influence swaying me to think differently, and I see no benefit in doing differently. So, I believe I started out my beliefs with zero certainty because I lacked the free will to do differently, and since my faith in anything was originally started out with zero certainty, everything I have faith in is founded on faith of zero certainty, disproving your reasoning. — Echogem222

Sorry too many double negatives and disordered syntax for me to follow. I struggle with unclear English.

You say you are not an idiot - are you certain? Is that faith based?

I'm unclear, what is it you are certain you are uncertain about?

Echogem222

↪Tom Storm

You say you are not an idiot - are you certain? Is that faith based? — Tom Storm

I am not an idiot is obviously based on faith, as is everything else.

I'm unclear, what is it you are certain you are uncertain about? — Tom Storm

In the context of knowing anything, I am neither certain or uncertain, in the context of faith, I am certain.

To claim uncertainty is to claim you know there are things you are uncertain of, which means having knowledge, which I do not have, not in the context of non-faith-based knowledge.

Kizzy

We lack evidence to assert that our awareness of anything is truly awareness of anything with 100% certainty. — Echogem222

here we go, good stuff

But why do we have faith in anything if our faith in logic is correct? If we began with uncertainty, not knowing anything or even nothing at all (requiring faith), we could not have reached this point if we had free will. — Echogem222

keep going

Therefore, we must have been influenced to learn things not by our own will, in other words, to gain faith in things without free will. — Echogem222

hmmm close this needs more thought still fine no problems yet

So, how then would we conclude that it makes sense that we have free will when we didn't initially use free will to learn anything? It doesn't. The logic does not follow such a possibility — Echogem222

interested im listening and more....

In conclusion, for those who have faith in logic, my argument is that Socrates did not know that he knew nothing; he had faith that he knew nothing, whereas I have faith that he actually knew at least some things. — Echogem222

Make this conclusion stronger its important You have good stuff here it ought to go somewhere make the reach set that scope with purpose in mind perhaps even though your passion is evident to me

↪Echogem222
Once again I think you're misreading the intent and going down a path no one else is taking. — Philosophim

dead wrong

↪Philosophim

would you like to be surprised or bothered?

I was kinda getting at this here with the delight of, Vaskane....https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/887319

While im at it, I couldnt help but notice that even though faith is heavily discussed here you used an interesting angle...using Socrates, and free will is smart and to slide in these questions about faith and certainty without religion. I am with you here...but not important now. Just figured id mention and its good to know that the title could have an impact...when I was in the thread linked above, I think tired thinker posted it, "Types of faith" a few days ago I was thinking, wondering about this, I was trying to think of how I could defend that thread to not go into Philosophy of Religion but i guess it makes sense and should remain there in this case because. But im looking out for ways to do that...we will see what happens. Still feeling suspicious about that for some reason, i like it.

↪Echogem222
Once again I think you're misreading the intent and going down a path no one else is taking. — Philosophim

Its right where it needs to be, at least you acknowledge a path at all.

Echogem222

↪Kizzy

Thank you for your positive response, I went back and edited the original post a bit, the paragraphs that say "Edited" at the beginning are the only parts changed. It should add more clarity to my original argument.

Echogem222

↪Kizzy

While im at it, I couldnt help but notice that even though faith is heavily discussed here you used an interesting angle...using Socrates, and free will is smart and to slide in these questions about faith and certainty without religion. — Kizzy

To clarify, I do actually believe in a religion, and the points I made do actually tie into my religion, so it would actually count as a philosophy of a religion, but it can also apply outside of my religion.

I was kinda getting at this here with the delight of, Vaskane....https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/887319 — Kizzy

From my understanding, faith is never blind until faith is no longer believed as being faith, but actually knowing things, because when you truly think you know something, how can those who only have faith in things prove you wrong? I believe that those who think they can know anything without faith already have blind faith. In fact, back when I was still a Christian, I was taught to think I knew things, not that I had faith, and getting out of that religion from that position was a nightmare to me. I was able to leave Christianity behind only because I realized that I had faith in that religion through painful experiences, in other words, to leave a faith behind requires understanding your own uncertainty, therefore, to teach that people can know things is to discourage a lack of certainty and make leaving any faith behind harder than it needs to be.

In other words, by emphasizing that we can know things, belief systems can inadvertently discourage acknowledging the role of faith and uncertainty in our understanding of the world. This can therefore lead to blind faith, where individuals will not critically evaluate their beliefs or consider alternative perspectives. Encouraging an awareness of uncertainty can promote a more open-minded approach and a deeper understanding of the basis of one's beliefs.

Kizzy

. I struggle with unclear English. — Tom Storm

wahhhhhhh :cry:

I'm unclear — Tom Storm

wahhhhhhh :worry:

Fooloso4

Socrates famously proclaimed that he knew that he knew nothing. — Echogem222

Where does he say this? It is the most famous thing he never proclaimed. If you search the dialogues you will find that what he did say is quite different.

Count Timothy von Icarus

Two things are important here:

First is that skepticism had its heyday after Plato, with the Academy itself having a "skeptical period." So, while threads of skepticism run through the dialogues, particularly the Meno, Phaedo (interlude on misology), the Theatetus, and parts of the Timaeus and the Republic, it's not a position Plato is necessarily paying close attention to because he is more focused on the relativism of the Sophists. Relativism leads to its own sort of skepticism, but it's distinct from skepticism and Plato puts far more focus on dealing with the claims of the former. Phyrro isn't around yet, so he doesn't have this sort of broader skepticism in mind.

Second is that, when discussing Socrates, its always important to note that he is being fictionalized into highly stylized and artistic project, and his view is not always meant to be "correct." I tend to agree that the early dialogues are very focused on the project of introducing Socrates as an alternative to the Homeric heroes and those of the contemporary dramatists, but that this Socrates might also be closer to the historical one. But they key point I'd make here is that it'd be a real risk to read the later Socrates of the middle and late dialogues through the lens of Socrates initial statements about the limits of his own knowledge. Plato does think he knows some important things, and he wants to teach them to us, primarily through Socrates. He is skeptical about physical knowledge, since the physical world is always contingent and changing (e.g. the Phaedo) but that skepticism doesn't extend everywhere (there are interesting similarities to Shankara here).

There is a profession of falibalism in the Timaeus, but it's important to distinguish fallibalism from total skepticism. I would take Socrates' initial statements about his own lack of knowledge in the Apology and the other early dialogues in context. He seems to be talking about the ability to to know important things, e.g. how society should be run, what is good, etc. While Plato does get into more fundemental sorts of doubts, doubts about the accuracy of perception, etc. in the Theatetus and other places, the rest of the content in the Apology would seem to warn against Socrates' being taken as a wide-ranging position about all knowledge.

If you want a really good ancient treatment of the skepticism that grew out of Plato and its relation to faith, St. Augustine's Contra Academicos is quite good and includes a version of Descartes famous "cognito ergo sum."

Echogem222

↪Count Timothy von Icarus

You clearly didn't read my whole post, likely because you thought I would say things I didn't.

Lionino

I have not fully studied the historiography of Socrates (anyone here?), I am sure it would be interesting to delve into Xenophon's and Plato's accounts of Socrates' character, but that aside, I am not so convinced that "I only know that I know nothing" can be assumed to be metaphoric or poetic because of Socrate's behaviour, more on that below. But overall, there is in fact quite a few points where Socrates suggests he is not an absolute skeptic.

This is technically a shorter paraphrasing of Socrates’ statement, “I neither know nor think that I know” (in Plato, Apology 21d). The paraphrased saying, though widely attributed to Plato’s Socrates in both ancient and modern times, actually occurs nowhere in Plato’s works in precisely the form “I know that I know nothing.”[5] Two prominent Plato scholars have recently argued that the claim should not be attributed to Plato’s Socrates.[6]
Evidence that Socrates does not actually claim to know nothing can be found at Apology 29b-c, where he claims twice to know something. See also Apology 29d, where Socrates indicates that he is so confident in his claim to knowledge at 29b-c that he is willing to die for it. — https://reasonandmeaning.com/2019/11/03/socrates-i-know-that-i-know-nothing/

Even if he was such, I don't think he would be contradicting himself. I may say that I know nothing while also casting doubt on other people's beliefs. Belief is a(n doxastic) attitude, which means that I believe something if and only if I believe something. I don't believe something because I say X or because I did Y — of course, some of my behaviour may suggest what some of my beliefs are (shaking before going up a mountain may suggest I don't actually believe I know how to ski), but it gets complex from there, especially when instinct may override rationality, and whether you want to include involuntary aspects such as emotions into your analysis of belief.
There is a phrase in some languages which is "to speak from your mouth out", which is to say something without committing to its truth. Something similar in English is "to play devil's advocate", you can say something without it implying any beliefs. Socrates, when talking to the people, is not necessarily admitting to any beliefs.

If you want a really good ancient treatment of the skepticism that grew out of Plato and its relation to faith, St. Augustine's Contra Academicos is quite good and includes a version of Descartes famous "cognito ergo sum." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Cogito. Good recommendation :up: I did not know he said that in Contra Academicos, I was aware of the si fallor in "Monologues", "The Trinity" and "The City of God":

"If he doubts, he understands that he doubts; if he doubts, he wants to be certain; if he doubts, he thinks; if he doubts, he knows that he doesn't know; if he doubts, he thinks that he shouldn't agree rashly. Even if you doubt other things, you shouldn't doubt that you doubt. Since if it didn't exist, it would be impossible to doubt anything," — Saint Augustine

Some earlier appearances of cogitos here too:

Reveal

In "Nicomachean Ethics", Aristotle mentions consciousness of consciousness as consciousness of existence, but based on the definition that thought or perception are existence.
Goméz Pereira in "Antoniana Margarita" also presents consciousness as proof of existence, as well as some other parallels with Descartes.
Thomas Aquinas says in "De Veritate": "No one can assent to the thought that he does not exist. For in thinking something, he realises that it exists"; resembling Aristotle's argument.

Count Timothy von Icarus

↪Echogem222

I did, but I will admit that I had a hard time following it. My point would be that looking to Plato for a discussion of radical skepticism might not be the best framing, because it's not really what he's interested in, especially in the Apology. I will admit confusion as to whether you think you have found a flaw in Plato's project or are just using Socrates as an arbitrary example of the fact that "you can doubt anything," and that "knowing anything means knowing something." The latter is interesting, but then the topic isn't really Socrates but skepticism.

The idea that it's possible to doubt anything is in many other places — Descartes might be another more logical starting point?

But why do we have faith in anything if our faith in logic is correct? If we began with uncertainty, not knowing anything or even nothing at all (requiring faith), we could not have reached this point if we had free will. Having free will would imply knowing (though faith) that knowing things is important before knowing anything... which contradicts logic. Therefore, we must have been influenced to learn things not by our own will, in other words, to gain faith in things without free will. So, how then would we conclude that it makes sense that we have free will when we didn't initially use free will to learn anything? It doesn't. The logic does not follow such a possibility. Of course, I assume that those of you reading this believe that logic exists through faith, since if that is not the case, then I guess I wouldn't be right within your faith (whatever that is).

"Free will" as such isn't really a concept Plato and Aristotle had. It comes on the scene with Saint Paul and Saint Augustine. But they did have robust theories of self-determination, a sort of reflexive freedom.

I don't think either Aristotle nor Plato would say we start out self-determining. For Plato, most people are ruled over by the appetitive and spirited parts of their soul, in a sort of disharmonious chaos. Aristotle clarifies a lot in Plato by laying out the idea of virtues as habits/practices we can develop, and the distinction between vice (doing the wrong thing and not knowing it is wrong), incontinence (doing what you know is wrong), continence (overcoming emotion and desire through effort), and virtue (doing what is good and enjoying it). You aren't self-determinating off the bat — babies aren't free, they follow their impulse. Freedom is then to do what one thinks is right, to overcome being ruled over by desire, instinct, and circumstance.

You don't get that at the outset. You become more free through self-discovery, self-knowledge, and through gaining knowledge of the world and skills that empower you to act in the world.

Does cultivating such knowledge require faith? I suppose so, under some definitions of "faith." This is what Augustine says. You need to start with faith to understand. You can start by questioning anything, who your real parents are, if the world was just created this second, etc. You "have faith so that you can understand."

To me, these seem like reasonable positions. I don't know why freedom should come first. You can't question assumptions until you've learned how to question them effectively. Likewise, justification doesn't have to come prior to beliefs.

Echogem222

↪Fooloso4

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191826719.001.0001/q-oro-ed4-00010264#:~:text=Socrates%20469%E2%80%93399%20bc&text=I%20know%20nothing%20except%20the%20fact%20of%20my%20ignorance.&text=The%20rest%20of%20the%20world,while%20I%20eat%20to%20live.&text=To%20fear%20death%2C%20my%20friends,what%20we%20do%20not%20know.

Lionino

Diogenes Laertius, historian from Roman Greece. He lived centuries after the people he wrote about, and some of the things he says are dubious, but he is the only/best guy we have about many topics, so we stick to it.

He used also to say that the daemon foretold the future to him;[21]
and that to begin well was not a trifling thing, but yet not far from
a trifling thing; and that he knew nothing, except the fact of his
ignorance. Another saying of his was, that those who bought things out of
season, at an extravagant price, expected never to live till the proper
season for them. Once, when he was asked what was the virtue of a young
man, he said, “To avoid excess in everything.” And he used to say, that
it was necessary to learn geometry only so far as might enable a man to
measure land for the purposes of buying and selling. — C. D. Yonge translation

He used to say that his supernatural sign warned him beforehand of the future; that to make a good start was no trifling advantage, but a trifle turned the scale; and that he knew nothing except just the fact of his ignorance. He said that, when people paid a high price for fruit which had ripened early, they must despair of seeing the fruit ripen at the proper season. And, being once asked in what consisted the virtue of a young man, he said, "In doing nothing to excess." He held that geometry should be studied to the point at which a man is able to measure the land which he acquires or parts with. — R. D. Hicks translation

Echogem222

↪Count Timothy von Icarus

Descartes thought his awareness meant something of 100% certainty, but I don't see things as being that way, after all, our awareness might not truly be awareness at all, but just a deception to make us think we are "aware", whatever that means. But the point of having faith in things is meaningful, and the direction I believe that faith should go into is Socrates's reasoning, being humble in the face of uncertainty, not in the face of not knowing or knowing anything. This is why I picked Socrates, because I don't fully disagree with his philosophy, only part of it.

Fooloso4

I have not fully studied the historiography of Socrates (anyone here?) — Lionino

I would not say I did a full study, but I did take a course, mostly centered around Guthrie's "Socrates". That was a long time ago. At the time I thought it was a dead end. The reason is that none of the main sources on Socrates - Aristophanes, Xenophon, and Plato are intended to be historical accounts. Both Plato and Xenophon write in response to Aristophanes portrayal of Socrates as a sophist.

Count Timothy von Icarus

↪Fooloso4

↪Lionino

The Socrates of The Clouds has the advantage of being quite funny though. "Huh? We don't deal with mortals here; we're contemplating the Sun. Oh you want some divine knowledge, quick, to the Divine Couch to contemplate!"

Re the reliability of old sources, Eusebius passes down the rumor that the theologian and Platonist scholar Origen had castrated himself in order to avoid temptation and focus on his studies. Yet one of Origen's books that has made it down to us, a commentary on Matthew, says something to the effect of "you'd have to be a real, grade A dumbass to think that Jesus is actually telling us to remove body parts that make us sin here." A funny disconnect.

Echogem222

↪Count Timothy von Icarus

Knowing what choice you should make, also requires knowledge, but if we gain knowledge, not because of our free will, then our "choice" is already set in stone, because we know through faith which choice is the choice we will make.

Lionino

Eusebius passes down the rumor that the theologian and Platonist scholar Origen had castrated himself in order to avoid temptation and focus on his studies — Count Timothy von Icarus

Ah, Efsevios, the guy who might or might not have forged historical documents.

Fooloso4

↪Echogem222

Diogenes Laertius says:

he knew nothing except just the fact of his ignorance.

but fails to provide a reference. In the same paragraph he mentions Xenophon's Symposium but I was unable to find it there.

In Plato's Apology he says that he does not know anything noble and good. (Apology 21d)

In Plato's Symposium Socrates says:

I know nothing other than matters of eros ...

(177d)
His knowledge of ignorance is not simply a matter of knowing that he is ignorant but of knowing how to proceed in the face of ignorance. Knowledge of our ignorance is essential to Socratic philosophy. His practice of inquiry stems from his not knowing, from his search for knowledge.

Count Timothy von Icarus

↪Echogem222

nowing what choice you should make, also requires knowledge, but if we gain knowledge, not because of our free will, then our "choice" is already set in stone, because we know through faith which choice is the choice we will make.

I am not sure about that. Is an embryo free or self-determining? A baby? A two year old? A teenager? At some point, people seem to gain more of an ability to determine their own actions and feelings, although this ability is never absolute.

To get a little metaphysical, it seems possible for a semi-isolated system to be more of less self-determining, its states determined by what it is. This is generally what is meant by "adaptive" when we talk about complex, dissipative systems. Systems might be self-organizing to varying degrees, but they don't create themselves ex nihilo, and complexity takes time to develop.

A well educated person who has cultivated the virtues, who makes an effort to understand their world and themselves, etc. seems like they can become more self-determining than someone who is always led around by their passions and appetites, or someone who has been subject to horrendous abuse and locked in a room all their lives.

A person might have taken things for granted, but they can only return to challenge these assumptions effectively after having developed in certain ways. This sort of freedom and self-determination seems to show up in the world. The claim that a person cannot have this sort of freedom as an adult because they lacked it as an embryo, and so their development wasn't their "free choice," doesn't seem to carry water.

It seems to rely on an abstract conception of freedom that is contradictory - one where freedom is total freedom from constraint. But then choosing certain beliefs and not others would itself be a form of constraint. To choose A and C is to not have chosen A and B, or just A, or none of the above. Freedom as freedom from any constraint turns out to imply that freedom requires never choosing anything, as choice implies constraint. Yet the inability to choose is the opposite of what we tend to mean by freedom - a contradiction. So freedom can't be just the total lack of constraints.

Nor can it be that freedom would require that we choose our beliefs from some vantage of having no beliefs at all. For if we were to choose our beliefs in that way, based on no prior beliefs at all, these choices would be arbitrary. These choices would have nothing to do with us. Indeed, it's hard to see how we exist sans any beliefs. Yet you seem to be setting things up so that, in order to be free, we must have to somehow select our beliefs prior to having any beliefs.

So, I think it's your conception of freedom that is giving you trouble. It doesn't seem to cash out. Under this definition nothing can be free. You either have your beliefs forced on you by some extrinsic force, or you would be choosing your starting beliefs based on nothing and so have arbitrary beliefs guiding your actions. But why are these the only options? Why can't a mature individual return to their beliefs and examine them within the context of other beliefs and evidence, overturning them if there is warrant?

Echogem222

↪Count Timothy von Icarus

Why put effort into things? Well, based on the knowledge I have, I put effort into things because I understand the point in doing so (though knowledge I did not gain through free will).

The more knowledge you get through a lack of free will makes you free? How does that logically follow the premises? It's like saying that a lack of free will+ a lack of free will+ a lack of free will, etc. once you get to a certain point of gaining knowledge through a lack of free will, you suddenly are able to use free will. Sure, you could say it's possible, but using logic, you would never come to that conclusion.

Why we don't have free will using logic

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions