Re: political

Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:Misc-
0915E1.22474724082007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

In article <Xns99966738CCBDEgoddardbenetscapenet@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I'm the only one so far that has made the distinction
between "choice" and "free choice."

What means "not-free choice"? Is that different from "pre-destined
outcome"? If not, it seems that the "choice" part is illusory, and no
actual "choice"s were made.

Isn't it a little bit puzzling that when we discuss "will" we
never say it without "free". There's plenty of discussion about
"free will", but never any about "will". If one speaks against
"free will", then the conclusion is always that he must be a
"double predestination-ist" and he must think that we're all robots.
The conclusion is in error, but comes from not being able to
throw away "free" without also throwing away "will".

I have a "will" which chooses among various options. But
the choice my will makes is determined by several things.
Is there a gun at my head? Then I will likely choose to live.
Am I very hungry? Then I will choose the lasagne over the
salad. Did I grow up dirt poor and unfairly oppressed by
the cops? Then I have contempt for society and I choose
a life of crime.

My will is not free, but bound by a multitude of influences
and forces. We're back to the situation where I am free to
choose whatever I want, but "what I want" is beyond my control.

B.

--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
.