Determinism
There is a level of biological determinism that can't be refuted. So much of who one is is determined by one's biology. Let's go with an obvious example (I stole it from Mithrandir): one's sexuality. I didn't choose to be straight, did I? I'm genetically predisposed to be attracted to females. So much for choosing my sexuality. Consider one's physical state. The children who have inherited genetic disorders and handicaps didn't choose to be this way. If given the option, I'm pretty sure they would've picked a different life. What about one's talents and abilities? Most of those are innate. And we can't forget the impact of one's culture, environment, parents, and friends on who one is. But I think you get the point: we don't freely choose who we are as much as we would like to think. Perhaps we don't get to choose who we are at all. As Mithrandir pointed out in this blog post, the existentialist's maxim --"existence precedes essence"-- becomes invalid in light of determinism. It would seem that one's essence is already determined.
Nietzsche subscribed to a level of determinism, but at the same time believed that we create ourselves (something I'll talk about in a later blog post). There is a sense of this that permeates throughout his works: the strong were born strong, and the weak were born weak. It's almost as if some of us are predisposed to lean towards religion or what have you. Which leads me to this: For those of us who are nonbelievers, did we choose not to believe? It's an interesting question. I'd like to think I did, but I'm not sure.
My mom tells this story about me that I think may illustrate the "interesting" bit of this question. One day, when I was very young, my mom was trying to teach me the color of the apple in her hand, which was red. Every time she would say "red", I would say "blue." So, maybe I was just a dumb baby and was saying the wrong word when I actually meant the color red, but I'm not so sure now. Maybe my natural abilities/talents consist of insubordination and skepticism. I know one of my talents now is being skeptical. Perhaps I was born with this talent? I've always been skeptical of religion, even when I was a "Christian." Maybe it was only a matter of time before I stopped believing. Maybe who I am is a nonbeliever. I don't know.
What I do know is that there is a level of each individual that has been defined for he or she against his or her "free" will. Can you change this fundamental "you?" I don't know, though I'd like to think so. What one does have the free will to do, however, is to choose to create one's self in line with one's talents and abilities.
Comments
But there are other ways to define it, although I sort of agree with Snowy that it is an ideal we can never reach fully. But that doesn't mean we should strive for it, because I do think we can be more or less free. It's something we can reach for and achieve perhaps asymptotically.
Here's something I wrote a long time ago on the topic.
It also depends on what is truly *you.* Do your circumstances define you? Yes to a certain degree, of course. But is the part of you that is genuinely, authentically, completely you the part that is determined by circumstances? Naturally, these things are a part of who you are, and you cannot escape that. But, I don't know, at least for me, it's like there's a part of me that is at the same time both deeply embedded in my circumstances and transcendent of them. And it's harder to see the transcendent aspect, which is why I often try to focus on it...but really you need both components in order to truly be yourself. I don't know if that makes sense.
As a recent graduate with not many responsibilities, I feel as if I could do anything in the world that I want to. I could chose to pursue mannnny options for my life's direction right now. So, to a certain degree(key) I have this free will to choose what I want to pursue. However, I do agree with the article that there are many things that we can't choose, such as biological makeup, family members, so on.
But anyone who has had plastic surgery knows -or at least thinks- that they can "create" themselves. For example, Micheal Jackson, wanting to become the opposite of what he is. Also, in the way that we dress ourselves, if we dress in goth, we become (or are labeled by society) "gothic" -surfer clothes makes you a "surfer" -kind of. Either way, and with all things, there has got to be a balance to all of this and a little bit of both= we do and don't have free will. It depends on what it is. So, no, we do not have complete free will, but we surely don't have a lack of it either.
Why not?
I don't know if that makes sense.
lol. Yeah, I'm not getting it.... :)
Ultimately, I think you are correct in saying we do and do not have free will. I'm going to post a quote that essentially says just this.
Rationally, no, if The question of free will is whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions and decisions..