I have recently been in a discussion about free will and I am left with a few thoughts.
First, I argued against free will because I don't see that the will is free. I had stated that I don't believe in free will but in reflection I don't think that I have proven that statement. What I do think is clear is that the will is dependent, and that within the parameters of dependency the will may have a sense of freedom. Certainly the will is dependent and conditioned, or so it seems to me, but it is not certain that the will is at any time free.
Now, it has been explained to me that freedom lies in the fact that I can choose this or I can choose that. It is the ability to choose that defines free will. I struggle to accept that definition because the very choice is in many ways conditioned, dependent, and influenced from a multitude of means.
I think that much of my thoughts hinge on how you define free will and what is meant by that. The term is thrown about without much thought as to what it means. Mostly I think it comes across as balme for the ego. Of course, one needs to assume that there is any reality to the ego, that it is not a burdensome illusion. Certainly Christians (and I would suppose any of the big 3 western faiths) cling to the idea of free will to various degrees because it fits into their doctrines of judgement and accountabilty (and I suppose to theories of personal salvation to a lessor extent). Is free will a major player in the thought of the eastern faiths (taoism, buddhism, sikhism, hinduism)? It seems that it does in terms of practical day to day living, but in terms of systems of belief I think it falls to the side with the belief in the non-self.
