We ought to live our lives according to reason, which is a limit on the will, yet a necessary one. Everything in existence operates and persist through reason. I’m not saying every object comes into being for a reason (I’m not promoting a god), but for the most part, every object must abide by universal laws, and this is a limit on what we call the will, and on the possible actions in which the will can actualize. Will is the act or process of using or asserting one’s choice; volition. But we all know that there are limited options for us which to choose from. I can not fly to the sun and walk on it simply because I will it. The desire to act is not alone sufficient enough for an action. The ability to perform the action which we desire, materials which to act on, and a space which to act in are all necessary components of any option the will contemplates. We can only do what is rational and logic. No one can square a circle because it is an illogical action, therefore impossible; and even if it becomes possible to do so, there must be a reason and logic process for it having the capacity to be a possible object.
We also know every action demands a reaction and a cause, does free-will not necessitate this principle? It is impossible to kill a man, but by the free-will of either the killer or the victim to not want the outcome to be death, not have the man die. No freedom is unrestrained freedom, it is all based on qualifiers and contingencies. If you are living under a government, then you can bet your freedom is limited by law. If you are not living under a government, but are alive, then you are still not absolutely free, as the body necessitates that you obtain certain materials (air, food, water, sleep) to continue your living state. People say “god is good” which means it doesn’t have the option to be evil, which is a limitation on this being’s power and free-will. Our ignorance of the future forces us to make uncertain decisions, resulting in consequences not always desired by the will, again limiting the will’s freedom and spoiling its intended results. And if we knew the future perfectly, then we would have no will, for the future would be absolute and decided, the only choice the will would have is the determined performance which the future dictates.
We do have a will which can make a particular choice out of a set of options. But, this will is not free, as the options are not unlimited, making the choices limited. I think the confusion is due to equating the will with desire, instead of equating the will with reason. Our desires are many and nearly limitless, but our reason is founded on knowledge obtained; reason bases its determinations on the role we play in the world and the limits our actions possess, rather than on our desires and ultimate wants, for even these must subject themselves to reason to be obtained (for no one has wants without a reason for wanting what they desire).
Imagine that the will of A can choose from one to an infinite amount of options. A can only choose ONE out of infinite choices, for even if A could choose ALL the choices, this should be the destruction of A, as there must be a conflict between, at least, two of the infinite options; because conflict must also be an option in an unlimited set of options. Or imagine the scenario, A has B, C, and D, but not H, I, or J, therefore A can not choose the options which necessitate H, I, or J; this makes the infinite choices limited, not only to one choice, but now to choices which can only be chosen by an A that has B, C, and D; and we don’t even know if there are A’s with only one out of B, C, and D; nor if it would limit the choices of A further. Is there really a logical way to have a will, such as that of A, which is fully and without any restraint free to choose any and all forms of being and action without a single pair contradicting each other? Such a will would need to destroy the operation of negation in logic itself. What kind of world would exist without any negation at all?
No comments:
Post a Comment