At my age, 52, one tends to just skip whatever repetition of the same narratives and topics already fleshed out by countless podcasters and critics, but Essentialsalts, however lengthy, could keep me listening to the very end of video. Thanks for posting!

I had read Nietzsche on this topic quite a long time ago, and as I grew older and I understood more and more on life and how fragile we are against suggestion and effects caused by external sources which trigger reactions and response in us, I could never believe anything remotely close to a "free" will, what I'm concerned with as of now is more in line of "can one achieve a freer will by understanding his drives and emotions and things which trigger a response within him"

For some reason this part of Nietzsche's philosophy is greatly overlooked. It might be because people like to think of Nietzsche as an existentialist and people that tend to associate themselves with that movement tend to dislike fatalistic views. Anyhow I appreciate this video.

I've just listened to this again, and feel I understand Nietzsche's position better now. I have long understood the importance of the question, but found inconsistencies in the views of most philosophers, including Schopenhauer, although he's usually very rational. We'll done for pointing out the weaknesses of the arguments of Hitchens and Peterson, too. Both brilliant in their own ways, but neither is a philosopher! I'm also starting to see how much Jung owed to Nietzsche - in fact, the essence of his life work. All this is immensely valuable, and at the risk of sounding hyperbolic, I'll say it again: these podcasts are actually life-changing. Thank you once again.

Love these videos! Keep up the good work my guy!

Nietzsche correctly identified a person as a collection of drives. But I am more than simply the sum of my drives. I am also the thing that is aware of those drives, as well as the conflicts and contradictions that exist between them. I attempt as best I can to reconcile and resolve these conflicts and contradictions, and by this process, I grow into the person I strive to become. To me, this struggle constitutes the "meaning" of my life. It's the reason that my life matters. My drives are what I interact with, not what I am. What I am is *that which chooses* what I am. Nietzsche wished to remove morality from our mental universe. But without moral reasoning, how do we navigate this process of self determination? On what basis do we choose who we are? I suspect Nietzsche's answer is something along the lines of: "replace ethics with aesthetics". Live your life as a work of art, he might say. I admit, this prospect has a certain appeal to me. The sublime chaos of creation is undeniably sacred, and must be honored. But I do not think the flame of creation is sufficient on its own. Our quest also requires a map. If we don't have one, we must make one. This is a necessary part of the journey, in my opinion. But if we abandon cartography entirely (which is what ~I think~ Nietzsche is saying), then the entire project of becoming human is rendered impossible and pointless. And once again, we're back to that old cliche, nihilism. It's probably the least creative accusation you could hurl at Nietzsche, but it's popularity is not an accident. It's the core issue on which his ideas succeed or fail, I think. If Nietzsche has a real solution to the problem of nihilism, then the project he's proposing becomes incredibly compelling. I'm still undecided as to whether he has such a solution. If I ever figure it out, I'm sure it will be as a result of listening to the content on this channel. I'm certain that there's no better source of Nietzschean scholarship available anywhere outside of a graduate seminar than this channel is providing. It's a true gift to the world that this knowledge is freely available, and I thank you very much for your generosity.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, this is well done. Subscribed

Much appreciated back story and connexion.

Well done! Thank you.

Excellent, and very helpful.

Fantastic stuff thank you sir.

Such good work man.

Great job!

I like your work

I think Peterson's point is less about the idea that the intuition of free will is "good" because it is true in the face of some REAL fact or order how the universe works, and more about how it is the foundation for a morality that he finds to be healthy from a psychological standpoint. The technicality that this morality may be based on a lie does not matter so much for Peterson if that “lie” is juxtaposed to a truth that is a part of independent reality ( capital R REAL). Peterson and those he is influenced by put heavy emphasis on developmental stages of consciousness, this means that morality and belief would operate like traits did for Darwin - the bad ones dying out and the ones that aided in survival remaining in the phylogeny as culture develops. There is a sort of moral and cultural “survival of the fittest” that plays out for thinkers like Peterson. All he is saying is that modern human beings possess something like a “cultural phenotype” or disposition to trust the intuition that our choices are free and it has led to positive consequences from a developmental point of view. Peterson views western society as something like a quasi-successful organism that has evolved the right cultural traits to survive the world, and find meaning in it - free will is a fundamental element of this evolved organism. With this in mind, being wary of "getting rid of it" when it comes to free will is paramount. If human society for the past 50,000+ years has been trying their hand and believing certain things, the intuition for free will emerged as random as something like a "trait" does for Darwin. Those who had a proclivity to think this way and act on it are clearly the successful ones because we all think like this even though there is no good or "natural" reason to. So taking for granted the way we think and morality we have as something invented rather than developed and doing away with it is all Peterson is warning against in regards to free will. Furthermore I do not think Nietzsche's treatment of FW in Human all too Human 39 is a "takedown" in any form of Peterson's position, as laid out above. Nietzsche's understanding, to me, seems to be in a similar vein. Culture and the individual developed and are subject to that process, there are careful orders in place and it is no small or safe task to unchain yourself from them. Great video man, love the podcast.

Thank you ❤

Revenge presents itself too me many times when considering Nietzsche's philosophy. I'm glad you brought it up in the context of his Determinism.

the last 30 minutes reminded me of two passages in zarathustra that seem super relevant to the will and freedom and revenge and punishment. in the hollingdale translation from penguin, the two sections are called the spirit of gravity and of redemption

“Some think this view absolves you of your responsibility for your acts. But actually you’re responsible for much more than your acts. That which is said to constrain or determine you biologically is actually what you are. It does restrain your acts according to its inherent ways of desiring and acting, but you are this it, and it decided to be, so actually you are responsible for much more, you’re responsible for what you are. You are responsible for the good and bad things that happen to you, for any accident or disease you might experience! Actually it was all going to happen to you just the way it did at the moment of your birth or conception and even before, at the moment your parents had a glint for each other in the eye. There is fundamentally no difference between you and that glint.”BAM

The free will question has basically plagued me since i was introduced to it in a class 10 years ago. I read Alan Watts early on and saw that this sense of separateness is an illusion. I’m also very influenced by Aleister Crowleys concept of True Will, where he likens us to stars with a certain orbit. It’s basically the “become what you are” we see here. One can make sacred the task of simply expressing what one is day to day, which culminates in the life as a whole. Still, the cultural bias of free will is so hard to break from and i often wonder if it’s even possible to truly integrate the idea of fatalism. We will always be treated as if we have this separate moral agency with every move we make. Some of course more than others who may have some kind of mental illness or whatever. But for the most part, i think most people in the West simply live in a world of free will and responsibility, and even though i’ve believed in fatalism for years, i still feel i have to keep reminding myself.

You have some interesting commentary.

Will admit upfront I’m slow, but did not fully catch how Nietzsche differed from hard determinists (I’ll re-listen to this video). Would like to know how Nietzsche’s view of free will fits or doesn’t with the view of a hard determinist like Robert Sapolsky (don’t want to put words in his mouth, but seems to be his position per his videos). Really liked your video, will look for more.

What book(s) of Michael Puett do I need to read for the information on confuzianism you mention at 0:22 ? Thanks as always for your great work!

To me, free will means a sense of agency/autonomy in decision making exists, then i would say that we have "free will", but we can't be completely free in what we like, who we are and what we are made of and the makeup of our drives and will. But if we are aware of everything that makes up the human creature to overcome it, we direct our "free will" with everything that we're made of to the most that we can become. Even as a compatibilist, I've replaced the idea if free will with will-to-power.

I think David Bentley Hart has the best argument against Free Will... even though I'm not a Christian & think it's base presupposition the most absurd idea one could possess. Humans can't have Free Will because they make wrong choices all of the time, or those that go against their own best interest. A Free Will would be an Omniscient Will, which would never make a choice wrong for itself, and this, as experience shows... is not the case for humans. He uses an example of one knowing what one's choices are, which are... a thing that will kill one behind one door, and a beautiful woman behind the other door... that one could marry if chosen, and that obviously... a Free Will would NEVER choose the former door, yet humans invariably choose the former much of the time. This is a defective, thus, not Free Will, whatever it is encumbered by. An encumbered will isn't free, and our will's are so encumbered & qualified by things because we are finite beings... that it can't be " Free. " Just had my coffee, so I hope I explained it clearly, and didn't do injustice to Hart's position...

What is it that Nietzsche in "the geneaology of morality" II part; aphorism 12, is talking about, when he says: what Huxley accused Spencer with - his "administrative nihilism"... but it is about more than about "administering" ? (my own translation into englisch, I hope you get my question)

Where can I find the quote "the wise punishes not because men have done wrong in the past, but so that men will not do wrong in the future"? You say it's in the same passage you mentioned before (which would be Aphorism 102), but I can't find it. You say it at 1:15:00

Your comments about people who are like “oh, the free will debate is so boring,” “will never lead to any objective conclusion” (as with how many other philosophical questions?), etc. I think betray a sort of anxiety people have about the issue. “We mustn’t go down THAT road…” I don’t care to identify as a “hard determinist,” but I think something I would call “intellectual cowardice” (especially when it comes to people like JP) really comes into play with people who just go “well, we’ll never know for sure or whatever, but we should just accept it as real, end of story.” I just see it as one more paradox among countless others. It’s not like, because I can’t take seriously the notion of “free will,” I just laze about all day, moping. Since coming to terms with it, I’ve been a far more happy, patient, and above all, compassionate person. Oddly enough…more motivated as well, though I’m not sure that is causal. I understand that the purpose of this video was not to say “free will is bullshit,” I just felt the need to add this. Even more than religion, I’ve found that people are very touchy and emotional when it comes to free will. I’ve seen even the polite suggestion that it may be an illusion (or, as Sam Harris says it, “an illusion of an illusion”) cause people to become quite agitated. I don’t think that an honest and serious reappraisal of free will needs to be depressing, or to lead to some decadent morass where criminals get carte Blanche to kill or wreak havoc, as many bizarrely seem to assume.

In fact you can discover the change of view in regard of human responsabiity in the greek myths. King Oedipus is not guilty because of a moral choice he has made but because of the bad consequences of his deeds. Which means that the focus does not lie in the question of good or bad intention of the acting person, but on the effects of the committed deeds. In German we call this "Erfolgsstrafrecht" instead of moderrn "Schuldstrafrecht" (criminal justice of the effects and criminal justice of responsability (implying free choice).

I guess my question is, if there is no freedom of will, why does Nietzsche bother discussing ideas like the Last Man and Overman, if we cannot choose to be one or the other? Why does he expect there to be some great philosopher of the future, if our historical circumstances proscribe us to remain within predetermined boundaries with no escape? Why does he even use the phrase "will to power" if it is not a product of will, but of fate? Not that I disagree with his points about free will, it just has wider implications for his thoughts. Though, I do find it a little difficult to believe that the structures in which we live preordain everything and there is no escape whatsoever, which is the argument for criminology that sociologists have frequented for decades now. I would be a walking example of that not being the case, a statistical anomaly. Nonetheless, I prefer the term "agency" instead of free will

I had developed a similar view on morality and its origins that man's supposed superiority (as you said in the video, divinity) over other beings and non beings also created his suffering. He believed he had divinity in him but that also made him responsible for his actions, which became the source of misery. Why do we seek answers in philosophy? We are deeply wounded by our own conceptions of ourselves and separated the world from the self. We want to heal ourselves, and the only way to do it is to drop our false pretenses and accept our non-divinity, we are all animals and no greater than any given object in this world. And this is not a bad thing. We are not restrained anymore. We are free from the guilt and remorse. If we have reached this point, then we may also try to heal the society as a whole, to help the victims of our 'justice' and show them the light we have seen. I believe this is what man has to do now. He has to redeem whole of his existence, humanity, even the world itself. We will redeem wars, famine and every 'immoral' action man has made. We will heal every suffering person, not out of pity but to release them from their shackles.

Reality is different in different states of consciousness. One’s understanding of the world is different in waking vs. dreaming vs. deep sleep. Each state is qualitatively distinct from the other. For example, the sense of doership is totally absent in deep sleep, while in the dream state, the personal identification to any activity is often confused and uncertain. When operating in the waking state, awareness is generally identified and engaged with the sensory body and the perceived world around it. These three states are transitory and relative to each other. Underlying the relative states of consciousness is pure consciousness or Being. Being is an unchanging and ever present field of silence or non-activity. The identification with any of the relative states is a mistake the intellect makes when it overlooks the silent Witness of all phenomenal existence. Free will begs the question who is it that is the true agent of activity. There is no need for an individual doer. That there is a sense of someone doing anything is a made up construct learned early in life; it’s an evolutionary useful adaptation adopted by Homo sapiens. Its utility vanishes once there is the direct realization that Being is the source of all that arises in conscious experience. This is not metaphysics (necessarily), the Witness is ever present. Right now the Witness is present. There is no free will because there’s no doer to exercise it. But so long as the one is ignorant of one’s true nature, the adoption persists.

how bout a hightech PreCoded Virtual Reality inside ConCave Earth?

Nicely done. Thank you. My own take on free will is that I doubt nature would have selected for us such large brains and wrinkly frontal lobes only to give us the illusion of being able to plan, weigh pros and cons and make decisions -- which I consider all components of free will. I also think that any discussion of what free will is or isn't -- whether by Nietzsche (my favorite writer) or anyone else -- always benefits from staying away from the moral question as long as possible -- since that is not why we evolved to have whatever it is we call free will. First figure out how what we call free will gives us a edge in survival -- helps us to hunt that water buffalo over there -- and only then look at how we end up applying this phenomenon to our moral lives.

It’s not Hutchinson’s, it was first Isaac Bashevis Singer, who said: we have to believe we have free will, we have no choice.

Does anyone else find it paradoxical that Hitchens is quoted as saying, "We have 'NO CHOICE' but to believe in free will." ?

You can't decide one way or the other on the basis of logic and fact.. so choose the answer .. the one that makes you happy.. you know which one that would be.. that you are free and creative.. and living is fun..

Even if free will doesn’t exist, this doesnt mean that it is pointless to punish crimes. Someone without total free will could still calculate their behaviors based on a given incentive structure. For example, if they are genetically predisposed to be somewhat risk averse, they may be less likely to commit a crime if the threat of imprisonment is present than they would be to commit a crime if the threat of imprisonment isn’t present. This logic doesn’t suggest an uncaused cause for human will, it suggests that various people are going to behave differently within different incentive structures based on their genetic makeup and their previous experiences with the environment. Basically, the consequence isn’t there to punish people in a moral sense, it is there to disuade people from behaving a certain way.

i dont have the words to thank you enouth for your work , but thats just the will not being free

I think you have taken what Hitchens said in a debate he had on his book tour (God Is Not Great, Why Religion Poisons Everything") with a preacher. Hitchen's point was more along the lines (I paraphrase) "Of course I have free will. God (according to a the Bible) gave it to me. Thereforre, I don't have any choice in the matter."

Even today it's kind of unclear how non-philosophers and different cultures think about morality and free will. Moral realists will often claim that the belief in stance independent moral facts is just the common sense view, but the empirical research on this is just starting and it doesn't yet support that claim.

why is the background in the thumbnail british

In order to say that there is no such thing as "free will", let alone that society e.g. legitimate jurisprudence abandon the concept, it would be necessary to define the term with some universally applicable comprehensive parameters of closure. Including on the part of such a person as would presume to provide such ultimate definition avoiding the fallacy of arguing from the part to define the entirety. The part being of course any individual's finally isolated subjective experience of deliberate observation and intentionality. With any attempt to do so ultimately doomed to collapse under its own weight, such as in Wittgenstein's characterization of Frege and Russell's stark ideal of achieving some ultimately true closure defining the workings of language. Consider also Gödel's incompleteness theorem. As to which is it not the case that the game, as it were, of 'defining' many words reflecting the ultimately inaccessible experience of others' individual subjectivity has to depend not so much on concise exactitude attempting some manner of precise closure, but the 'game' of accomodating illustration by example, such as in Jesus's parables? As for any person failing to appreciate, let alone attempting to outright deny, the essential necessity of such illustration for effective "free will" use of language and indeed whatever infinitely unfolding nature of the concept of "free will" in itself - might such a person by their very example correspondingly contribute to some observers' better appreciation of the concept of "absurd"? Examples of words self evidently in this aspect having to be considered ultimately rather as flexible concepts, including also by implication of their functionally illustrative interrelation include: conscience, contrition, responsibility, sacrifice, justice . . .

In order for free will to exist it only has to exist infinitesimally. In order for the absence of free will to exist it must exist absolutely. Given that this is the case I'll roll the dice on free will.

Nietzsche’s Critique of Free Will EXPLAINED: Why Nietzsche exchanged “moral responsibility” for Fate 00:01 🤔 The topic of free will is often met with apathy and indifference, as people tend to hold positions that align with their preconceptions and intuitions. 01:57 🤨 The argument that we have free will is often based on intuition and personal experience, which may not necessarily be supported by evidence. 03:19 🧐 The debate over free will often centers around the idea that individuals have the experience of making choices, but whether those choices are truly free remains a point of contention. 07:34 🔄 Compatibilists argue that free will and determinism can coexist, suggesting that preserving the concept of free will has societal benefits. 10:54 🕊 Nietzsche challenges the conventional belief in free will and moral responsibility, suggesting that it is a result of fear of the consequences of abandoning this belief. 17:01 🔄 In prehistoric times, moral judgments were based on the consequences of actions rather than attributing moral responsibility to individuals' intentions, as we do today. 19:53 🧠 Nietzsche approached the issue of free will from an anthropological and psychological perspective, examining how human conceptions of themselves and their actions have changed over time. 20:23 🤔 Nietzsche hypothesized that the shift in human views of moral responsibility and free will was influenced by changes in self-conception, particularly the transition from viewing humans as a confluence of internal forces to a solitary soul governing the body. 21:21 🇨🇳 In ancient China and Nietzsche's view, the human being was seen as a product of various natural forces and elements, similar to Nietzsche's perspective, which challenges the notion of a single, autonomous self. 22:19 🤷‍♂ Nietzsche criticizes the modern view that assigns moral value to intentions, suggesting that it is an error based on language and that actions should be judged by their consequences. 23:18 🔀 Nietzsche describes a historical shift from valuing actions based on their consequences to valuing actions based on their origin in intention, a change influenced by aristocratic values and faith. 24:52 🧐 Nietzsche distinguishes between two stages: the premoral stage where actions were judged by consequences, and the moral stage where actions were judged by intention, emphasizing the shift from external consequences to internal intentions. 27:18 💡 Nietzsche attributes the belief in free will and moral responsibility to the upper classes and their experiences of making decisions and giving commands, which influenced the idea of an independent will governing actions. 28:40 🙇‍♂ Nietzsche suggests that viewing oneself as a rational ego governing the body is an error, and he leaves room for a virtue ethics approach to morality based on understanding actions as an outflowing of one's nature. 30:03 🧘 Nietzsche views the true self as a multiplicity of often competing drives, and actions result from unconscious urges, with conscious intentions serving as post-hoc narrations. 35:00 🤯 Nietzsche argues that ultimately, individuals cannot be held responsible for their nature, motives, actions, or the effects of their actions, challenging the concept of moral responsibility. 36:32 🌟 Nietzsche envisions a potential extramoral phase where actions' value lies in the unintentional aspect, suggesting a move beyond conventional moral judgments based on intentions. 39:21 🐷 Nietzsche illustrates the idea that humans might one day view individuals as amoral entities, similar to how we perceive animals today, without assigning moral responsibility for their actions. 40:49 🤔 Nietzsche's rejection of free will is a core element of his philosophy. 41:14 🧠 Nietzsche's disagreement with Schopenhauer on free will influenced his own views. 42:14 😟 Guilt is a common human feeling that Nietzsche believes is tied to the concept of free will. 43:48 🤯 Nietzsche argues that the feeling of guilt arises from the belief in free will and moral responsibility. 45:21 🤔 Our ability to imagine alternate choices after making a decision contributes to the belief in free will. 46:52 👥 Nietzsche connects the concept of moral responsibility, free will, and guilt in the human mind. 49:45 💭 Nietzsche explores the idea that beliefs reveal more about individuals than about truth. 53:10 🧐 Nietzsche criticizes determinists who see external causes as overwhelming their own will. 55:39 😩 Some people embrace the idea of unfree will to avoid facing their own weaknesses. 58:04 🤷 Nietzsche acknowledges the complexity of human motivations regarding the belief in free will and unfree will. 01:00:53 🤯 Nietzsche challenges the traditional notion of causality and the ego as explanations for human behavior. 01:02:15 🧠 Nietzsche rejects the concept of free will in both libertarian and compatibilist senses, as he does not believe in a unitary self as an uncaused cause of thoughts and actions. 01:04:38 🔄 Nietzsche's framework for understanding human beings opposes both free will and determinism, focusing on moral responsibility as the core of his critique. 01:05:44 🌌 Nietzsche challenges the concepts of causality and free choice, advocating for a perspective that embraces necessity and fate as explanations for human actions. 01:07:12 🪙 Nietzsche's view of human will can be described as fatalism, where individuals accept their fate as a necessary consequence of their nature, and greatness lies in embracing it. 01:09:14 🌟 Nietzsche envisions a future extramoral phase of humanity where revenge and the desire for retribution are replaced with a more enlightened perspective on justice and morality. 01:10:14 ⚖ Nietzsche suggests treating criminals as individuals in need of medical care and psychological help rather than as inherently evil beings deserving punishment. 01:21:54 🔄 Nietzsche encourages individuals to seek and discover what they are meant to become, emphasizing that one's nature and fate are continually evolving.

What i understand of it the queston of freedom comes down to wether we are aware of the driving forces motives etc or not.if we are aware and understand these motives ,meaning that we have made them our own trrough understanding.if not aware the we are not free because we are compeled by external forces.when fully aware trough understanding i cant say i am compeled by anything other then my self so i m acting out of my own freedom.this does not mean that all my actions are free since i am not aware of all motives that compel me but to say i am never fully aware or could become aware of all motives drives etc for a particular act i think is not correct.

Mores is pronounced '' more ease'' , otherwise excellent analysis!

So how do we accept when a person makes a decision to take action and unknowing the consequence which ends up "bad" but the intension was for "Good"

The hypothetical arguments along the lines of ‘if you could replay the scenario, you would still choose them same’ are unfounded empirically since that experiment can never be run.

Wasn't Nietzsche also critizizing the fatalistic view in beyond good and evil aphorism 21 at the end of the passage?

Only a few minutes in but the belief in free will seems to be an extension of the human obsession with itself, our over confidence in our “errors” being universal. It seems that no matter what you think you are observing it AFTER it is already thought, meaning that at the very least your consciousness is not choosing. In short, the only place free will could reside would be prior to consciousness (because how could you observe your thoughts prior to thinking them?) but even then it seems like special pleading to assume that is free when every other object of the universe at that scale works through clear cause and effect. The conception of a free will at some point being an uncaused cause does not sit well with me. Would this still not make the free will basically irrational and random? If it without cause, it cannot make choices based on anything, it is by definition going to be random or arbitrary which way it swings. I just don’t see any step in the process of action that would permit a free will in the weird intuition of the whole. If any free will libertarians are reading this, could you please let me know how a system of free will would work explicitly and in detail? How would a will make non-random choices without relying completely on causes such as mood, memories, biological pathways, or reason? I think it’s in the Gay Science where Nietzsche has a passage about free will that I hope you touch on, about people observing that they think a thought and then it is acted out, and immediately assume it was them, despite being completely unaware of all of the processes involved. Anyways, excited to hear your analysis!

There will be no free will as long as our actions are dictated by desires we didn't choose. PLR

is so sad that people that study academia without being part of it still think a political scammer like peterson deserves any attention it has come to a point that whatever works link to him it gets automatically rejected by my team, so sad that bright minds get scammed when there's so many philosophers that said anything misinterpreted for him far better and far long ago.

Don’t reify ‘free will’. Think pragmatically - evolution has allowed for increasing degrees of freedom - organisms become ‘freer’ to the extent that they have a larger repertoire of possible actions to choose from. The human repertoire includes things like being responsive to reasons and deliberation.

I’m re-watching all the episodes after seeing the recent livestream. You really had a problem with Peterson haha. Peterson is not looking at things as a philosopher, but as a physician. and he looks at the society as he would at one of his clients. You can discuss ideas abstractly at a philosophy seminar but then comes life and you got to be practical. I remember watching Chomsky say „moral relativism is like sceptism. nobody really lives like that. they wouldn’t survive 5 minutes.” Peterson probably realises what influence he has gotten and wants to do spread a more practical message. I’m not defending him, but I felt like writing this after you namedropped him in 5 episodes in a row 😂

Anti citizen x has a good video on free will and kinda covers it well ^^

It was always your fate to believe that It was also your fate not to believe that

It sounds like your friend might not have liked the topic and sought to terminate the discussion and it prompted a decent video of podcast

The mention of Jordan Peterson in context with these great philosophers is so absurdly disillusioning to me.

If you have no free will you have no freedom. That's the number one thing that create deception because people believe in something just because someone else said that without proving it themselves that works for them or not. Let no man teach you!!! You have to be able to get the knowledge and put it to test until you yourself prove that's actually true otherwise you can be deceived. So free will is very very important, that's freedom of choice and knowledge and that's what create the person that we are otherwise we will be living the live or the "truth" of other people which can end up creating suffering in our lives.

1:25:13 Here lays a self-made man, gone to meet his creator 😅

If fate is true does that also mean that we do not have free will? Can someone decipher those two im not smart enough to do so.

I was expecting something about 'free will' , what is it? where does it work? what does it do? Tell me, how often do you decide to make a bad choice? if you never decide to make a bad choice, how then can any choice be called good? you only choose.

You have a choice, you can see yourself as a miracle or you can see yourself as a mistake. Einstein That’s the only choice we have

"Only a few minutes in" No, please, listen to the whole episode before commenting. Listen through, listen attentively. A lot of garbage is put out regarding this topic and Essentialsalts did a wonderful job of not dumbing it down, neither simply falling for the same clichés and reductive objections.

The only true choice for free will is NEITHER when the choice comes from outside of self 🤔

Are birds free from the chains of the skyway. Bob Dylan.

So what is the mechanism for choice. In the supermarket i am in the cerial isle and there are over fifty choices of which perhaps six or seven are in the running. So already i am constrained. I could have gone down the healthfood section in its own area. I could have visitedother stores. I couldhave gone on Amazon but i didnt. The thought never arose. How much time are you dedicating to this choice? And at what point do i stop the decision making process? Of Course it is said that God gave us free will as though thks was not the default position. Trees dont have free will or birds or sheep. But them there is Hell! The biggest constraint on free will there is, guaranteed to keep the faithful in line. If you think you are in control try not to think for even one minute. And do you chooke what thought will come next. Try hard not to think about the ocean. Once the idea is mentioned that is where your mind goes .

You can say something is fated but never know if it was, dogma.

There's ways in which I can agree with this, and ways in which I can't. For example Nietzsche's idea of criminal justice seems like a good idea for some people, such as pedophiles. If it is true you were born this way then we have to change who you are through means such as chemical castration and even a death sentence in extreme circumstances Eugenics is also back on the table as if things such as depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, etc etc are shown to be genetic then the moral thing to do is preventing them from breeding Generally though I believe in a more moderate form of free will. Your conscious mind is your free will and you are in control of that, but your subconscious mind is your Fate and you are not in control of that

The fruit is the red bill. Or is it?! 😂

Revenge could very well be justice? No?

Free will is not absolute. Partial Will is the most likely answer. Debates and podcasts are irrelevant if there is no Will

Is the presented aware of Nietzsche’s deathbed biography, My Sister and I, published by Samuel Roth in 1952? If this is accepted as genuine then it goes a long way to explain his hammering away at the foundations of morality. The Genealogy of Morals makes his antagonism with the subject very evident. He ultimately comes to insist on amor fati. His realization that fate, by which is meant one’s peculiar and unavoidable human condition, must not just be accepted passively but embraced willfully. Thus I am; I am not just a mistake of my creator or a victim of fate for thus I will to be. Or to speak religiously, thus my God, who is beyond good and evil, has made me to be.

In the Noble Quran, the criminally insane are not blameworthy

I can't help but disagree with Nietzsche's (or your interpretation of Nietzsche's) opinion on justice. For one, justice as retribution for wrongs is almost as directly an expression of noble morality that I can imagine - you are repaying tit for tat; not taking a blow and turning the other cheek but returning a blow in kind. For two, and on purely self-serving grounds, I'm not liable to accept the notion that society or an individual should be armed with the moral hammer to start calling people it disagrees with as 'sickly' and in need of 'rehabilitation' - I mean, seriously, how many dystopian novels does that conjure up the image of? '1984', 'Brave New World', even 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest'. Do you really mean to suggest that a 'hothouse of the strong like Venice or Rome' functioned as such by treating political opponents as clay invalids rather than granite competition? It certainly does not conjure up the image of nobility - of knights jousting or Perseus slaying Medusa (I mean, really, Medusa just needed some Benzedrine, Perseus was really out of line!). Lastly, using the phrase, "become who you are" as a base for some linguistic algebra, I believe Nietzsche's "position" on free will is reducible to a determinist/essentialist position: "Your becoming is your becoming" Simply a restatement of two terms "Who you are is who you are" Simply a restatement of two terms "Become who you are" Nietzsche's formulation "You become who you are" If untrue, then 'You don't become who you are'; this also means that it's possible to 'not be who you are' or 'Who you are is not who you are' which appears to be a logical contradiction. If you are not 'who you are' then, 'who are you'? In my mind, if there is a distinction between a person and their becoming, it is tantamount to denying Nietzsche's psychological observations about human beings, that they are one with their effects. "You are who you are" By substituting the term "You become" with "You are" which were demonstrated to be coterminous you arrive at an essentialist statement about human beings, but you've also stated earlier that people are one with their becoming and cannot help becoming who they are, ergo they lack free will and determined by 'who they are'.

The answer is simple my friend. If you can ask the question on whether you have free Will-----THEN YOU HAVE FREE WILL.

I wonder what the victim of the crime would think?

From the philosophy of freedom by rudolf steiner.paraphrazing.....the act of cognition......by percieving anything outward or inward before aplying thinking i just percieve percepts.......i use thinking to bring fitting concepts to these precepts....if the concepts fit i expirience understanding........i dont have to apply my thinking to the percepts...i can just stare and be aware of them....if i want to understand them i have to use thinking.....nothing in the given (percepts) compels me to do this i freely choose to do so.

Automatons are not Slaves they are Avatars

Whatever you are it’s not up to you

This idea of causeless will, where "causeless" equates to "free" in a world ruled by causality is pure nonsense. How does this irrational idea of freedom from cause have anything to do with human freedom anyway? Free will is the antithesis of the irrationality of causeless will, as it represents decisions made by way of our power of reason - rationally thoughtful determination. So how appropriate it is that a determined world is a prerequisite for the existence of free will.

Gosh-- I can't help but feel disgust with this view of free Will. Now you can see how this type of thinking leads to terrible things. We need to understand that our thoughts will dictate our behavior. For instance, if you believe(think) women should be clothed from top to bottom then that will manifest in reality. Like wise, if you believe(think) women can expose themselves fully then that will manifest in reality. So what I'm saying what you think becomes reality...so think wisely! It's not a matter of whether we have free will or not its how we want to live in reality that matters.

What if you make decisions by coin-toss? What if it rains unexpectedly on a day there is only a 10% chance of rain. What is a distracted driver crosses a boundary and hits your car?

Please just get to the point

Personally the funny thing about Jordan Peterson is that i stumbled over him while looking for Nietzsche related content like this channel here on KZfaq before he became popular but i lost interest pretty quickly because of some fundmantel disagreements i had concerning regards to Nietzsche and also being from Germany the utter nonsense he talked about the 3rd Reich. Imagine my surprise when later i realied he became a very popular life advice guru for a certain type of young male demography...

Oh good, no free will, so let's get rid of the judicial and penal system, tell the parents of a child who has been abused and raped by a pedophile that there is no free will and there will be no punishment.

A lunatic who live by his ideas and end up in a mad house.

Meh Peterson... You don't need that as a foundation, justice is corrective you fix the deterministic mechanism. You have either chaos or determinism, isn't it? You can have some chaotic determinism, like the double pendulum, unknowable completely as chaos will accumulate and grow by deterministic means, so you can predict them short term I guess.