GENIUS FORUMS

What serves as the impetus for ones volition?

If choice is a potential and volition serves as the means by which such potentials are determined and/or enacted what then serves as the predicating force for such a faculty?

Is the inherent nature of the one whom possesses volition responsible for their choices made?

If the inherent nature of a person is ultimately responsible for tipping the balance between venality and probity or any other option for that matter what then serves as the origin of ones nature?

Is it so that the predisposition of ones nature negates "free will" thereby exempting ones culpability for consequences, or does "free will" ensure the ability to choose that which is contrary to ones nature?

Does will exist independently from ones nature? Is nature an inherent condition or one that is contrived, and if contrived by whom or what?

The consideration that ones will and/or inherent nature is a perfect equipoise which is then tipped by forces outside of the decision maker relegates the outside force as the true decision maker and the person to be the result or consequence.

However if the forces outside of ones volition serves as only influence and not that which determines what decisions will be made then whatever serves as the tipping point for natures equipoise is then responsible for our choices made.

ventral anterior cingulate area 24

Noumenon.2 wrote:What serves as the impetus for ones volition?

Value. What the action is worth to the actor. Comfort, enjoyment, growth.

If choice is a potential and volition serves as the means by which such potentials are determined and/or enacted what then serves as the predicating force for such a faculty?

Choice is not a potential, but 'a choice' may be. Choice is volition.

Is the inherent nature of the one whom possesses volition responsible for their choices made?

Is the inherent nature of anything completely known?

Is it so that the predisposition of ones nature negates "free will" thereby exempting ones culpability for consequences, or does "free will" ensure the ability to choose that which is contrary to ones nature?

What if free will is one's nature? To choose contrary to one's nature would be to choose not to be free. Either way, one is still responsible.

The consideration that ones will and/or inherent nature is a perfect equipoise which is then tipped by forces outside of the decision maker relegates the outside force as the true decision maker and the person to be the result or consequence.

There is no outside of the will. The will of every 'one' is linked at the source (inherent nature).

Here is what I don't get, and someone tried to correct me on this before.

Merriam Webster defines "voluntary" as "proceeding from a choice", but also defines "Free-Will" as "voluntary choice". Given the definition of "voluntary" this makes little sense, unless it is describing a feedback system, in which a choice having been made, brings about a process leading to another choice.

Not exactly the kind of "Freedom" we are interested in though.

Noumenon.2 wrote:If the inherent nature of a person is ultimately responsible for tipping the balance between venality and probity or any other option for that matter what then serves as the origin of ones nature?

Jesus Howard Christ, do you talk like that?

Anyway, people make choices that will maximize their interests, as they see it, according to what they value.

I don't think "free will" really means much of anything. If you chose to do some thing at a given time, perhaps you could have chosen to do something else instead. But you can only do one thing at a time, so does that really mean anything? You did what you did.

Animus wrote:Merriam Webster defines "voluntary" as "proceeding from a choice", but also defines "Free-Will" as "voluntary choice". Given the definition of "voluntary" this makes little sense, unless it is describing a feedback system, in which a choice having been made, brings about a process leading to another choice.

Not exactly the kind of "Freedom" we are interested in though.

What kind of freedom would interest you?

"Voluntary choice" is interesting, because it assumes that there is the possibility of involuntary choice (blind-will?). Is a choice a choice if you don't know you have one?

[upside-down](Answer: What is involuntary at one level is very much chosen at a higher, more encompassing level.) [/upside-down]

Its very simple "the ability to choose independent of physical and divine determinants" or any determinants, since that would make it determined.

I don't consider "The ability to do what one wants" to be a kind of free-will at all, that's just regular old "will". It works in a socio-political grammatical context, but social freedom is not philosophical freedom.

divine focus wrote:

Animus wrote:Merriam Webster defines "voluntary" as "proceeding from a choice", but also defines "Free-Will" as "voluntary choice". Given the definition of "voluntary" this makes little sense, unless it is describing a feedback system, in which a choice having been made, brings about a process leading to another choice.

Not exactly the kind of "Freedom" we are interested in though.

What kind of freedom would interest you?

"Voluntary choice" is interesting, because it assumes that there is the possibility of involuntary choice (blind-will?). Is a choice a choice if you don't know you have one?

[upside-down](Answer: What is involuntary at one level is very much chosen at a higher, more encompassing level.) [/upside-down]