Yes, it's David Hume.mikenz66 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2017 5:58 amIn brief, the argument (which is probably not particularly original) is that the intention allows us to have some insight into someone's mind, and how the person is likely to behave in the future. If someone accidentally bumps into you, they are not likely to do it in the future and no action is required. If they intentionally punch you, they can be presumed to be somewhat dangerous, and need to be dealt with.
Did the Buddha teach we have choice? (aka The Great Free Will v Determinism Debate)
Re: Free Will
Re: Free Will
True. However, an unenlightened person doesn't see this and agrees that "his" will is "free". This very idea is based on the deepest inner sense of selfhood. And this is why, according to paticca-samuppada, ignorance leads to kammic activities, which, in turn, require such thing as will (or intention) to operate. And this is why arahants do not create any kammaConditioned.
Re: Free Will
Thanks for this, Zom; it's interesting and well-explained. If one takes this view, what does one then make of Right Effort? Is the effort to attain enlightenment not real, or not really an attribute of the one who apparently makes the effort? If it is not "his" will, then whence the attainment? If it is not "free", then was the attainment pre-determined by something else?Zom wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2017 3:57 pm True. However, an unenlightened person doesn't see this and agrees that "his" will is "free". This very idea is based on the deepest inner sense of selfhood. And this is why, according to paticca-samuppada, ignorance leads to kammic activities, which, in turn, require such thing as will (or intention) to operate. And this is why arahants do not create any kamma
Re: Free Will
Thanks, I can see some of that in this article: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-freewill/Sam Vara wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:45 pmYes, it's David Hume.mikenz66 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2017 5:58 amIn brief, the argument (which is probably not particularly original) is that the intention allows us to have some insight into someone's mind, and how the person is likely to behave in the future. If someone accidentally bumps into you, they are not likely to do it in the future and no action is required. If they intentionally punch you, they can be presumed to be somewhat dangerous, and need to be dealt with.
Mike
Re: Free Will
And here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hum ... onsibility
Mike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hum ... onsibility
David Hume wrote: Actions are, by their very nature, temporary and perishing; and where they proceed not from some cause in the character and disposition of the person who performed them, they can neither redound to his honour, if good; nor infamy, if evil.
Mike
Re: Free Will
The effort is real, and it is based on our real feeling of "free will". If we want, we do actions, if we don't - we don't. Usually, though, we don't inquire why do we want or do not want .) We just either do not see why, or don't bother at all.Thanks for this, Zom; it's interesting and well-explained. If one takes this view, what does one then make of Right Effort? Is the effort to attain enlightenment not real, or not really an attribute of the one who apparently makes the effort? If it is not "his" will, then whence the attainment? If it is not "free", then was the attainment pre-determined by something else?
The thing is - Buddha never said that our will if "free" or "not free". What he kept saying, is that if we aim and strive - we will get a result. If we don't do that, the result will never come. Very pragmatic!
Re: Free Will
It seems that your thoughts create form (see paticcasamuppada). Thoughts seem to create our reality. Don't believe me. Reflect on a thought pattern for a period of time and see how it materializes in your reality.
So, if thoughts create reality, you can change your reality by consciously changing your thoughts. There is your free-will.
So, if thoughts create reality, you can change your reality by consciously changing your thoughts. There is your free-will.
Re: Free Will
And it is precisely because they are conditioned that there is the possibility of change for better or worse. Change isn't the problem. Ignorance is. The mistake is to think that one can control change in such a way as to expect things to become better.
I ask the Kinsman of the Sun, the great seeker,
About seclusion and the state of peace.
Seeing what is a bhikkhu quenched,
Not grasping at anything in the world?
Buddha
One should completely extract
The root of proliferation and reckoning—
The notion, “I am the thinker”.
One should train to dispel whatever craving
There is inside, ever mindful.
Whatever principle they have known for themselves,
Whether internally or externally,
They would not be stubborn about that,
For good people say that this is not quenching.
https://suttacentral.net/en/snp4.14
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
Re: Free Will
No discussion on the Buddhist perspective of "free will" would be complete without reference to the Attakari Sutta. Following is a link to an interesting PDF on it: link.
Following is the version from Access to Insight:
As noted elsewhere in the topic above, various valid perspectives are possible and may be helpful to a particular person at a particular point. Ultimately, I believe there comes a time to abandon/renounce/surrender/entirely let go of whatever we might regard as our "free will." For some, this may be a terrifying prospect.
Following is the version from Access to Insight:
The footnotes are worth a read. See also the following article: http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/ ... 222515.pdfThen a certain brahman approached the Blessed One; having approached the Blessed One, he exchanged friendly greetings. After pleasant conversation had passed between them, he sat to one side. Having sat to one side, the brahman spoke to the Blessed One thus:
“Venerable Gotama, I am one of such a doctrine, of such a view: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer.’”[1]
“I have not, brahman, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view. How, indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself [2] — say: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’? What do you think, brahmin, is there an element or principle of initiating or beginning an action?”[3]
“Just so, Venerable Sir.”
“When there is an element of initiating, are initiating beings [4] clearly discerned?”
“Just so, Venerable Sir.”
“So, brahmin, when there is the element of initiating, initiating beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. [5]
“What do you think, brahmin, is there an element of exertion [6] ... is there an element of effort [7] ... is there an element of steadfastness [8] ... is there an element of persistence [9] ... is there an element of endeavoring?” [10]
“Just so, Venerable Sir.”
“When there is an element of endeavoring, are endeavoring beings clearly discerned?”
“Just so, Venerable Sir.”
“So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’?”
“Superb, Venerable Gotama! Superb, Venerable Gotama! Venerable Gotama has made the Dhamma clear in many ways, as though he were turning upright what had been turned upside down, revealing what had been concealed, showing the way to one who was lost, or holding up a lamp in the dark: ‘Those who have eyes see forms!’ Just so, the Venerable Gotama has illuminated the Dhamma in various ways. I go to Venerable Gotama as refuge, and to the Dhamma, and to the assembly of monks. From this day, for as long as I am endowed with breath, let Venerable Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge.”
As noted elsewhere in the topic above, various valid perspectives are possible and may be helpful to a particular person at a particular point. Ultimately, I believe there comes a time to abandon/renounce/surrender/entirely let go of whatever we might regard as our "free will." For some, this may be a terrifying prospect.
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro
愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro
愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。
'The illusion of free will' by Sam Harris is a dangerous idea, but can anyone disprove it?
It runs counter to what the Buddha taught, and furthermore, it could lead some people to stop making an effort to improve themselves, since according to Harris that effort, too, is predetermined, and whether you try or not, won't change what is already preordained to occur. Yet despite my revulsion for it, and the fact that on an intuitive, experiential level, I feel it is incorrect, I find myself unable to definitely prove him wrong on an intellectual level. Can anyone prove him wrong, definitively?
Last edited by manas on Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
To the Buddha-refuge i go; to the Dhamma-refuge i go; to the Sangha-refuge i go.
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: 'The illusion of free will' by Sam Harris is a dangerous idea, but can anyone disprove it?
Greetings Manas,
Here's an interesting topic from days of old, which seems relavent to your line of inquiry...
Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?
Metta,
Paul.
Here's an interesting topic from days of old, which seems relavent to your line of inquiry...
Did the Buddha teach that we have choice?
Metta,
Paul.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: 'The illusion of free will' by Sam Harris is a dangerous idea, but can anyone disprove it?
Thanks Retro, I didn't know this issue has already been discussed. I'm reading that Topic now.
To the Buddha-refuge i go; to the Dhamma-refuge i go; to the Sangha-refuge i go.
- Nicholas Weeks
- Posts: 4210
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:26 pm
- Location: USA West Coast
Re: 'The illusion of free will' by Sam Harris is a dangerous idea, but can anyone disprove it?
Fie & hogwash on Mr Harris.manas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:01 pm It runs counter to what the Buddha taught, and furthermore, it could lead some people to stop making an effort to improve themselves, since according to Harris that effort, too, is predetermined, and whether you try or not, won't change what is already preordained to occur. Yet despite my revulsion for it, and the fact that on an intuitive, experiential level, I feel it is incorrect, I find myself unable to definitely prove him wrong on an intellectual level. Can anyone prove him wrong, definitively?
There is not an 'ocean' of causes that affect one individual now, but a stream of karma-fruition induced by our previous births. Even then, past karmic effects, good or bad, can be increased or mitigated by thoughts, words & deeds now.
However, his will to believe in his view will be supported, for him, by his motivation to deny free-wiil. For Buddha defined karma as intention or will or motive. In short, he is digging his own grave - spiritually speaking.
Last edited by Nicholas Weeks on Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Good and evil have no fixed form. It's as easy to turn from doing bad to doing good as it is to flip over the hand from the back to the palm. It's simply up to us to do it. Master Hsuan Hua.
Re: 'The illusion of free will' by Sam Harris is a dangerous idea, but can anyone disprove it?
Imo, it doesn't. To me, the above statement misrepresents what the Buddha taught. Refer to link: viewtopic.php?t=28065
Imo, it doesn't. While it pains me to defend Sam Harris, to me, the above statement misrepresents what Sam Harris taught.
My impression is Harris said an individual deposition, including willingness & capacity to change, is pre-ordained by luck. In other words, willful change is possible, as long as the willingness & capacity to change exists due to sheer luck. For example, when Sam used the example of a psychopath, Sam was referring to an individual largely incapable of positive moral change.
The intuition, intellect or 'soul' referred to above is the very mental disposition Sam was referring to in the video; which came into existence via sheer luck. For example, unlike you, I had no intellectual dilemma with what Sam proposed.
What's to prove wrong?
Bhikkhus, it is on account of elements that beings associate and fit in; those of a low inclination associate, fit in, with those of a low inclination; those of an inclination to good, associate, fit in with those of an inclination to good. SN 14.15
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati