Citation for this page in APA citation style.           Close


Core Concepts

Adequate Determinism
Agent-Causality
Alternative Possibilities
Causa Sui
Causal Closure
Causality
Certainty
Chance
Chance Not Direct Cause
Chaos Theory
The Cogito Model
Compatibilism
Complexity
Comprehensive   Compatibilism
Conceptual Analysis
Control
Could Do Otherwise
Creativity
Default Responsibility
De-liberation
Determination
Determination Fallacy
Determinism
Disambiguation
Double Effect
Either Way
Emergent Determinism
Epistemic Freedom
Ethical Fallacy
Experimental Philosophy
Extreme Libertarianism
Event Has Many Causes
Frankfurt Cases
Free Choice
Freedom of Action
"Free Will"
Free Will Axiom
Free Will in Antiquity
Free Will Mechanisms
Free Will Requirements
Free Will Theorem
Future Contingency
Hard Incompatibilism
Idea of Freedom
Illusion of Determinism
Illusionism
Impossibilism
Incompatibilism
Indeterminacy
Indeterminism
Infinities
Laplace's Demon
Libertarianism
Liberty of Indifference
Libet Experiments
Luck
Master Argument
Modest Libertarianism
Moral Necessity
Moral Responsibility
Moral Sentiments
Mysteries
Naturalism
Necessity
Noise
Non-Causality
Nonlocality
Origination
Paradigm Case
Possibilities
Pre-determinism
Predictability
Probability
Pseudo-Problem
Random When?/Where?
Rational Fallacy
Refutations
Replay
Responsibility
Same Circumstances
Scandal
Science Advance Fallacy
Second Thoughts
Self-Determination
Semicompatibilism
Separability
Soft Causality
Special Relativity
Standard Argument
Supercompatibilism
Superdeterminism
Taxonomy
Temporal Sequence
Tertium Quid
Torn Decision
Two-Stage Models
Ultimate Responsibility
Uncertainty
Up To Us
Voluntarism

Philosophers

Mortimer Adler
Rogers Albritton
Alexander of Aphrodisias
Samuel Alexander
G.E.M.Anscombe
Anselm
Louise Antony
Thomas Aquinas
Aristotle
David Armstrong
Harald Atmanspacher
Augustine
J.L.Austin
A.J.Ayer
Alexander Bain
Mark Balaguer
Jeffrey Barrett
William Belsham
Henri Bergson
Isaiah Berlin
Bernard Berofsky
Robert Bishop
Susanne Bobzien
Emil du Bois-Reymond
Hilary Bok
George Boole
Émile Boutroux
F.H.Bradley
C.D.Broad
C.A.Campbell
Joseph Keim Campbell
Carneades
Ernst Cassirer
David Chalmers
Roderick Chisholm
Chrysippus
Cicero
Randolph Clarke
Samuel Clarke
Anthony Collins
Antonella Corradini
Diodorus Cronus
Jonathan Dancy
Donald Davidson
Mario De Caro
Democritus
Daniel Dennett
Jacques Derrida
René Descartes
Richard Double
Fred Dretske
John Dupré
John Earman
Laura Waddell Ekstrom
Epictetus
Epicurus
Herbert Feigl
John Martin Fischer
Owen Flanagan
Luciano Floridi
Philippa Foot
Alfred Fouilleé
Harry Frankfurt
Richard L. Franklin
Michael Frede
Carl Ginet
Nicholas St. John Green
H.Paul Grice
Ian Hacking
Ishtiyaque Haji
Stuart Hampshire
W.F.R.Hardie
William Hasker
R.M.Hare
Georg W.F. Hegel
Martin Heidegger
R.E.Hobart
Thomas Hobbes
David Hodgson
Shadsworth Hodgson
Ted Honderich
Pamela Huby
David Hume
Ferenc Huoranszki
William James
Lord Kames
Robert Kane
Immanuel Kant
Tomis Kapitan
Jaegwon Kim
William King
Christine Korsgaard
Andrea Lavazza
Keith Lehrer
Gottfried Leibniz
Leucippus
Michael Levin
George Henry Lewes
C.I.Lewis
David Lewis
Peter Lipton
John Locke
Michael Lockwood
E. Jonathan Lowe
John R. Lucas
Lucretius
James Martineau
Storrs McCall
Hugh McCann
Colin McGinn
Michael McKenna
Brian McLaughlin
Paul E. Meehl
Uwe Meixner
Alfred Mele
John Stuart Mill
Dickinson Miller
G.E.Moore
C. Lloyd Morgan
Thomas Nagel
Friedrich Nietzsche
John Norton
P.H.Nowell-Smith
Robert Nozick
William of Ockham
Timothy O'Connor
David F. Pears
Charles Sanders Peirce
Derk Pereboom
Steven Pinker
Plato
Karl Popper
Huw Price
H.A.Prichard
Hilary Putnam
Willard van Orman Quine
Frank Ramsey
Ayn Rand
Thomas Reid
Charles Renouvier
Nicholas Rescher
C.W.Rietdijk
Richard Rorty
Josiah Royce
Bertrand Russell
Paul Russell
Gilbert Ryle
Kenneth Sayre
T.M.Scanlon
Moritz Schlick
Arthur Schopenhauer
John Searle
Wilfrid Sellars
Henry Sidgwick
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong
J.J.C.Smart
Saul Smilansky
Michael Smith
L. Susan Stebbing
George F. Stout
Galen Strawson
Peter Strawson
Eleonore Stump
Richard Taylor
Kevin Timpe
Mark Twain
Peter van Inwagen
Manuel Vargas
John Venn
Kadri Vihvelin
Voltaire
G.H. von Wright
David Foster Wallace
R. Jay Wallace
W.G.Ward
Ted Warfield
Roy Weatherford
William Whewell
Alfred North Whitehead
David Widerker
David Wiggins
Bernard Williams
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Susan Wolf

Scientists

Michael Arbib
Bernard Baars
John S. Bell
Charles Bennett
Ludwig von Bertalanffy
Susan Blackmore
Margaret Boden
David Bohm
Niels Bohr
Ludwig Boltzmann
Emile Borel
Max Born
Walther Bothe
Hans Briegel
Leon Brillouin
Stephen Brush
Henry Thomas Buckle
Donald Campbell
Anthony Cashmore
Eric Chaisson
Jean-Pierre Changeux
Arthur Holly Compton
John Conway
E. H. Culverwell
Charles Darwin
Terrence Deacon
Max Delbrück
Abraham de Moivre
Paul Dirac
Hans Driesch
John Eccles
Arthur Stanley Eddington
Paul Ehrenfest
Albert Einstein
Hugh Everett, III
Franz Exner
Richard Feynman
Joseph Fourier
Michael Gazzaniga
GianCarlo Ghirardi
Nicolas Gisin
Paul Glimcher
Thomas Gold
A.O.Gomes
Brian Goodwin
Joshua Greene
Jacques Hadamard
Stuart Hameroff
Patrick Haggard
Augustin Hamon
Sam Harris
Martin Heisenberg
Werner Heisenberg
William Stanley Jevons
Pascual Jordan
Simon Kochen
Stephen Kosslyn
Ladislav Kovàč
Rolf Landauer
Alfred Landé
Pierre-Simon Laplace
David Layzer
Benjamin Libet
Hendrik Lorentz
Josef Loschmidt
Ernst Mach
Henry Margenau
James Clerk Maxwell
Ernst Mayr
Ulrich Mohrhoff
Jacques Monod
Wolfgang Pauli
Massimo Pauri
Roger Penrose
Steven Pinker
Max Planck
Susan Pockett
Henri Poincaré
Daniel Pollen
Ilya Prigogine
Hans Primas
Adolphe Quételet
Jerome Rothstein
David Ruelle
Erwin Schrödinger
Aaron Schurger
Claude Shannon
Herbert Simon
Dean Keith Simonton
B. F. Skinner
Roger Sperry
Henry Stapp
Tom Stonier
Antoine Suarez
Leo Szilard
William Thomson (Kelvin)
Peter Tse
John von Neumann
Daniel Wegner
Steven Weinberg
Paul A. Weiss
Norbert Wiener
Eugene Wigner
E. O. Wilson
H. Dieter Zeh
Ernst Zermelo
Wojciech Zurek

 
Up To Us
The idea that at least some of our actions are "up to us," that we can be the "authors of our own actions," and that they are not caused by external events, is perhaps the most ancient concept of "free will." Although the Romans had the same complex combination of free and will in their term (liberum arbitrium or libera voluntas), the Greeks had no such combination.
For the Greeks, and particularly for Aristotle, the term closest to the modern complex idea of free will, (which combines freedom and determination in an apparent internal contradiction) was ἐφ ἡμῖν - "on us" or "depends on us."

The original idea was thus supportive of accountability or moral responsibility, that our actions originate "within ourselves" (ἐν ἡμῖν), that as "agents" we are "causes," something that modern "semicompatibilists" like John Martin Fischer want to preserve even as they doubt freedom of the will.

Perhaps this is why Aristotle could not see any "problem" of free will.

Despite calling free will a "pseudo-problem" that could be resolved (or "dis-solved") by careful attention to the proper use of language, no analytic language philosopher appears to have resolved the one complex idea into two opposing but complementary concepts.

Analytic philosophers should note that John Locke was in the seventeenth century quite concerned that misuse of language lay behind the problem. In the Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book II, Chapter XXI, Of Power, we find in section 14 that Locke calls the question of Freedom of the Will "unintelligible" (as had Thomas Hobbes before him). But for Locke, it is only because the adjective "free" applies to the agent, not to the will, which is determined by the mind, and which determines the action.

This seems to be Aristotle's view as well. Here is how he put it in Nicomachean Ethics, III, v, 6.

εἰ δὲ ταῦτα φαίνεται καὶ μὴ ἔχομεν εἰς ἄλλας ἀρχὰς ἀναγαγεῖν παρὰ τὰς ἐν ἡμῖν, ὧν καὶ αἱ ἀρχαὶ ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ αὐτὰ ἐφ' ἡμῖν καὶ ἑκούσια.

But if it is manifest that a man is the author of his own actions, and if we are unable to trace our conduct back to any other origins than those within ourselves, then actions of which the origins are within us (ἐν ἡμῖν), themselves depend upon us (ἐφ' ἡμῖν), and are voluntary. (Loeb translation.)

Aristotle had already argued against the atomists' necessity (Leucippus) and causal determinism (Democritus). He did not care for the atomists' atheistic dismissal of the gods, but he unequivocally endorsed chance, itself an atheistic idea flying in the face of the gods' foreknowledge, as the specific means of breaking the causal chain of determinism and necessity.

Aristotle had also treated a related problem that greatly concerned Epicurus, namely the idea that the current truth or falsity of a statement about the future entails the necessity of the future event. In de Interpretatione, IX, Aristotle argued that statements about future events have no truth value until the event does or does not occur. The future is thus open, to accidental chance for example. Epicurus connected this logical necessity to causal determinism, because, he said, a future event could not be fated and logically necessitated unless the causes of that event are already present. Note that neither Aristotle nor Epicurus are denying the principles of bivalence or non-contradiction. They both think these principles will apply once the future arrives.

The difference between Aristotle and Epicurus is then very slight as concerns the problem of free will. Aristotle never acknowledges the existence of a "free will problem." For him, it is transparent and obvious that our voluntary actions are "up to us." The determinism and necessity of the atomists is simply another impractical ideal, as inapplicable to the real world as the transcendental Ideas of his master Plato. And he was explicit that chance exists in the world.

Aristotle sees three causes or explanations for things that happen - necessity, chance, and a third thing (a tertium quid) in the agent-causality that he describes as "up to us."

Since it clearly was Epicurus who first recognized an explicit conflict between determinism/necessity and free will, we can confirm that Epicurus is the first to recognize the traditional "problem of free will."

For Epicurus, the atomic swerve was simply a means to deny the fatalistic future implied by determinism (and necessity). As the Epicurean Roman Lucretius explained the idea,

...if all motion is always one long chain, and new motion arises out of the old in order invariable, and if the first-beginnings do not make by swerving a beginning of motion such as to break the decrees of fate, that cause may not follow cause from infinity, whence comes this freedom in living creatures all over the earth
(De Rerum Natura, Book 2, lines 251-256)
Epicurus did not say the swerve was directly involved in decisions so as to make them random. His critics, ancient and modern, have claimed mistakenly that Epicurus did assume "one swerve - one decision." Some recent philosophers call this the "traditional interpretation" of Epicurean free will.

On the contrary, following Aristotle, Epicurus thought human agents have an autonomous ability to transcend the necessity and chance of some events. This special ability makes us morally responsible for our actions.

Epicurus, clearly following Aristotle, finds a tertium quid, beyond necessity (Democritus' physics) and chance
(Epicurus' swerve).
The tertium quid is agent autonomy
...some things happen of necessity (ἀνάγκη), others by chance (τύχη), others through our own agency (παρ’ ἡμᾶς).
...necessity destroys responsibility and chance is uncertain; whereas our own actions are autonomous, and it is to them that praise and blame naturally attach.

λέγει ἐν ἄλλοις γίνεσθαι ἃ μὲν κατ’ ἀνάγκην, ἃ δὲ ἀπὸ τύχης, ἃ δὲ παρ’ ἡμᾶς, διὰ τὸ τὴν μὲν ἀνάγκην ἀνυπεύθυνον εἶναι, τὴν δὲ τύχην ἄστατον ὁρᾶν, τὸ δὲ παρ’ ἡμᾶς ἀδέσποτον, ᾧ καὶ τὸ μεμπτὸν καὶ τὸ ἐναντίον παρακολουθεῖν πέφυκεν
(Letter to Menoeceus, §133)

We know Epicurus' work largely from Lucretius and his friend Cicero. Lucretius describes Epicurus' idea of breaking the causal chain of determinism in De Rerum Natura. Indeed, without swerves, nothing would ever have been produced.

One further point in this matter I desire you to understand: that while the first bodies are being carried downwards by their own weight in a straight line through the void, at times quite uncertain and uncertain places, they swerve a little from their course, just so much as you might call a change of motion. For if they were not apt to incline, all would fall downwards like raindrops through the profound void, no collision would take place and no blow would be caused amongst the first-beginnings: thus nature would never have produced anything.

But if by chance anyone believes it to be possible that heavier elements, being carried more quickly straight through the void, fall from above or, the lighter, and so deal blows which can produce generative motions, he is astray and departs far from true reasoning. For whatever things fall through water and through fine air, these must speed their fall in accordance with their weights, because the body of water and the thin nature of air cannot delay each thing equally, but yield sooner overcome by the heavier ; but contrariwise empty void cannot offer any support to anything anywhere or at any time, but it must give way continually, as its nature demands : therefore they must all be carried with equal speed, although not of equal weight, through the unresisting void. So the heavier bodies will never be able to fall from above on the lighter, nor deal blows of themselves so as to produce the various motions by which nature carries on her processes. Therefore again and again I say, the bodies must incline a little; and not more than the least possible, or we shall seem to assume oblique movements, and thus be refuted by the facts. For this we see to be manifest and plain, that weights, as far as in them lies, cannot travel obliquely, when they drop straight from above, as far as one can perceive; but who is there who can perceive that they never swerve ever so little from the straight undeviating course?
(Lucretius, De Rerum Natura), book 2, lines 216-250, Loeb Classical Library, 113-115)

Lucretius may have associated the swerve more closely than did Epicurus himself with human freedom (libera) and with the will (voluntas) in this passage, where he identifies swerving (declinando) with "first-beginnings" of motions and describes our mind as swerving our motions wherever pleasure leads us.
Again, if all motion is always one long chain, and new motion arises out of the old in order invariable, and if the first-beginnings do not make by swerving a beginning of motion such as to break the decrees of fate, that cause may not follow cause from infinity, whence comes this free will (libera) in living creatures all over the earth, whence I say is this will (voluntas) wrested from the fates by which we proceed whither pleasure leads each, swerving also our motions not at fixed times and fixed places, but just where our mind has taken us? For undoubtedly it is his own will in each that begins these things, and from the will movements go rippling through the limbs.
(Lucretius, De Rerum Natura), book 2, lines 251-262, Loeb Classical Library, 115)

Note that the Loeb translators have made the common error of substituting "free will" for the first (free) part of Lucretius' description of the "libera voluntas." The second part is the will.

The original text says "whence comes this freedom (libera)," not "whence comes this free will." Epicurus and Lucretius need the swerve only to break the causal chains at some point earlier than our willed actions, so that our will can proceed "whither pleasure leads us" and "just where our mind takes us."

Neither Epicurus nor Lucretius likely assumed we could hold our will morally responsible for actions that are purely random, actions not involving our desires ("whither pleasure") or beliefs ("our mind").

Nevertheless, both thinkers have been misinterpreted and criticized, starting in antiquity with the Stoics, notably Chrysippus, and later the Academic Skeptic Cicero, who in his De Fato and De Natura Deorum attacks the Epicureans and lampoons the idea of a "free will" based on random atomic motions.

Epicurus saw that if the atoms travelled downwards by their own weight; we should have no freedom of the will [Cicero says literally "nothing would be in our power"], since the motion of the atoms would be determined by necessity. He therefore invented a device to escape from determinism (the point had apparently escaped the notice of Democritus): he said that the atom while travelling vertically downward by the force of gravity makes a very slight swerve to one side. This defence discredits him more than if he had had to abandon his original position. (Cicero, De Natura Deorum, Loeb Classical Library translation, v.40, p.67)

This "traditional interpretation" of a libertarian free will dependent on chance has been attacked for centuries as irrational and unintelligible.

This randomness objection is the second horn in the dilemma of the standard argument against free will. The first horn is the determinism objection and Epicurus was its discoverer.

For Teachers
For Scholars

Chapter 3.7 - The Ergod Chapter 4.2 - The History of Free Will
Part Three - Value Part Five - Problems
Normal | Teacher | Scholar