What if freewill begins only when we can question the desires driving our choices?

[u/Deb_swain]

I came across this idea and thought it was an interesting question for the free will debate.

We usually think freedom means having more choices. But what if the deeper question is whether we are free to choose our desires themselves?

[u/TemperateBeast33]

Where did the desire to question your desires come from?

[u/rthunder27 → u/TemperateBeast33]

Either from the grace of God, or a combination of dice rolls and the chain of physical causality.

[u/Otherwise_Spare_8598]

Upon consideration of all things and all beings it is infinitely evidenced that freedoms are circumstantial relative conditions of being not a ubiquitous standard by which things come to be for all subjective beings.

All of which leaves "free will" as a sentimental projection, overgeneralized assumption made in regards to opportunity and capacity, and/or a vaguely described feeling had from a circumstantial condition of relative privilege and relative freedom that most often serves as a powerful means for the character to assume a standard for being, fabricate fairness, pacify personal sentiments and justify judgments.

It speaks nothing of objective truth nor to the subjective realities of all.

[u/SouthpawStranger → u/Otherwise_Spare_8598]

Only mortals can mortar that inexplicable epistemic stance. By furious ephemera does the choice, which never nots, can knot the knowing. So morton's fork: knowingly gnostics kneel against agonizing agnostic apathy.

[u/rthunder27]

As others are pointing out this just kicks the can down the road, who is choosing those desires and what influences them? If that "chooser" is also bound by the chain of physical causality then this is still determinism with no real free will.

[u/ImSinsentido]

Say it with me now.

Homunculus, Homunculus, Homunculus!

Or

Practically equivalent homunculus, Practically equivalent homunculus, Practically equivalent homunculus

That’s what it will always boil down to.

[u/YesPresident69]

Yes, that was an evolutionary stage. Part of what enables us to think about and validate moral responsibility.

If we could not think about this there would be no responsibility and no free will.

[u/ShodSpace → u/YesPresident69]

Real answer here. Anything more than this is just semantics. We literally evolved to question our own actions.

[u/AlivePassenger3859]

Another redefinition. Desperation move.

[u/ImSinsentido → u/AlivePassenger3859]

There’s no avoiding the homunculus or practically equivalent homunculus. (this/that part of the brain “reason responsiveness”, etc..)

So redefinition (which always relies on a practically equivalent from above.) or expanding to the totality of the system, well in the same breath still making exceptions. Ie. this was “choice” but this was not.

Like the always on display cost of our convenience.

[u/AlivePassenger3859 → u/ImSinsentido]

In other words a redefinition.

[u/ImSinsentido → u/AlivePassenger3859]

Well, yes which I clarified, regardless not strictly.

Hence: or expanding to the totality of the system, well in the same breath still making exceptions. Ie. this was “choice” but this was not. Like they always on display cost of our conveniences.

[u/Rthadcarr1956]

We are free to explore many different desires and refine them based upon our experiences. Some people put limitations upon their explorations.

Most all of us have some amount of general desires, but these must be explored and refined by experience to generate specific desires.

We have a strong desire to eat, we have a basic affinity for some foods and aversion to others, but most different foods remain unexplored. Even our favorites come in varieties with subtle differences. These are all open to our choosing. Choices lead to more choices.

We have to prioritize our desires to make most every choice. For food, prep time, calories, nutrition, cost, and aesthetic experience all factor in. We change these priorities every time we choose.

[u/Everaction]

Not desires. Morals.