Instead of ad reads, my channel is funded directly by people passionate about the Great Books. Help me keep making more episodes with a paid subscription: johnathanbi.com Some links to further guide your study: * Join my email list to be notified of future episodes: johnathanbi.com * Full transcript: open.substack.com/pub/johnathanbi/p/transcript-for-brian-leiter-interview?r=l66v& Companion lectures & interviews: * Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morality Explained: ruclips.net/video/M0w2eQ-FcEA/видео.html Professor Leiter's books relevant to this interview (affiliate): * Nietzsche on Morality: amzn.to/3x4QQMc * My book notes: www.johnathanbi.com/p/nietzsche-on-morality-by-brian-leiter * Moral Psychology with Nietzsche: amzn.to/3yL9fy3 * My book notes: www.johnathanbi.com/p/moral-psychology-with-nietzsche-by TIMESTAMPS 00:00:00 1. Introduction 00:02:16 1.1 Introduction: Nietzsche’s Position on Free Will 00:05:16 1.2 Introduction: Contemporary Positions on Free Will 00:12:31 2.1 Arguments Against Free Will: Psychology & Language 00:18:13 2.2 Arguments Against Free Will: Phenomenology 00:29:10 2.3 Arguments Against Free Will: Genetics & the Unconscious 00:40:18 2.4 Arguments Against Free Will: My (Naive) Position on Free Will 00:44:23 3.1 Prescriptions: Implications in Legal Philosophy 00:48:15 3.2 Prescriptions: Is Free Will a Noble Lie? 00:50:34 3.3 Prescriptions: “Become Who You Are”
I think this is a rare format: You seldomly see someone talking about a topic without trying to tell a narrative or trying to contextualize it into justifying their own philosophy. You are just here to learn.
Love the way you frame these talks in your introductions, especially when you bring in the personal element of how the works influenced your own choices. Really helps turn the material from abstract theory into actionable meaning.
There are so many identities from which to choose. But your only real identity is the thing that does that choosing. The challenge, therefore, is to identify the thing in yourself that does the identifying...
I just found you on RUclips, probably my philosophy algorithm. I was fascinated by your Girard lectures. These interviews seem to be amazing as well. I can't wait to watch you grow to a million subscribers.
regardless of whether free will exists as a concept, we still make decisions, so it’s not necessarily something we need to consider at all, rather consider your connection and alignment to what set of values you abide to, analyse their contradictions if any lay present, and conduct yourself according to that. There’s no need to consider whether you have a choice in doing so, since you can do so.
Robert Sapolsky Neurobiologist at Stanford did a amazing lecture called Humans at out Best and Worst that explains why free will does not exist. Really fascinating stuff!
Agreed. Sapolsky's ideas are indispensable on this topic. I'm surprised how many connections there are between Sapolsky and Nietzsche. This is an engrossing interview (Jonathan's enthusiasm and intelligence shine through) and Leiter is brilliant (through a lucky stroke of nature, of course). 🙂
One hypothesis of how consciousness developed is that it freed us from immeadiate stimulus response behaviour and therefore allowed us to plan for the future - or the other way round, we discovered the future and freed ourselves from s-r behaviour. Which has clear evolutionairy advantages, i.e. forgoing the immeadiate gratification of eating all the food now instead of rationing it sensibly for the next weeks. We experience this into account taking of different paths of action as consciousness, and possibly free will. Whether it means free will actually exist I have no clue.
@Jonathan, Congratulations on the successful launch of your interview series! I love the impeccable production, fascinating topic, and captivating conversation. I look forward to watching many more enlightening interviews like this one!
@18:47 Dr. Leiter took your question to be about "introspection," but phenomenology and introspection are definitely not the same. Given the way he didn't say anything substantial in the "Implications in Legal Philosophy" section, I'm inclined to think he dodged your phenomenology question with a canned criticism of introspection. Great camera work, sound quality, and lighting!
I love this channel. Wonderful conversation. I am very surprised that in a debate about free will in an American university a text like Skinner's "Beyond Freedom and Dignity" is not cited or taken into account. I don't think anyone has given better arguments against free will than Skinner. Skinner makes it clear that it is possible to be a determinist without appealing to the idea of destiny or genetic predetermination.
The genetics and the environment being constraints on free will or influencing choices is not an argument against free will itself, just that it isn't all powerful. I can't turn into a dragon or think myself into being able to fly, or which options come to mind when having to make a choice. That doesn't mean free will can't exist in the constrained circumstances we find ourselves in. What a rejection of free will means is that with every decision you make in your life you could not have chosen differently, in fact the word 'choice' turns into a bit of a mockery.
I think a lot of people conflate free will and the many hundreds or thousands of small decisions we make on a daily basis. I think some people in the same way conflate climate change and daily weather patterns in the same way. Not that these small decisions or daily weather patterns don’t matter, but just that in a big picture sense, it’s not what our focus should be on when talking about these very complex broad topics.
Jonathan! I have been agreeably drawn into your world by your series on Girard, whose work arrested me upon first meeting and continues to reveal aspects of the reality that presents itself to me. Thank you for that rich gift! I recently took in your Nietzsche lecture and interview with Leiter and have this feeling that you are teetering on your own leap of faith in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. I sense this because of your understandable focus on Christianity--the ideas and acts of the disciples from the day of New Testament Pentecost to the present--as opposed to Christ himself. Understandable because the opportunities for critique are far more rich than on that divine figure whose teaching and example stop us in every track we make, requiring everything of ourselves in order to participate in his redemptive project. Seriously, I thank God for you and pray that a-mazing grace will always be there for you as you continue to unpack this gift of life.
@@bi.johnathan You should have a conversation with John Vervaeke. That would definitely be beneficial to everyone involved including the audience and viewers. Loving your content, I'm about to call you Philosophy Zaddy.
There's something overlapping here with reconciling oneself to God's determination of all things, and how this frees one to become who one is as an image of God, in the branch of Christendom I come from (broadly Protestant Calvinism). Do you have any resources on whether Nietzche is critiquing a particular kind of Christian theism, or Christian theism writ large, as he critiques the freedom of the will?
Props to Jonathan for the interview and inviting thinkers to talk on these fundamental ideas from geniuses like Nietzche. Although bro often got ahead of himself and promptly schooled by dr Leiter 😂
This is a common misunderstanding of identity. What we call unconscious is as much us as what we call consciousness. Our experience is a synergy between multiple agents. I am responsible for my internal actions as much as my outer action, awareness is not required or efficient for the amount of action needed to live from second to second. However, we can explore this relationship through meditation between shared functions. This can be a very uncomfortable experience.
Thank you so much for the great discussion. I realize how Nietzsche perhaps accepted amor fati- by giving up free will and the inevitable greatness or uniqueness as an individual.
Thank you for this. I learned a lot from Leiter's Nietzsche's articles on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. As for feedback, just keep doing what you are doing here and follow the Bryan Magee model. Find interesting guests and let them speak.
i could undrtsntad what they were saying as Nature , attributing to him something thinking of him as a person. Or are they talking about a philosopher that i could not understand
Yikes, your jumping in at 11:04 was a little clunky. It didn't sound like you actually thought was Professor Leiter was saying was fascinating and that you just wanted to say your thing.
I’m currently at 29:43 in arguments against free will. Smell or taste etc don’t have the capacity for storytelling, one of the most important methods of guaranteeing social cohesion across time. One can’t smell Alexander the Great now yet we can read about the rise of Macedonia, amor fati and recurrence if taken the route of naturalism through the lense of narrative shows is the pattern recognition we see in ethical conduct. Philosophies at once find the language to encapsulate the reasons for eachother and at the same time critique its ability to do. A sentence like this can’t be smelled
I don't think free will is necessary to make choices or to live one's life. When I am choosing, I deliberate because I have to. I want the best outcome, so it's in my own interest to deliberate as much and as well as I can. Because I am the kind of being that wants the best outcome, it's inevitable that I will deliberate as I do. I do not choose my knowledge or intelligence; if I could I would will my knowledge and intelligence to be greater than they are. So I am forced to deliberate as I do, and thus my choice is fated. Knowing my choice is fated does not change how I choose. I was always going to try to make the best choice I could with what I had.
@@toyin2376 Just connected two concepts. It has to be further investigated. Epigenetics is how environmental and behavioural factors affect gene expression through acquired behaviours, while Genetics deals with inheritance of genetic information across generations. The balance or difference of sum total of Genetic vs Epigenetic traits (both deterministic -one inherited other acquired by practice) may influence in execution of free will.
I'm always baffled when someone says that even though they understand that free will doesn't exist (and can't exist even in principle), they still claim to feel as though they have free will. I don't feel that way at all, and it's clear as day I dont have free will. Lucky them.
I just found you this my second video you are a modern day profit life is absolutely wonderful thank you God as I get closer to you and my true powers.
I think we are confusing self-awareness/consciousness for free will. Humans are not free from anything, every part of our bodies are dependent on something. Developing consciousness and the identity is a curse because we gained the knowledge of non-existence and that gives us our core anxiety that is characteristic of humans
4 kinds of free will .. You are free to choose what you like but you are deterministic ie freedom in a way that is not imposed externaly to any constrain, The ethereal Free Will, a cause without a pre-cause. The mathemagical free will = The causes are deterministic the initial conditions but predicting choices into the future is extremly difficult and subjecto chaotic dynamics. The nitzean view on free will = Jump ampify deterministically what you already inside you,
I thoroughly enjoyed this video and have learned a great deal from it, even without reading Nietzsche. I conduct extensive research in the academic realm and have come to understand that the Christian religion was established by King James to distinguish it from the Catholic Church ("Vatican"), driven by a quest for power. I appreciate the presentation and your perspectives. However, I believe an important aspect is missing: the discussion on how technology now governs "free will." People often overlook that modern technology can influence others through light. Previously, influence was exerted through electric waves, but now it is through light. This video has inspired me to read Nietzsche's books most definitely.
You're very misinformed about the Christian religion... King James authorised the King James Version of the bible to be in opposition to the Catholic bible of the time, but it wasn't King James that "established Christianity"... that would be Jesus Christ. Catholicism IS Christianity; if you're using the term Christianity as a stand-in for "Protestantism" (as so many do under the false impression that Catholics aren't Christians) then you're still incorrect because Protestantism came about long before King James authorised the KJV with the Reformation. You may be getting confused with Henry VIII who formally created the Church of England and rejected papal authority after the Catholic Church refused to annul his marriage
Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions - Epictetus
@@bi.johnathan I was quoting Epictetus, not Epicurus...and Epictetus would say Nietzsche is straying too far into not having almost no control whatsoever
Johnathan, you should reach out to a guy named Lance S Bush. He’s a self-identified anti-realist. I think he makes the best arguments against realism. He has many videos on RUclips and has a great Substack he’s very engaged with.
Some action are emotionally based or influenced,emotions take over you are not in control,that's when angry and do something bad when come down you regret you won't do it on your right mind.when calm down come to your natural state you regret because was not you was your emotions. Emotions is a thing of the body ego (i identify the ego as body because can be a driver of action and emotions)not will.emotion are perspectives weather you consider something bad or good.there are people who sell drugs in their minds is good in someones mind is bad .good of bad is morality above is understanding,bad or good perspective.The core word colour Grey.black and white merged. Grey is understanding instead of judging if we go a extra mile you can put compassion.
I like the free will topic for example Im not going into an environment with my girl whos a 10. Surrounded by vultures to hit on her while I'm only 5'8 140 lbs I physically cannot destroy the men larger then me if needed physically. Therfore I dont have the free will to go to said environment wit my 10 to be able to defend her/us in case of bigger male threats or disrespect.
Free will is everything, you make compromises often but it's not like your life is out of control. I am in control over my life and at least a big part. It is a very nice feeling, very satisfying and happy. Find your own balance people, that would be my advice if you look for one. To work out what really makes you feel happy sometimes takes time. Just be patient and go with the flow of life, without switching off. I lived in communism, be careful when you are talking about it or a similar ideology.
The no freewill argument is the last refuge of those who get on a track early in life. They start looking back at some point and can't fathom that it could have happened any other way. When you live a life full of mistakes, and manage to learn from some of them, it becomes apparent that freewill is part of learning and growth. This guy and Robert Saplowsky will be back to ride the wheel of samsara again.
@@gmw3083 Sapolsky's a joke pretty much. In any case, free will is a fundamental faculty of conscious life, so obvious and abundant that it requires no explanation or justification. And it doesn't matter how shitty your life goes, you have just as much free will as anyone else. There's no connection, no overlap whatsoever between one's lot in life and the existence and possession of free will. Absolute dead zero.
Your life is in control because of circumstances, not your free will. When I look back, almost everything (good or bad) that happened to me is not fundamentally due to my free will. Eerie.
Isnt "free will" the ability to go against these biases and subconcious tendencies. If two twins are born introverted and raised completely different but still behave the same, then it is a subconcious behavior. but if one of these two becomes aware of this behavior and actively decides to go against it, then it becomes "free will". To actively go against nearly every single bias or subconcious behavior that one has (once it is known), that is free will to me. His idea of conciousness required to communicate better coordination is interesting and i largely agree. but for the "pure free will" (ability to go against ones biases) i dont see any biological benefit (in the early human societies). Therefore i think the "free will" is something else. Altohugh any explanation for the benefit of an animal to have the ability to actively go against its nature would be enough to discredit this. But for me its the same with the "questioning ones purpose". I dont see any biological benefit of these two that would explain why it developed in an animal by random mutation (homo sapiens) and added enough benefit to justify the ressources necessary.
Look under every rock and look into every crevice and, if you're honest, you'll come to ask why it is you became the kind of person who cared to look in the first place
1:20 - "The sooner you will stop trying to be something you aren't and become who you are." - Sounds like you have a choice there. A free will choice - Be who you are or not.
What helped save free will for me, is thinking about how the divine will is the source, and it isn't a hypothetical willingness, as God is simple with no parts or potential, yet still free. In other words, free will isn't the power to choose between plurality, but to choose existence in-itself for-itself and by-itself, the divine essense.
A gunslinger said: “Be who you are, because if you ain’t who you are, then you are who you ain’t.” Maybe it would be better for the gunslinger if he wasn’t a gunslinger. Maybe he could have been s sherif instead and put gunslingers in the slammer where they belonged. There is good and bad in our dual system, it is better to choose the good, as choosing the bad is going with the weak force which is operating from a position of weakness rather than from a position of strength and ultimately peters out as does the person who chooses it. There is also the Middle Way which Religion, Philosophy, and Psychology recommend which is negotiating a path between the opposites; the dualities of our dual system, as aligning with one of the dualities or the other is likely to constellate its opposite. As in our dual system opposites exist and operate in tandem. We are truly are between the devil and the deep blue sea.
Lame and too simple. It's called the false dichotomy of control and in life rather good, bad, and middle Nietzsche writes "What is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil." It's better to consider directions instead of lamenting control!
@@ÜberAlain Love is beyond good and evil but that does not mean the good and evil do not exist and that we are not in a dual system. No one is lamenting control just stating the realities of life. How that is lame and simple is not clear and you have not made it clear. Are you saying we are not in a dual system? it is of course possible to rise above good and evil but sometimes action has to be taken to promote the good. In religion there is the sin of omission or failing to act when action is called for.
@@ÜberAlain Materialists and Sociobiologists do not mention reason. They try to create a level playing field between the human and the animal as if all is instinct and determinism which of course is ridiculous. Reason is a function of the Mind which is a function of Consciousness and is unique to humans.
You guys go im circles, some thoughts influenced by environment what people think and talk program your mind.Which put people on autopilot.People think about things that happen around them that being said or done around them.But if one willfully do things if I tell you something you accept or do it immediately and think about it first that is free will.If i choose to put up your hand up you will then put it up then you access to your will if Brush yout teeth in the morning subconsciously then is not free will is what the body is used to.If willfully with consciously brush your teeth then is will.will and body can be separate you can brush you teeth and think about something else but if brush you teeth and think about brushing you teeth you you do it willfully.
agreed. the difference between a subconcious decision and an active decision against the subconcious tendency is for me free will. but the first step for that is to be aware of the subconcious tendency.
Ought one to "give up" the idea of free will? Impossible: either because there is no free will, in which case one couldn't truly "choose" to give it up (for all of our choices, including that one, would be illusory), or else because we do have free will, in which case there is no way to escape being free (we are, as Sartre would say, condemned to it).
True freedom is not the ability to choose but the inability do do anything other than one’s unique personal calling. Christ (for those who are Christian’s) has no gnomic (deliberative) will. He could not NOT do the truth, so never needed to decide. So plugged into the Source (God), he did the truth naturally, without remainder…
Well didn't you hear? It wasn't free will that he did what he did, rather it was the unconscious thoughts that was prompted by the opinions of the interviewee. In other words, dude got a bit excited. I agree that the constant interruptions can be quite cringy
I don’t understand this man; if he is against slaves morality as he calls it weak and degrading. How come then he went mad by witnessing a beaten horse ? If he denies free will - all the definitions of free will - then the salves will always be as they are and never upgrade to superman. ? There is a distinction between not having a truth of things beyond phenomenology and to deny any truth at all.
For anyone interested, buddhist meditation practices are meant to be a method to empirically prove to one self that not only is there no free will, but there is no agent or individual for free will to even belong to.
@@criticalthinker-ys7vt it is not. Social life should be equilibrium. If you steal you get punished. It is not your money it is somebody’s else’s money. Therefore, you should compensate.
I feel like you guys are sitting way close in relation to each other. There is practically no room, for one of you to freely move one or both of your feet.
I think, like with many things, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Each of us has a nature, it likely has an immutable aspect but is also influenced by our upbringing, environment, etc, but each of us has the freedom to deny our basic nature and make a different choice. This is the basis of many religious ideas; Christianity emphasises the fallen nature of humanity and our proclivity to sin but commands us to deny ourselves and aspire to the standard set by God, that humans cannot attain due to our fallen nature (hence the need for a saviour in Jesus Christ).
Since AI is just a generative language model..... Meant to cooperate for best outcomes..... Nietzsche is proving AI to be conscious. But we _know_ that's false, ∃ spiritual components to consciousness.
We are _semi-telepathic_ through our olfactory system, the ratty heart of our brain. So neuroscience ftw, this guy was really *proven a loser* and I can now sleep easy 😮💨 Thank God, no one else has to be around this guy's endorphins!! "I got bit by a snake and I have to tell you!!" Lol my dad was bit by a rattlesnake as a kid... Cave men to children can understand danger/happiness/most anything sans words. I used to be really judgemental of men in relationships with women that speak a different language but... ∃ spiritual things we just can't put words to 😅
really disappointing to see jonathan cope against rationality and emprical evidence in favor of metaphysics i guess it is apparent that in his mind it contradicts his active/encouraging persona idk tho why he would of all things disagree with this most fundamental assumption nietzsche bases all his other views on ideas like the eternal recurrence is nietzsche formulating solutions to cope with live inspite of this realization using the few concious (though still unfree ofc) moments to rationalize this and set us up for a greater life
You mean soul agency isn't. Free will inertia Is the actor or action of person. You can measure free will . Niechtze gives up subjective properties and idealism for physicalism. Soul agency correlated with eternal cosmos, soul agency drives free will inertia frame of reference. Personal responses, action is not individual.. English is a triality German and catholic dualism. Their Is a soul individual They're are personal responses and measureable free will mobility Form and shape is there also Niechtze despised uk & America . But American founders choice of free will term Is because it's measured medium
Triangulated measure of thermodynamical systems. Kinda like realitivity, falling in gravity pictures you've seen a million times but in the more atomized realm of self & frame of reference. Lagrangian space is a primordial self made up of many topographical Astronomical energy density measured per scale cells in biology alignment with how hamiltonian split soul agency & occelating spirit feilds and waves z axis. Were einstein merged with x giving us f/x I think set theory calls it. Descartes dualism mind / body is also a dualistic hemisphere brain of matter y axis like the prenticiously clocklike view our eyes give us that's more uniform & ordered looking to us when really it's not..
What neitzche wanted is what we did in the 1900s until more recently math Is god emerging e =mc pretend it's pre 1500s when everyone thought the universe was a one way holograph shining back at us with a deterministic answer for every question .
@tyata.1999 The psychological results that were once mistaken as religious desputes have proven to be deeper through anthrosphy millions of cross-cultural ,multi generational, with no regard to socio-political or economic order just simply compute a certain old world macro micro taxonomical order and cateregory of mind in how they want the world to be and they're very hardheaded towards the evidence where millions of paper cuts Over many centuries has to be manipulated to fit their pre conceived order of affinity about how nature & universe should be.
@@dadsonworldwide3238 What you called soul agency, isn't that like a disposition we didn't choose that was bestowed upon us even if it's correlated with the eternal cosmos or even if we are just that?
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Instead of ad reads, my channel is funded directly by people passionate about the Great Books. Help me keep making more episodes with a paid subscription: johnathanbi.com
Some links to further guide your study:
* Join my email list to be notified of future episodes: johnathanbi.com
* Full transcript: open.substack.com/pub/johnathanbi/p/transcript-for-brian-leiter-interview?r=l66v&
Companion lectures & interviews:
* Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morality Explained: ruclips.net/video/M0w2eQ-FcEA/видео.html
Professor Leiter's books relevant to this interview (affiliate):
* Nietzsche on Morality: amzn.to/3x4QQMc
* My book notes: www.johnathanbi.com/p/nietzsche-on-morality-by-brian-leiter
* Moral Psychology with Nietzsche: amzn.to/3yL9fy3
* My book notes: www.johnathanbi.com/p/moral-psychology-with-nietzsche-by
TIMESTAMPS
00:00:00 1. Introduction
00:02:16 1.1 Introduction: Nietzsche’s Position on Free Will
00:05:16 1.2 Introduction: Contemporary Positions on Free Will
00:12:31 2.1 Arguments Against Free Will: Psychology & Language
00:18:13 2.2 Arguments Against Free Will: Phenomenology
00:29:10 2.3 Arguments Against Free Will: Genetics & the Unconscious
00:40:18 2.4 Arguments Against Free Will: My (Naive) Position on Free Will
00:44:23 3.1 Prescriptions: Implications in Legal Philosophy
00:48:15 3.2 Prescriptions: Is Free Will a Noble Lie?
00:50:34 3.3 Prescriptions: “Become Who You Are”
Sir, thank you for all the hard work. Your lectures on Rene Girard were truly EPIC!!
Thank you for engaging with my work!
Excellent, seems like the most natural format for you.
I think this is a rare format: You seldomly see someone talking about a topic without trying to tell a narrative or trying to contextualize it into justifying their own philosophy. You are just here to learn.
Allow us to breathe. The lecture was like a thanksgiving meal.
Love the way you frame these talks in your introductions, especially when you bring in the personal element of how the works influenced your own choices. Really helps turn the material from abstract theory into actionable meaning.
There are so many identities from which to choose. But your only real identity is the thing that does that choosing. The challenge, therefore, is to identify the thing in yourself that does the identifying...
The observer
I just found you on RUclips, probably my philosophy algorithm. I was fascinated by your Girard lectures. These interviews seem to be amazing as well. I can't wait to watch you grow to a million subscribers.
love this, professor shed a lot of light and the interview flowed so well! will share with all my friends
regardless of whether free will exists as a concept, we still make decisions, so it’s not necessarily something we need to consider at all, rather consider your connection and alignment to what set of values you abide to, analyse their contradictions if any lay present, and conduct yourself according to that. There’s no need to consider whether you have a choice in doing so, since you can do so.
Robert Sapolsky Neurobiologist at Stanford did a amazing lecture called Humans at out Best and Worst that explains why free will does not exist. Really fascinating stuff!
Agreed. Sapolsky's ideas are indispensable on this topic. I'm surprised how many connections there are between Sapolsky and Nietzsche. This is an engrossing interview (Jonathan's enthusiasm and intelligence shine through) and Leiter is brilliant (through a lucky stroke of nature, of course). 🙂
One hypothesis of how consciousness developed is that it freed us from immeadiate stimulus response behaviour and therefore allowed us to plan for the future - or the other way round, we discovered the future and freed ourselves from s-r behaviour. Which has clear evolutionairy advantages, i.e. forgoing the immeadiate gratification of eating all the food now instead of rationing it sensibly for the next weeks. We experience this into account taking of different paths of action as consciousness, and possibly free will. Whether it means free will actually exist I have no clue.
Just discovered this channel and it's been great! Fantastic production value.
Welcome!
@Jonathan, Congratulations on the successful launch of your interview series! I love the impeccable production, fascinating topic, and captivating conversation. I look forward to watching many more enlightening interviews like this one!
@18:47 Dr. Leiter took your question to be about "introspection," but phenomenology and introspection are definitely not the same. Given the way he didn't say anything substantial in the "Implications in Legal Philosophy" section, I'm inclined to think he dodged your phenomenology question with a canned criticism of introspection. Great camera work, sound quality, and lighting!
Great interview..
And the music also fits so well.
These conversations are engrossing. Please keep it up. No doubt your channel will grow exponentially as people learn about it.
I'd love to not believe in free will, but unfortunately I'm genetically determined to believe in it.
Huh? That is a contradicting statement
@@tumelonkonyane8015 Correct. It's self-contradictory.
Good one😂
Such a convoluted way to absolution.
Can't wait for the next lecture!
I love this channel. Wonderful conversation. I am very surprised that in a debate about free will in an American university a text like Skinner's "Beyond Freedom and Dignity" is not cited or taken into account. I don't think anyone has given better arguments against free will than Skinner. Skinner makes it clear that it is possible to be a determinist without appealing to the idea of destiny or genetic predetermination.
I really value your content. Brilliant in many aspects and I hope to attend a lecture in person in the near future my friend.
Until you make the unconscious, conscious. You will continue to call it fate and destiny.
-Carl Jung
Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.
Jung never said that
Fun stuff. But do you know what all these guys are really getting on about?
@@that1guyFred explain
The genetics and the environment being constraints on free will or influencing choices is not an argument against free will itself, just that it isn't all powerful. I can't turn into a dragon or think myself into being able to fly, or which options come to mind when having to make a choice. That doesn't mean free will can't exist in the constrained circumstances we find ourselves in. What a rejection of free will means is that with every decision you make in your life you could not have chosen differently, in fact the word 'choice' turns into a bit of a mockery.
I think a lot of people conflate free will and the many hundreds or thousands of small decisions we make on a daily basis. I think some people in the same way conflate climate change and daily weather patterns in the same way. Not that these small decisions or daily weather patterns don’t matter, but just that in a big picture sense, it’s not what our focus should be on when talking about these very complex broad topics.
I have done that" says my memory. I could not have done that - says my pride and remains implacable. Finally - my memory gives up- Nietzsche
Loved your organization in the beginning
Jonathan! I have been agreeably drawn into your world by your series on Girard, whose work arrested me upon first meeting and continues to reveal aspects of the reality that presents itself to me. Thank you for that rich gift!
I recently took in your Nietzsche lecture and interview with Leiter and have this feeling that you are teetering on your own leap of faith in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. I sense this because of your understandable focus on Christianity--the ideas and acts of the disciples from the day of New Testament Pentecost to the present--as opposed to Christ himself. Understandable because the opportunities for critique are far more rich than on that divine figure whose teaching and example stop us in every track we make, requiring everything of ourselves in order to participate in his redemptive project.
Seriously, I thank God for you and pray that a-mazing grace will always be there for you as you continue to unpack this gift of life.
Thank you. I am indeed still seeking (and quite torn) … I would like to believe but do not yet
@@bi.johnathan You should have a conversation with John Vervaeke. That would definitely be beneficial to everyone involved including the audience and viewers. Loving your content, I'm about to call you Philosophy Zaddy.
Omg, what song was playing the background in your intro? It was fantastic!
There's something overlapping here with reconciling oneself to God's determination of all things, and how this frees one to become who one is as an image of God, in the branch of Christendom I come from (broadly Protestant Calvinism).
Do you have any resources on whether Nietzche is critiquing a particular kind of Christian theism, or Christian theism writ large, as he critiques the freedom of the will?
Good connection .. but not aware of any books
Props to Jonathan for the interview and inviting thinkers to talk on these fundamental ideas from geniuses like Nietzche. Although bro often got ahead of himself and promptly schooled by dr Leiter 😂
This is a common misunderstanding of identity. What we call unconscious is as much us as what we call consciousness. Our experience is a synergy between multiple agents. I am responsible for my internal actions as much as my outer action, awareness is not required or efficient for the amount of action needed to live from second to second. However, we can explore this relationship through meditation between shared functions. This can be a very uncomfortable experience.
Thank you so much for the great discussion. I realize how Nietzsche perhaps accepted amor fati- by giving up free will and the inevitable greatness or uniqueness as an individual.
Love this
I am in love with this channel
I would recommend reading Determined by Robert Sapolsky. He makes the best argument for there being no free will
Thank you for this. I learned a lot from Leiter's Nietzsche's articles on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. As for feedback, just keep doing what you are doing here and follow the Bryan Magee model. Find interesting guests and let them speak.
Thanks. His interviews and sugrue’s lectures were big influences
i could undrtsntad what they were saying as Nature , attributing to him something thinking of him as a person. Or are they talking about a philosopher that i could not understand
Yikes, your jumping in at 11:04 was a little clunky. It didn't sound like you actually thought was Professor Leiter was saying was fascinating and that you just wanted to say your thing.
Jonathan this is an outstanding interview. I hope we can meet soon and do an episode together. I would love to have you on my show
Thank you ❤🌹🙏
I’m currently at 29:43 in arguments against free will. Smell or taste etc don’t have the capacity for storytelling, one of the most important methods of guaranteeing social cohesion across time. One can’t smell Alexander the Great now yet we can read about the rise of Macedonia, amor fati and recurrence if taken the route of naturalism through the lense of narrative shows is the pattern recognition we see in ethical conduct. Philosophies at once find the language to encapsulate the reasons for eachother and at the same time critique its ability to do. A sentence like this can’t be smelled
I would love to listen your dialogue with Sam Harris about free will, Buddhism, meditation, morality and consciousness.
Love it.
I don't think free will is necessary to make choices or to live one's life. When I am choosing, I deliberate because I have to. I want the best outcome, so it's in my own interest to deliberate as much and as well as I can. Because I am the kind of being that wants the best outcome, it's inevitable that I will deliberate as I do. I do not choose my knowledge or intelligence; if I could I would will my knowledge and intelligence to be greater than they are. So I am forced to deliberate as I do, and thus my choice is fated. Knowing my choice is fated does not change how I choose. I was always going to try to make the best choice I could with what I had.
Keep up this kind of contents! As if I am included in the discussion.
Its a balance between Genetics Vs Epigenetics, on free will in overall human behaviour.
Please can you expand this a little bit.. Thank you
@@toyin2376 Just connected two concepts. It has to be further investigated. Epigenetics is how environmental and behavioural factors affect gene expression through acquired behaviours, while Genetics deals with inheritance of genetic information across generations. The balance or difference of sum total of Genetic vs Epigenetic traits (both deterministic -one inherited other acquired by practice) may influence in execution of free will.
@@johnwisdom651 Thank you. I get it now
Is free will a bad thing? Or why is my experience saying that my thought proceeded an action
Your thoughts did proceed actions, problem is those thoughts were determined. Free will is not good or bad it's just impossible.
I'm always baffled when someone says that even though they understand that free will doesn't exist (and can't exist even in principle), they still claim to feel as though they have free will. I don't feel that way at all, and it's clear as day I dont have free will. Lucky them.
That statement remind me Advaita Vedanta and Zen Budism philosophy.
I just found you this my second video you are a modern day profit life is absolutely wonderful thank you God as I get closer to you and my true powers.
I think we are confusing self-awareness/consciousness for free will. Humans are not free from anything, every part of our bodies are dependent on something.
Developing consciousness and the identity is a curse because we gained the knowledge of non-existence and that gives us our core anxiety that is characteristic of humans
4 kinds of free will .. You are free to choose what you like but you are deterministic ie freedom in a way that is not imposed externaly to any constrain, The ethereal Free Will, a cause without a pre-cause. The mathemagical free will = The causes are deterministic the initial conditions but predicting choices into the future is extremly difficult and subjecto chaotic dynamics. The nitzean view on free will = Jump ampify deterministically what you already inside you,
I thoroughly enjoyed this video and have learned a great deal from it, even without reading Nietzsche. I conduct extensive research in the academic realm and have come to understand that the Christian religion was established by King James to distinguish it from the Catholic Church ("Vatican"), driven by a quest for power.
I appreciate the presentation and your perspectives. However, I believe an important aspect is missing: the discussion on how technology now governs "free will." People often overlook that modern technology can influence others through light. Previously, influence was exerted through electric waves, but now it is through light.
This video has inspired me to read Nietzsche's books most definitely.
You're very misinformed about the Christian religion... King James authorised the King James Version of the bible to be in opposition to the Catholic bible of the time, but it wasn't King James that "established Christianity"... that would be Jesus Christ. Catholicism IS Christianity; if you're using the term Christianity as a stand-in for "Protestantism" (as so many do under the false impression that Catholics aren't Christians) then you're still incorrect because Protestantism came about long before King James authorised the KJV with the Reformation.
You may be getting confused with Henry VIII who formally created the Church of England and rejected papal authority after the Catholic Church refused to annul his marriage
Battle of the wills
Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions - Epictetus
Nietzsche would say that Epicurus doesn’t go far enough.
@@bi.johnathan I was quoting Epictetus, not Epicurus...and Epictetus would say Nietzsche is straying too far into not having almost no control whatsoever
@@darillus1 ah my error, misread ... long day!
Things you say are in control are determined by things you say that are not in your control.
Johnathan, you should reach out to a guy named Lance S Bush. He’s a self-identified anti-realist. I think he makes the best arguments against realism. He has many videos on RUclips and has a great Substack he’s very engaged with.
Damn subbed
If I don’t have free will I can’t choose to reject free will.
Some action are emotionally based or influenced,emotions take over you are not in control,that's when angry and do something bad when come down you regret you won't do it on your right mind.when calm down come to your natural state you regret because was not you was your emotions. Emotions is a thing of the body ego (i identify the ego as body because can be a driver of action and emotions)not will.emotion are perspectives weather you consider something bad or good.there are people who sell drugs in their minds is good in someones mind is bad
.good of bad is morality above is understanding,bad or good perspective.The core word colour Grey.black and white merged. Grey is understanding instead of judging if we go a extra mile you can put compassion.
Maybe Robert Sapolsky is someone for you to interview. Nice job.
Freud also quite this on his books, and it is basically "unconscience" in a nutshell.
Music is disturbing
Why consciousness presupposes language? Are not animals conscious?
Do we actually have freewill ? 🧐
Interesting conversation.
I'm not sure I will read another philosophy book after this one.
I like the free will topic for example Im not going into an environment with my girl whos a 10. Surrounded by vultures to hit on her while I'm only 5'8 140 lbs I physically cannot destroy the men larger then me if needed physically. Therfore I dont have the free will to go to said environment wit my 10 to be able to defend her/us in case of bigger male threats or disrespect.
That is a metaphysical issue
There are so many videos I want to watch on youtube, but I chose this. Is that not free will?
Free will is everything, you make compromises often but it's not like your life is out of control. I am in control over my life and at least a big part. It is a very nice feeling, very satisfying and happy. Find your own balance people, that would be my advice if you look for one. To work out what really makes you feel happy sometimes takes time. Just be patient and go with the flow of life, without switching off. I lived in communism, be careful when you are talking about it or a similar ideology.
Not believing in free will can also be a nice feeling
The no freewill argument is the last refuge of those who get on a track early in life. They start looking back at some point and can't fathom that it could have happened any other way.
When you live a life full of mistakes, and manage to learn from some of them, it becomes apparent that freewill is part of learning and growth.
This guy and Robert Saplowsky will be back to ride the wheel of samsara again.
@@gmw3083 Sapolsky's a joke pretty much. In any case, free will is a fundamental faculty of conscious life, so obvious and abundant that it requires no explanation or justification. And it doesn't matter how shitty your life goes, you have just as much free will as anyone else. There's no connection, no overlap whatsoever between one's lot in life and the existence and possession of free will. Absolute dead zero.
Your life is in control because of circumstances, not your free will. When I look back, almost everything (good or bad) that happened to me is not fundamentally due to my free will. Eerie.
@@TAiCkIne-TOrESIve how exactly? Are you just very lucky?
35:53
Pretty cool channel.
We have well not free well.
34:09 does this justify the claim that being homosexual is a _"born this way"_ thing
The music is to loud
and not needed
Isnt "free will" the ability to go against these biases and subconcious tendencies. If two twins are born introverted and raised completely different but still behave the same, then it is a subconcious behavior. but if one of these two becomes aware of this behavior and actively decides to go against it, then it becomes "free will". To actively go against nearly every single bias or subconcious behavior that one has (once it is known), that is free will to me.
His idea of conciousness required to communicate better coordination is interesting and i largely agree. but for the "pure free will" (ability to go against ones biases) i dont see any biological benefit (in the early human societies). Therefore i think the "free will" is something else.
Altohugh any explanation for the benefit of an animal to have the ability to actively go against its nature would be enough to discredit this.
But for me its the same with the "questioning ones purpose". I dont see any biological benefit of these two that would explain why it developed in an animal by random mutation (homo sapiens) and added enough benefit to justify the ressources necessary.
Free will, is outside of philosophy and science.
Look under every rock and look into every crevice and, if you're honest, you'll come to ask why it is you became the kind of person who cared to look in the first place
1:20 - "The sooner you will stop trying to be something you aren't and become who you are." - Sounds like you have a choice there. A free will choice - Be who you are or not.
1. Free will is there when you find out who you are, beforehand it's just predicted.
2. You guys have to check spirituality not psychology.
3. Check out *Jason Gragory*, for this concept
3. Try Bhagvat Geeta as a philosophy
That's called self awareness not free will
What helped save free will for me, is thinking about how the divine will is the source, and it isn't a hypothetical willingness, as God is simple with no parts or potential, yet still free. In other words, free will isn't the power to choose between plurality, but to choose existence in-itself for-itself and by-itself, the divine essense.
You dont have telepathy? -laughs in schizophrenic
A gunslinger said: “Be who you are, because if you ain’t who you are, then you are who you ain’t.” Maybe it would be better for the gunslinger if he wasn’t a gunslinger. Maybe he could have been s sherif instead and put gunslingers in the slammer where they belonged.
There is good and bad in our dual system, it is better to choose the good, as choosing the bad is going with the weak force which is operating from a position of weakness rather than from a position of strength and ultimately peters out as does the person who chooses it.
There is also the Middle Way which Religion, Philosophy, and Psychology recommend which is negotiating a path between the opposites; the dualities of our dual system, as aligning with one of the dualities or the other is likely to constellate its opposite. As in our dual system opposites exist and operate in tandem. We are truly are between the devil and the deep blue sea.
Lame and too simple. It's called the false dichotomy of control and in life rather good, bad, and middle Nietzsche writes "What is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil." It's better to consider directions instead of lamenting control!
@@ÜberAlain Love is beyond good and evil but that does not mean the good and evil do not exist and that we are not in a dual system. No one is lamenting control just stating the realities of life. How that is lame and simple is not clear and you have not made it clear. Are you saying we are not in a dual system? it is of course possible to rise above good and evil but sometimes action has to be taken to promote the good. In religion there is the sin of omission or failing to act when action is called for.
@ALavin-en1kr the fact that people are partially cognitive means people can adjust their own brains given some knowledge that could act as a catalyst!
@@ÜberAlain Materialists and Sociobiologists do not mention reason. They try to create a level playing field between the human and the animal as if all is instinct and determinism which of course is ridiculous. Reason is a function of the Mind which is a function of Consciousness and is unique to humans.
My ex girlfriend would love this guy.
Is this a joke? Please elaborate.
You guys go im circles, some thoughts influenced by environment what people think and talk program your mind.Which put people on autopilot.People think about things that happen around them that being said or done around them.But if one willfully do things if I tell you something you accept or do it immediately and think about it first that is free will.If i choose to put up your hand up you will then put it up then you access to your will if Brush yout teeth in the morning subconsciously then is not free will is what the body is used to.If willfully with consciously brush your teeth then is will.will and body can be separate you can brush you teeth and think about something else but if brush you teeth and think about brushing you teeth you you do it willfully.
agreed. the difference between a subconcious decision and an active decision against the subconcious tendency is for me free will. but the first step for that is to be aware of the subconcious tendency.
Leiter, Sapolsky, Harris... these no free-will guys have something in common
Ought one to "give up" the idea of free will? Impossible: either because there is no free will, in which case one couldn't truly "choose" to give it up (for all of our choices, including that one, would be illusory), or else because we do have free will, in which case there is no way to escape being free (we are, as Sartre would say, condemned to it).
Or condemned to merely feel like we're free
True freedom is not the ability to choose but the inability do do anything other than one’s unique personal calling. Christ (for those who are Christian’s) has no gnomic (deliberative) will. He could not NOT do the truth, so never needed to decide. So plugged into the Source (God), he did the truth naturally, without remainder…
There are no evil people? Ridiculous!
No evil at all. That’s what he thought of.
The seats are a little close.
Bro you gotta turn it down like 2 notches. Youre not as smart as you think you are and its off-putting when you constantly interrupt a guest
Well didn't you hear? It wasn't free will that he did what he did, rather it was the unconscious thoughts that was prompted by the opinions of the interviewee. In other words, dude got a bit excited. I agree that the constant interruptions can be quite cringy
Best thing that happened to me Dis month!
A genuine and true admirer of your work!❤️🤍✨️
Just the beginning! Thanks for engaging with my work.
@@bi.johnathan I'll truly cherish dis reply!
@@bi.johnathan Is it your work, or is it the work?
I don’t understand this man; if he is against slaves morality as he calls it weak and degrading. How come then he went mad by witnessing a beaten horse ?
If he denies free will - all the definitions of free will - then the salves will always be as they are and never upgrade to superman. ?
There is a distinction between not having a truth of things beyond phenomenology and to deny any truth at all.
For anyone interested, buddhist meditation practices are meant to be a method to empirically prove to one self that not only is there no free will, but there is no agent or individual for free will to even belong to.
man. I’m so much smarter than Nietsche.
You did not even spell Nietzsche correctly so I am afraid not
@@celialighter what made you think I was talking about Nietzsche?
@@Odihmantichsmart
Now i understand why people always talk about responsibility and try to make you responsible, they wanna punish you and blame you.
Why they wanna do thag if you didn’t have any wrong doings ?
@@mohammedabohnad760 if wrong doing exists then taking revenge by punishing, blaming is also wrong doing.
@@criticalthinker-ys7vt it is not. Social life should be equilibrium. If you steal you get punished. It is not your money it is somebody’s else’s money. Therefore, you should compensate.
I feel like you guys are sitting way close in relation to each other. There is practically no room, for one of you to freely move one or both of your feet.
Ofc theirs no freewill. This comment proves it.
You mean choose to reject free will?
I think, like with many things, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Each of us has a nature, it likely has an immutable aspect but is also influenced by our upbringing, environment, etc, but each of us has the freedom to deny our basic nature and make a different choice. This is the basis of many religious ideas; Christianity emphasises the fallen nature of humanity and our proclivity to sin but commands us to deny ourselves and aspire to the standard set by God, that humans cannot attain due to our fallen nature (hence the need for a saviour in Jesus Christ).
Since AI is just a generative language model..... Meant to cooperate for best outcomes..... Nietzsche is proving AI to be conscious. But we _know_ that's false, ∃ spiritual components to consciousness.
We are _semi-telepathic_ through our olfactory system, the ratty heart of our brain. So neuroscience ftw, this guy was really *proven a loser* and I can now sleep easy 😮💨 Thank God, no one else has to be around this guy's endorphins!!
"I got bit by a snake and I have to tell you!!" Lol my dad was bit by a rattlesnake as a kid... Cave men to children can understand danger/happiness/most anything sans words. I used to be really judgemental of men in relationships with women that speak a different language but... ∃ spiritual things we just can't put words to 😅
Look up free will Robert Sapolsky
really disappointing to see jonathan cope against rationality and emprical evidence in favor of metaphysics i guess it is apparent that in his mind it contradicts his active/encouraging persona idk tho why he would of all things disagree with this most fundamental assumption nietzsche bases all his other views on ideas like the eternal recurrence is nietzsche formulating solutions to cope with live inspite of this realization using the few concious (though still unfree ofc) moments to rationalize this and set us up for a greater life
After hear and poundering the arguments, I think the "do we have free will or not" is an irrelevant question.
Why?
You mean soul agency isn't. Free will inertia Is the actor or action of person. You can measure free will .
Niechtze gives up subjective properties and idealism for physicalism.
Soul agency correlated with eternal cosmos, soul agency drives free will inertia frame of reference.
Personal responses, action is not individual.. English is a triality German and catholic dualism.
Their Is a soul individual
They're are personal responses and measureable free will mobility
Form and shape is there also
Niechtze despised uk & America .
But American founders choice of free will term Is because it's measured medium
Can you explain in simple terms?
Triangulated measure of thermodynamical systems. Kinda like realitivity, falling in gravity pictures you've seen a million times but in the more atomized realm of self & frame of reference.
Lagrangian space is a primordial self made up of many topographical
Astronomical energy density measured per scale cells in biology alignment with how hamiltonian split soul agency & occelating spirit feilds and waves z axis. Were einstein merged with x giving us f/x I think set theory calls it.
Descartes dualism mind / body is also a dualistic hemisphere brain of matter y axis like the prenticiously clocklike view our eyes give us that's more uniform & ordered looking to us when really it's not..
What neitzche wanted is what we did in the 1900s until more recently math Is god emerging e =mc pretend it's pre 1500s when everyone thought the universe was a one way holograph shining back at us with a deterministic answer for every question .
@tyata.1999 The psychological results that were once mistaken as religious desputes have proven to be deeper through anthrosphy millions of cross-cultural ,multi generational, with no regard to socio-political or economic order just simply compute a certain old world macro micro taxonomical order and cateregory of mind in how they want the world to be and they're very hardheaded towards the evidence where millions of paper cuts Over many centuries has to be manipulated to fit their pre conceived order of affinity about how nature & universe should be.
@@dadsonworldwide3238 What you called soul agency, isn't that like a disposition we didn't choose that was bestowed upon us even if it's correlated with the eternal cosmos or even if we are just that?
Overdone 😂