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.
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). 🙂
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.
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.
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...
@Kaa864 Right, and once I realized this, it was as though I had hit upon the so called "Philosopher's Stone," that thing hard or material enough about me to resist my impressions and thus to be sensible, even tangible, but mercurial enough to undergo the experience of change that we know as "time." Again, it is that mercurial material that I am at bottom...
@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!
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.
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 😂
@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!
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.
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.
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.
Peoples concept of free will is this: “I was given the option of five flavors of ice cream and I chose the chocolate because I love chocolate… but I like to think I could have chosen vanilla.”
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.
There a re many things that we don't choose : our parents, our genetics, our skin color and sexual orientation... Let's just accept who we are and try our best to help others, whatever their skin color or sexual orientation.
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.
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 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.
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.
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'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.
@@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.
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?
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,
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
These discussions about free will are confusing to me. The proponents of no-free-will encourage their listeners to chose to believe we have no free will and at the same time of course insist we do not have the ability to chose what to do or what to believe. ? "You don't really make any choices... so chose yourself." (?) I'm much more of the mind that we should try as best we can to understand the many influences, conscious and unconscious, that "push" us one direction or another in order to increase the percentage of rational choices. For example, if I better understand how retailers organize the may goodies and shiny things at the impulse-buy checkout "valley", I can better decide whether to spend 4 times the money for something, buy it elsewhere, or go without. I do appreciate that Johnathan Bi seemed to get Brian Leiter to concede that even "no free will" does not really mean no free will at all.
Could it be that humans have no free will but the universe does? Nietzsche borrowed from Schopenhauer. He also had high regard for Dostoyevsky. After his friend Richard Wagner composed Parsifal he broke with him, because of the Christian subject, and proclaimed Bizet's Carmen superior. He too was a minor composer. He despised anti-Semites and speculated he might have Polish ancestry.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Life is Eternal, the Life-Desire is the Force/Motor of Life, in direct extension We have Will, (Life-side), and Gravity, (Stuff-side) By our Will, We do Balance Gravity of Earth, with our own, when We lift the cup. So, Life is Eternal, the Rainbow picture our Consciousness, Day/Night-Circuit, (Night-Bodies) physical Body-Circuit, (Organ-Order), Life-Circuit, (Life/dead) and larger Circuits. Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, in Beginning of a new Developing-Circuit, Instinct/Plant-Kingdom, (Red) the Will is at its minimum-performance, and in the end of the Circuit, it is at its maximum-performance, Indigo/Memory-Kingdom. So, Will will always be a matter of Degree. The zombie-reality we see today, is loss of free Will. The Will can go so low, that the Being is helpless in, could be three incarnations with spoon feeding. But surely and gradually, the Life-Desire will bring the Being back at the right track. So, Will, is about Degree, and Not about 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…
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.
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).
@@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.
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 😅
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
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).
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.
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). 🙂
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.
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.
love this, professor shed a lot of light and the interview flowed so well! will share with all my friends
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
@Kaa864 Right, and once I realized this, it was as though I had hit upon the so called "Philosopher's Stone," that thing hard or material enough about me to resist my impressions and thus to be sensible, even tangible, but mercurial enough to undergo the experience of change that we know as "time." Again, it is that mercurial material that I am at bottom...
Great interview..
And the music also fits so well.
Can't wait for the next lecture!
These conversations are engrossing. Please keep it up. No doubt your channel will grow exponentially as people learn about it.
@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!
Such a convoluted way to absolution.
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.
Just discovered this channel and it's been great! Fantastic production value.
Welcome!
I really value your content. Brilliant in many aspects and I hope to attend a lecture in person in the near future my friend.
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 😂
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
Loved your organization in the beginning
I am in love with this channel
First person viewpoint is a part of the process and although 'caused' it also has 'effects'
@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 have done that" says my memory. I could not have done that - says my pride and remains implacable. Finally - my memory gives up- Nietzsche
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.
❤genuinely genius thx
If I don’t have free will I can’t choose to reject free will.
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
Thank you ❤🌹🙏
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😂
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
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.
Peoples concept of free will is this: “I was given the option of five flavors of ice cream and I chose the chocolate because I love chocolate… but I like to think I could have chosen vanilla.”
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.
There a re many things that we don't choose : our parents, our genetics, our skin color and sexual orientation... Let's just accept who we are and try our best to help others, whatever their skin color or sexual orientation.
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.
I would recommend reading Determined by Robert Sapolsky. He makes the best argument for there being no free will
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.
Keep up this kind of contents! As if I am included in the discussion.
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.
Love it.
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.
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'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.
Battle of the wills
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
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
I would love to listen your dialogue with Sam Harris about free will, Buddhism, meditation, morality and consciousness.
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,
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.
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
Omg, what song was playing the background in your intro? It was fantastic!
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
That statement remind me Advaita Vedanta and Zen Budism philosophy.
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
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
Damn subbed
Freud also quite this on his books, and it is basically "unconscience" in a nutshell.
Agency is a system property
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.
Maybe Robert Sapolsky is someone for you to interview. Nice job.
I'm not sure I will read another philosophy book after this one.
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.
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.
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.
We have well not free well.
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
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?
Pretty cool channel.
Do we actually have freewill ? 🧐
Interesting conversation.
Music is disturbing
Why consciousness presupposes language? Are not animals conscious?
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
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.
These discussions about free will are confusing to me. The proponents of no-free-will encourage their listeners to chose to believe we have no free will and at the same time of course insist we do not have the ability to chose what to do or what to believe. ? "You don't really make any choices... so chose yourself." (?) I'm much more of the mind that we should try as best we can to understand the many influences, conscious and unconscious, that "push" us one direction or another in order to increase the percentage of rational choices. For example, if I better understand how retailers organize the may goodies and shiny things at the impulse-buy checkout "valley", I can better decide whether to spend 4 times the money for something, buy it elsewhere, or go without. I do appreciate that Johnathan Bi seemed to get Brian Leiter to concede that even "no free will" does not really mean no free will at all.
Could it be that humans have no free will but the universe does? Nietzsche borrowed from Schopenhauer. He also had high regard for Dostoyevsky. After his friend Richard Wagner composed Parsifal he broke with him, because of the Christian subject, and proclaimed Bizet's Carmen superior. He too was a minor composer. He despised anti-Semites and speculated he might have Polish ancestry.
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?
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.
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.
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.
There are so many videos I want to watch on youtube, but I chose this. Is that not free will?
use your free will to reject free will and become who you are, because who you are isn't who you are until you "choose" to reject 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.
The music is to loud
and not needed
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.
34:09 does this justify the claim that being homosexual is a _"born this way"_ thing
The seats are a little close.
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
Life is Eternal,
the Life-Desire is the Force/Motor of Life,
in direct extension We have Will, (Life-side),
and Gravity, (Stuff-side)
By our Will, We do Balance Gravity of Earth,
with our own, when We lift the cup.
So, Life is Eternal, the Rainbow picture
our Consciousness, Day/Night-Circuit, (Night-Bodies)
physical Body-Circuit, (Organ-Order), Life-Circuit, (Life/dead)
and larger Circuits.
Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo,
in Beginning of a new Developing-Circuit, Instinct/Plant-Kingdom, (Red)
the Will is at its minimum-performance, and in the end of the Circuit,
it is at its maximum-performance, Indigo/Memory-Kingdom.
So, Will will always be a matter of Degree.
The zombie-reality we see today, is loss of free Will.
The Will can go so low, that the Being is helpless in, could be three
incarnations with spoon feeding.
But surely and gradually, the Life-Desire will bring the Being
back at the right track.
So, Will, is about Degree, and Not about 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…
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.
35:53
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).
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.
You dont have telepathy? -laughs in schizophrenic
There are no evil people? Ridiculous!
No evil at all. That’s what he thought of.
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 😅
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
My ex girlfriend would love this guy.
Is this a joke? Please elaborate.
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
You mean choose to reject free will?