I was rereading through some old discussions on Nietzsche and free will from LDS-Phil. Ben Huff was at the time debating with Blake Ostler over compatibilism. Ben appeals to Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil to "articulate a sense in which contingent beings, with a history, are responsible agents." He suggests that Nietzsche's presentation (is it appropriate to call it an argument?) is much more complex than it appears at first. Now Schatch has an interesting take on Nietzsche and free will in his book
Nietzsche starting around page 304. He reads Nietzsche as rejecting determinism, compatibilism and free will as all what we might call meta-issues. The very thinking that allows the discussion to arise is flawed. Our very notion of causality is a flawed and secondary notion. Nietzsche further criticizes the very notion of will that is presupposed in free will. Reading between the lines from my own readings of Nietzsche, I think we can take him as critiquing the notion of s stable self that underlies discussion of both compatibilism and libertarianism.
In the 'in itself' there is nothing of 'causal connections,' of 'necessity,' or of 'psychological non-freedom' (Beyond Good and Evil, 21)
Now before I go too far along this line, I should point out that many disagree with Schatch's readings of Nietzsche. For instance yesterday over at the Maverick Philosopher there was an interesting discussion of Nietzsche's notion of truth in Schatch. He argues that Schatch reads Nietzsche as a pragmatist. I'm not entirely sure I agree with Vallicella reading of Schatch or even pragmatism. (I think Peirce's ideal of "in the long run" ends up being different than how it is often taken) It's been a while since I last studied Nietzsche comprehensively though. So I'm probably not adept at the moment at debating the subject. My own view is that there isn't a Nietzsche. Rather I think there are at least two Nietzsches which are in essential tension with each other. Now I admit that I came to this view after reading Derrida, Schacht and Heidegger. (Three very different takes) Probably the best book I've come upon that explains a similiar view is 
Confrontations by Ernst Behler. So while I think the "pragmatic" reading is possible. I think it is in a certain tension with what most people consider pragmatism. But that's probably too much of a tangent to go down.
Getting back to free will and Nietzsche, it seems to me that he says causality is a fiction, but a necessary fiction to allow us to act. Likewise free will is a fiction, but one we must adopt to act. Ben Huff argues, along these lines, that freedom and free will are not the same thing. While free will is impossible, as is unfree will, freedom is possible. Basically there is will and there is freedom. Free will entails a view of will in terms of causality. Free will is an other cause for actions. But if causality is a psychological necessity but not an "ontological" one, then that entials that one ought to consider the very way the whole issue is framed.
Now Ben argues that Nietzsche's comments on freedom are "bracketed." That is, after establishing the problematic nature of free will, he moves on and analyzes freedom within this false discourse. In other words freedom presupposes free will and causality. Freedom is our place within a nexus of causes and potential causes.
I want to think through this. For one it seems like Ben's reading of Nietzsche is tantilizingly close to Heidegger's discussion of freedom in various places. (Both Being and Time as well as The Metaphysical Foundations of Logic) At the same time rereading my comments in the debate, it seems like I didn't really trust Ben's position and thought Nietzsche's comments had to be read in the context of eternal recurrence. Ben, rightfully, is distrustful of my (and Schatch's) reliance on Will to Power given that its questionable status as accurately reflecting Nietzsche's actual thoughts. (It was compiled from notes by his sister and sometimes distorted by her)
I think an other way to consider the problem within Nietzsche is to contrast the liar with truth. The Liar, for Nietzsche, is one who creates. (i.e. the free) Nietzsche writes:
He lies in the manner indicated, unconsciously and in accordance with habits which are centuries' old; and precisely by means of this unconsciousness and forgetfulness he arrives at his sense of truth.
[...]
Only by forgetting this primitive world of metaphor can one live with any repose, security, and consistency: only by means of the petrification and coagulation of a mass of images which originally streamed from the primal faculty of human imagination like a fiery liquid, only in the invincible faith that this sun, this window, this table is a truth in itself, in short, only by forgetting that he himself is an artistically creating subject, does man live with any repose, security, and consistency.
My sense is that this is a fairly accurate view of freedom for Nietzsche.
Very interesting read! I like your blog, you have lots of great links, too! I'll check back here for sure!
Who do you think has free will? You might say everyone; I would say no one. The Wikipedia Encylopedia describes free will …. The question of free will is whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions and decisions. Addressing this question requires understanding the relation between freedom and cause, and determining whether or not the laws of nature are causally deterministic.
To the average person that is probably correct if a bit incomprehensible and vague. But that in reality barley touches the answer. Free (Not in bondage to another) will (Faculty by which a person decides or conceives himself as deciding upon & initiating action). The first requirement to having free will is to be able to think and be aware of yourself as an entity (I think therefore I am). That would rule out all of the animal kingdom. The second requirement would be intelligence (that is understanding not cleverness) or the question is meaningless. The third would be to question and ask yourself if you had free will. The forth would be not let emotions have any bearing on all actions and decisions. For example, a parent has an adult child that has carried out many horrendous evil acts and is obviously mad. The way the parent views her/his child is very much influenced by the emotional fact that he/she is the parent. The parent does not have free will; the parent is in bondage to the fact that they are a parent. It is clear that if you have a mental problem you do not have free will. You cannot have free will for part of the time only. To have free will means that you have it continuously. It is logically correct to say that if you are not interested to know if you have free will, you do not have it by definition. At this point, I would guess that I have eliminated 95% of the world’s population as not having free will. If you react instantly with an emotional response to ANY situation without correction, you do not have free will. I would say that raises it to 99% of the population without free will.
At this point, consider the importance of free will. Without it all the ugliness and badness in the world is explained. Without it what is the difference between you and ALL the ugly predators that have inhabited the planet since life started here. You might say I am good and believe in God or I am a good atheist who wants the world to be better. But without free will, you are only a pawn/player in this world of ugliness.
If you are an adult you have been in affect been severely brainwashed by everything that has taken place in your life. Your country of origin, culture, parents, friends, religion, education, books read, films, art, music, radio, TV, newspapers etc have all played a major part in your identity and how you view the world and your existence. Imagine that you suddenly came into existence with no previous identity or memory but you could think intelligently, read write and talk. You would have NO preconceptions at all. If in that theoretical situation and with free will what you make of the world and civilisation, what obvious conclusions would you come to? What would your first impressions of the world be? Would it be a world of intelligence, harmony, love or the complete opposite? Would each individual be concerned and want the best for every other individual. Would all share lovingly? Would there be no anger, hatred, murder, torture. Would there be an absence of greed? Would there be an absence of nonsense puerile religions? The answer is obvious. You would find a world of chaos with an awesome history of violence, pain and suffering. THINK, in your theoretical uncontaminated position could you possibly say that any one of them had free will? Do you think that the person who designs and makes nuclear weapons has free will? Do you think that the men and women in Russia who make the hundreds of thousands of Kalashnikov rifles that are used to kill have free will? Do the millions of men and women in the west who buy their pampered pets expense food while people starve have free will? Does the leader of a country or the head of a religious organisation living in luxury while others have only poverty with no hope have free will? Does the suicide bomber who blows himself up and everyone in his vicinity and thinks that he is going to paradise to be served by servile virgins have free will? Do the millions who smoke, over indulge in alcohol or are addicted to drugs have free will? Do ALL the six billion plus people on this planet who go about their daily lives and cannot see anything clearly have free will? The list could go on and on and I’m sure that you would be in there somewhere.
If a just one person said to me..this world is ugly and worthless and if I could not change it completely I would without pain to anyone remove it I would know two things. The first is that the person would be intelligent (have understanding). The second is that while he might not have complete free will he/she would be more than half way there.
If you reply that, the answer is a man called Jesus or Muhammad not only have you not understood any of the previous and have no free will but you also have no intelligence.
Why is the world as it is? Why do people cling on to the lie that there is more good than bad when it is obviously not so. Why do people think that they have free will when they do not? That is catch22. Only by having free will can you know and understand the answer to that question. If you do not want to know, you do not have free will and you are the same as the lion, tiger, monkey, dog, flea etc.. What a sorry uncorrectable state you are in. Also, if you are religious consider God and Satan (if you believe that they both exist). Both want you to admire, genuflect and worship them and for you to be in their control. Anyone man, woman or whoever who wants another to worship them is mentally ill and most certainly does not have free will.
Robert robert77@fsmail.net
I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble