Judaism and Free Will: Traditional and Contemporary Perspectives

[dauer]

Thought I'd start this thread given some of the discussion between BB and Avi elsewhere. I don't have much to say at this time so I'll just put up this quote of R' Akiva:

"All is foreseen, but freedom of choice is given..."

R' Akiva's sentiment is certainly something I can relate to given that I do think determinism is likely while at the same time observing that, on the personal and experiential level, freedom of choice is a very real, experienced phenomenon. I also maintain that the assertion of the reality of free will does have positive consequences on our actions because of the systems of accountability that it leads to.

 

[Avi]

"All is foreseen, but freedom of choice is given..."

This comment seems to reflect an extreme of faith and independence.

No wonder, R. Akiba lived from 50 - 135 CE. That means he was alive during the fall of the Second Temple. Can you imagine what life in Israel was like during that time ?

He was a major organizer of what would become Rabbinic Judaism. He believed Bar Kokba was the Messiah. The day he was martyred by the Romans, Judah HaNasi was born. Interesting life.

 

[dauer]

Don't forget he was at the center of a circle of mystics, having defended the inclusion of shir hashirim in the canon and according to aggadah being the only one of the four (ben zoma, ben azzai, elisha ben abuyah, akiva) who survived their experience unscathed. Some people overlook that.

I think his intent was to acknowledge the paradox of the two co-existing and state that this wasn't negotiable for him despite the potential problems with maintaining both premises side by side.

So what are your thoughts on the nature of free will?

 

[bananabrain]

it depends on your perspective. from our perspective, we have free will (and therefore sin, which is a necessary concomitant of choice) because of the operation of the 4th dimension, time, which we are subject to. G!D, on the other hand, Is not subject to the 4th dimension just as we can affect the other ones, the three of position and the fifth dimension of soul. from G!D's perspective, there is no future or past, therefore all possibilities and outcomes are contemporaneous, therefore G!D can Forsee everything because it is all happening at the same time from a Divine PoV. it's only our linear viewpoint that makes it seem like there are both actions and consequences.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Avi]

Quote - bb - from our perspective, we have free will (and therefore sin, which is a necessary concomitant of choice)

umm, bb, when you say "our" whom exactly are you referring ?

By the way, I have had this discussion with OJs before, so I think I know where we are heading

 

[dauer]

By the way, I have had this discussion with OJs before, so I think I know where we are heading

Accepting or rejecting the mitzvot? I assumed that would come up at some point. Personally I was just interested in a discussion of different perspectives when I created the thread. I was hoping the conversation wouldn't get stuck there as, at least for you and I, that's not a persuasive argument. What are your thoughts on the nature of free will?

 

[Avi]

Dauer,

That is a tough question. Free will is so prevalent in Judaism. It started with Eve and apple and continues to our daily decisions.

In my own life, free will relates to the limits and boundaries that we put on our daily activites.

In western philosophy, Thomas Hobbes, David Hume and Arthur Schopenhaur come to mind. These would be interesting philosophers to examine vis-a-vis Jewish concepts of free will. Althought I think the choice of R. Akiba was a good one, because of his tremendous impact on Jewish life after the fall of the Second Temple. Lets see what bb thinks about this.

 

[dauer]

Quick note:

the fruit of the tree was not necessarily an apple and in Jewish discussions on what it was, an apple is not mentioned.

I only mentioned Akiba as a jumping off point. I'd love to hear anything more you have to say on the matter. I'd actually be very interested to hear your take on the story about the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil as it relates to free will.

-- Dauer

 

[spiritual learner]

In my understanding based on my studies, the fruit/apple is symbolic of something extremely desirable to the man and woman...something that they were willing to take, disregarding God's commandment, even though God warned them that they would die should they disobey.

 

[spiritual learner]

re:free will sometimes passion overrides our better judgement.
Still, because we have free will, we also bear the responsibility for the consequences of our actions.

 

[Avi]

I do not have other thoughts about the role of the tree of life in the notion of free will, but here is an nice description of the paradox:

In Rabbinic literature, there is much discussion as to the apparent contradiction between God's omniscience and free will. Based on this understanding, the problem is formally described as a paradox, beyond our understanding:
The Holy One, Blessed Be He, knows everything that will happen before it has happened. So does He know whether a particular person will be righteous or wicked, or not? If He does know, then it will be impossible for that person not to be righteous. If He knows that he will be righteous but that it is possible for him to be wicked, then He does not know everything that He has created. ...The Holy One, Blessed Be He, does not have any temperaments and is outside such realms, unlike people, whose selves and temperaments are two separate things. God and His temperaments are one, and God's existence is beyond the comprehension of Man… Thus we do not have the capabilities to comprehend how the Holy One, Blessed Be He, knows all creations and events. Nevertheless know without doubt that people do what they want without the Holy One, Blessed Be He, forcing or decreeing upon them to do so... It has been said because of this that a man is judged according to all his actions. (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Teshuva 5:5)

Ref: From Wiki article: Free Will in Theology

So Maimonides had recognized that G-d has no tempraments, this description of non-corporealism is one that I like.

 

[spiritual learner]

All is foreseen but free choice is given...all possibilities are foreseen but the choice we make, the action we choose to do effects the outcome...perhaps the probable future is foreseen

 

[nativeastral]

this interests me as l also see it as a paradox in many ways, the attributes ascribed and our free [alledgedly disputed] will; can anyone enlighten me on spinoza? his god=nature rings true to me though it brings extreme determinism-thats all l know so should read up more! whats the differences between judaic/christian take on the problem of evil [notwithstanding the varieties within the traditions themselves].

 

[Dream]

whats the differences between judaic/christian take on the problem of evil [notwithstanding the varieties within the traditions themselves].

I think the Pauline Christian position says sin comes from the humanity of the human and is only destroyed when we are transformed from humans into spirimans of some kind. In this paradigm life now has to be spent with the internal spirit self fighting the internal unspiritual self. It is assumed that sin has been put into the world temporarily for some purpose. This main idea moves out though the spiral charting the variations of Christianity, and Christians describe it different ways. As the spiral becomes very large interpretations can sound very different. Many Christians will say evil originated in either a snake or in a fallen angel, not in humans. They move the problem of sin away from humanity and from G!d. Another position is that evil was somehow an accident. Sometimes instead of a problem of evil it considered mystically incomprehensible or untouchable. In some places pondering it is discouraged.

 

[nativeastral]

thanks for that but as l didnt understand spiriman [you spiral-avatar?!] l googled and got an article on depth psychology instead, interesting but not relevant to this thread -

Depth Psychology and Giftedness: Bringing Soul to the

and as l do not know judaic concepts better not ponder here any longer!

 

[Dream]

I don't know the Judaic points of view on the problem of evil. You have to get your own feel of the difference between Christianity and Judaism. By Spiriman I mean a human being that has been in some way upgraded, so that the tendency to err has been replaced.

 

[Avi]

Quote - Dauer - Don't forget he was at the center of a circle of mystics, having defended the inclusion of shir hashirim in the canon and according to aggadah being the only one of the four (ben zoma, ben azzai, elisha ben abuyah, akiva) who survived their experience unscathed. Some people overlook that.

I am familiar with this story. Was R. Akiba allowed to leave because he was so great ?

Quote - Dauer - I think his intent was to acknowledge the paradox of the two co-existing and state that this wasn't negotiable for him despite the potential problems with maintaining both premises side by side.

So what are your thoughts on the nature of free will?

Another perspective on the R. Akiba quote (perhaps a more Reform perspective) is that we have free will, but in fact all is not foreseen. If G-d is non-corporeal, knowledge cannot be understood as we envision it. Do you agree ?

 

[dauer]

Was R. Akiba allowed to leave because he was so great ?

The four of them were getting deeply into mystical practices. I would argue that it was because he was so great that he survived unscathed. The others were not strong and balanced enough. More sources:

Mysticism during the Talmudic Era: Sources

Another perspective on the R. Akiba quote (perhaps a more Reform perspective) is that we have free will, but in fact all is not foreseen. If G-d is non-corporeal, knowledge cannot be understood as we envision it. Do you agree ?

I don't see the correlation between G!d being non-corporeal and knowledge not being as we envision it.

Personally as I said before, I believe determinism is most likely but that as individuals we experience choice as very real, and that maintaining the concept of choice likely has an impact on the directions we take.

 

[Avi]

Quote - Dauer - Personally as I said before, I believe determinism is most likely but that as individuals we experience choice as very real, and that maintaining the concept of choice likely has an impact on the directions we take.

So what does determinism mean to you ? A scientific interpretation of determinism means that a chain of events are interconnected. For example if I hit a billard ball of mass, m and it hits another billiard ball of mass, m, at an angle theta, I can calculate the velocity and angle that the second billard ball travels.

But I doubt that is what you mean. I think that you mean determinism in a philosophic sense. In this sense, “every event, including human cognition and behavior, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences” (wiki - determinism). So it seems to me that determinism cannot apply in many situations, and it is actually not a duality.

 

[dauer]

But I doubt that is what you mean. I think that you mean determinism in a philosophic sense. In this sense, “every event, including human cognition and behavior, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences” (wiki - determinism).

I think it is most likely that all human actions are determined by causality and that no determined actions are free. Therefore no human actions are free. This is something the behaviorists have demonstrated to some degree. Even someone very humanist like Carl Rogers was dealing with an IF-THEN situation, something he attempts to formally demonstrate in some of his writings.

My sense is that the experience of free will may be the mind's attempt to make sense for us of multiple drives and inclinations by creating the narrative of free choice. But should we have all of the data necessary (and I'm not sure we'll ever be able to collect that data and crunch it) I think we could predict the so-called choice of the individual in whatever situation he finds himself in.

So it seems to me that determinism cannot apply in many situations, and it is actually not a duality.

Why can't it apply in many situations and why is it not a duality? And what does it matter whether it is or is not a duality? I've never mentioned a duality. Do you mean what I said about the individual's experience of the situation? See above in this present post. I think that explains what I mean very well. Determinism isn't compromised. We just experience the situation differently.

Or are you referring to what I said about the concept of choice having an impact on the directions we take? As I see it, to arrive at a person's final "choice" we have to take into account all of the data available to the brain and all the unique bits of 'code', as it were, within us. That includes our biological inclinations and all of our experiences up until that time. If our experiences have conditioned us to accept the notion of free will then imo we will behave differently than we would in the absence of that concept.