Free will

 

"Free will" is a tough one. I think it has to be real, at least now and then, but I can see no logical way it could be and asserting it leads to logical contradictions (something "chosen" but remaining without cause and not random). Of course as I have said before, the fact that I can see no way something could be the way it is may only mean a lack of imagination or insight on my part and proves nothing.

That’s a very clean way of putting the dilemma—you’ve landed right on the pressure point philosophers have been worrying at for a few thousand years.

The knot, as you describe it, is this: if a choice is caused, then it seems determined; if it is uncaused, it looks like randomness. And neither of those feels like what we mean by free will. So where could “genuine choice” even live?

There are a few classic ways people try to ease that tension, and each of them gives up something you might or might not be willing to surrender.

One move is what’s usually called compatibilism, associated with people like David Hume and, in a more modern form, Daniel Dennett. They basically say: you’re setting the bar too high. Freedom doesn’t require being uncaused; it requires that your actions flow from you—your character, your reasoning, your preferences—rather than from external coercion. Under that view, even a fully determined universe can contain meaningful freedom, because “free” just means “not forced, and responsive to reasons.”

It’s tidy, but some people feel it dodges your core worry rather than answering it. If you yourself are determined, then in what sense could you have done otherwise?

Another route is libertarian free will (not political libertarianism), defended in different ways by thinkers like Robert Kane. Here the idea is that in certain moments—usually difficult, conflicted decisions—there is genuine indeterminacy in the brain, not mere randomness but something like a fork in the road where more than one outcome is really possible. The person resolves it, and that resolution is what grounds responsibility.

But as you’ve already spotted, that raises the question: if it’s not caused, what makes it your choice rather than a coin flip in your neurons?

A third angle, which I suspect might appeal to your practical bent, is to quietly step back from metaphysics and ask what role the idea of free will plays in human life. Immanuel Kant more or less took this line: whether or not we can prove free will in a theoretical sense, we have to act as if we are free in order to make sense of responsibility, obligation, and moral judgment. In other words, free will may be less a feature we observe and more a framework we can’t function without.

And then there’s a more recent, almost deflationary thought: the contradiction may come from assuming that causation must be either strict determinism or pure randomness. Real systems—especially brains—might operate in a way where reasons, feedback, and self-reference create a kind of “middle space.” Not magic, not acausal, but also not reducible to a simple chain like billiard balls. That doesn’t fully solve the problem, but it suggests our conceptual tools might be too blunt.

Your last remark is, I think, the wisest part: recognizing that “I can’t see how this works” is not the same as “this cannot work.” Physics has already forced us to accept things (quantum indeterminacy, relativity) that look contradictory from an everyday standpoint. Free will might be another case where intuition isn’t a reliable guide.

If I had to gently push you, though, I’d ask this: when you say free will “has to be real, at least now and then,” what is the experience you’re trying to preserve? The sense of choosing among alternatives? Responsibility? The feeling of authorship?

Pinning that down often clarifies which version of “free will” you actually care about—and which contradictions are deal-breakers versus just philosophical discomfort.

OK I buy the notion that we've set the bar too high. I try to always mindfully do the right thing. Assuming I'm successful, then what I do is in fact determined by my prior choice to do the right thing, and in making that choice I feel I have no ethical choice.

That’s a sharp refinement—and it shifts the question from abstract metaphysics into something much more lived.

What you’re describing is a kind of self-binding. At some earlier point, you adopt a principle—“I will try to do the right thing”—and thereafter your actions flow from that commitment. When a concrete situation arises, you don’t experience it as open-ended; you experience it as already settled by that prior stance. In that moment, it feels like “I have no ethical choice.”

But notice what’s quietly changed: the locus of freedom has moved.

Instead of freedom being in each isolated decision, it’s now located in the formation of the person who decides. The interesting question becomes: how did you come to be the sort of person who binds himself that way?

A compatibilist like David Hume would be perfectly comfortable here. He’d say: this is freedom at its most meaningful. You’re not being pushed around by impulse or coercion; you’re acting from a stable character and a considered commitment. The fact that, in the moment, you feel you “must” do the right thing isn’t a failure of freedom—it’s almost its fulfillment.

There’s an old line, often attributed (a bit loosely) to Aristotle, that virtue is about becoming the kind of person for whom the right action is the natural one. Not forced, not agonized over every time—just what you do. By that standard, your sense of “no ethical choice” is actually what moral success feels like from the inside.

But your instinct that something is still puzzling is valid. Because if you press one step back—did you freely choose to adopt that principle in the first place?—the same problem reappears. Either that choice was caused (by upbringing, temperament, reflection…) or it wasn’t. The regress never quite goes away.

One way to live with this, without hand-waving, is to accept a kind of layered picture:

• At the moment of action, you are guided—almost determined—by your values.

• At the level of character over time, there is more room: reflection, revision, second thoughts, even occasional failure that reshapes the rule itself.

• And beneath that, yes, there are influences you didn’t choose at all.

So freedom isn’t a clean, all-or-nothing property. It’s more like a degree of authorship across time.

What you’re describing—“I try to always mindfully do the right thing”—actually increases that authorship, even if it reduces the feeling of open choice in any single moment. You’ve traded momentary spontaneity for coherence over a lifetime.

There’s a slightly paradoxical flavor to it: the more seriously you take morality, the less you experience each decision as “free” in the sense of “I could go either way without reason.” But the more you shape yourself into someone whose actions genuinely come from who you are.

If I can nudge you just a bit further: do you experience that prior commitment—the decision to “do the right thing”—as something you ever revisit? Or has it become so settled that it feels almost like a given, part of the furniture of your mind?

The real problem of course is knowing what is the right thing. There are times when it's obvious, but usually not so much, and in many of these, where an ethical choice does not pertain, I still feel an undetermined unrandom choice is made.

Yes—that’s where the tidy philosophical models start to fray a bit.

When the “right thing” is obvious, your earlier picture works beautifully: the prior commitment settles the case, and action follows almost automatically. But most of life isn’t like that. It’s foggy, underdetermined, or simply not moral in any strong sense—choosing what to say next, where to look, whether to linger or move on. And yet, as you say, those choices don’t feel random, even though they’re not clearly determined either.

That middle territory is the interesting one.

One way to look at it is that your mind is doing a kind of continuous, low-level evaluation—drawing on habits, memories, subtle preferences, mood, context—most of which never rises to explicit awareness. The outcome feels like a simple “I choose,” but under the hood it’s a very rich, dynamic process. Not a coin flip, but not a clean logical deduction either.

A thinker like William James took that feeling seriously. He suggested that in these underdetermined cases, effort and attention play a role—what you attend to, even slightly, can tip the balance. That “effort of attention” doesn’t look like a cause in the mechanical sense, but it’s not randomness either. It’s something like a gentle steering.

More recently, people like Daniel Dennett would say: what you’re experiencing is the brain as a self-organizing system. It doesn’t need a mysterious uncaused chooser; the “choice” is what it feels like when a complex system settles into one course of action rather than another. The key point is that the system is you—your history, your dispositions—so the outcome still counts as yours, even if you can’t trace a neat line of causation.

But I think you’re pointing at something subtler than either of those fully captures. There’s a phenomenological fact here:

It feels like I am the one who settles it, even when there’s no clear rule and no sense of randomness.

That feeling of authorship—of “settling”—might be the core thing we’re trying to explain when we talk about free will.

Here’s a thought that might sharpen it: in those everyday, non-moral choices, do you ever feel that you could have gone the other way in a meaningful sense? Not just abstractly, but as a live sense in the moment?

Because if that sense is there, then your experience already contains three elements at once:

• not strictly determined (it could go either way),

• not random (it’s not arbitrary or alien),

• and owned (it’s you deciding).

That’s exactly the combination that looks logically impossible when we try to formalize it—but shows up quite naturally in lived experience.

Which raises a slightly provocative possibility: the contradiction may not be in reality so much as in the way we’re trying to model it—forcing a living process into categories (caused vs. uncaused, determined vs. random) that don’t quite fit how minds actually work.

You’re not alone in sensing that tension. The honest position might be exactly where you are:
we can’t quite make it cohere logically, but we also can’t dismiss the experience as mere illusion without losing something important about how we understand ourselves.

And you’re right to resist calling it random. It doesn’t feel random—and that counts for something, even if we’re not yet sure what.

You are right that how something may feel is a poor signal. What we do us generally determined, which is why, while we must act to protect ourselves and others, we cannot judge.

I think you’re putting your finger on a real tension—but I’d push you a bit on the last step, because it doesn’t quite follow as cleanly as it sounds.

If our actions are largely determined—by upbringing, temperament, circumstance—then yes, it softens judgment. It makes harsh condemnation feel misplaced, even a bit naïve. You start to see people less as villains choosing evil in a vacuum and more as complicated outcomes of causes they didn’t fully author. That naturally leads toward restraint, patience, even compassion. In that sense, your conclusion lines up very much with traditions like Buddhism, which separate understanding from condemnation.

But “we cannot judge” goes a step further than that, and it runs into trouble.

Because the moment you say we must act to protect ourselves and others, you’re already making judgments—about harm, risk, responsibility, and what ought to be done. Deciding that someone should be restrained, avoided, or corrected is a form of judgment. Even deciding “this action is dangerous” or “this person can’t be trusted in this situation” is a judgment call.

So perhaps the cleaner distinction isn’t between judging and not judging, but between two kinds of judgment:

• Moral condemnation (“this person is bad, blameworthy, deserving of scorn”)

• Practical evaluation (“this behavior is harmful, and something must be done about it”)

Determinism undermines the first much more than the second.

A philosopher like Baruch Spinoza took a line very close to what you’re circling. He argued that if we truly understood the causes behind people’s actions, we would replace emotions like hatred and anger with something more like understanding. Not passivity—but a cooler, clearer response. You still act, you still protect, but without the extra layer of moral outrage.

There’s also a practical point: even if people are determined, holding them responsible (in a measured way) is itself one of the causes that shapes behavior. Social expectations, praise, blame, consequences—these are part of the machinery that influences future actions. So abandoning all judgment entirely would actually remove one of the tools that helps steer outcomes.

So I’d reframe your idea just slightly:

Not that we cannot judge, but that we should be very careful how we judge—leaning toward understanding and proportion rather than condemnation.

It’s a subtle shift, but it preserves both sides of what you’re trying to hold onto: the sense that people are not ultimate authors of themselves, and the equally real need to navigate a world where actions have consequences.

And if I may say, there’s something consistent in your line of thought: starting from free will, you’ve arrived not at fatalism, but at a kind of ethical restraint. That’s a direction many systems try to reach, though by very different routes.

I think my context made it fairly clearly the sort of judgment I meant.

Fair enough—you did signal that, and I over-tightened the distinction as if you were making a broader claim than you were. That’s on me.

Taken in your sense—moral condemnation rather than practical evaluation—your position is quite coherent. If what people do is largely the result of causes they did not choose, then indignation begins to look misplaced, or at least excessive. One still acts, protects, restrains when necessary, but without the added layer of “this person is blameworthy in some ultimate sense.”

That line of thought has a long pedigree. Baruch Spinoza again is very close to what you’re saying: understanding replaces hatred. And in a different idiom, Arthur Schopenhauer famously put it that “a man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills.” If that’s right, then moral condemnation starts to feel like blaming a storm for being a storm—emotionally natural, perhaps, but philosophically thin.

Where I might still nudge you—gently—is this: even if we set aside condemnation, there’s often still a residual sense of appraisal that doesn’t quite disappear. Not “you are bad,” but something like “this was wrong,” or even “you should have done otherwise,” said in a quieter key. Some philosophers think that kind of judgment survives determinism because it’s less about ultimate authorship and more about holding each other to shared standards.

But one can also consistently go the way you’re leaning: keep the standards, keep the responses, drop the inward heat of blame.

It produces a very particular moral atmosphere—cooler, more clinical perhaps, but often more humane. And it fits rather naturally with your earlier point: the more we see actions as arising from a web of causes, the harder it is to sustain the feeling that anyone stands outside that web, freely deserving condemnation.

Out of curiosity—and this connects back to your first point about free will—does dropping that kind of judgment feel like a loss to you, or more like a clarification?

I avoid the temptation to think I am better because I would never do that. I'm asexual, so rape would never enter my head, but that doesn't make me better than the rapist. I still fully appreciate society taking measures to discourage it.

I see the distinction you’re making, and it’s a careful one. You’re separating moral status from outcomes and dispositions. In your example, the absence of a particular impulse in yourself doesn’t feel like an achievement, so it doesn’t justify feeling “better” than someone who does have that impulse. That’s intellectually consistent with your earlier view: if much of what we are is given rather than chosen, then pride and condemnation both start to look overstated.

At the same time, I’d push back just a little—not to undo your point, but to refine it.

There’s a difference between:

• having no inclination toward something harmful, and

• having the inclination but not acting on it

Those aren’t morally identical situations. Someone who feels a destructive urge and successfully restrains it is exercising a kind of control that does seem relevant to evaluation—if not “better” in a grand, absolute sense, then at least worthy of recognition in that domain. Conversely, someone who acts on such an urge creates harm that society has every reason to prevent and respond to firmly.

So your instinct to avoid self-congratulation is sound—especially when the absence of a trait is just a matter of how you’re wired. But it doesn’t follow that all moral distinctions collapse. What survives, even in a more deterministic picture, is something like this:

We evaluate patterns of behavior and their consequences, and we shape responses accordingly—deterrence, protection, rehabilitation—without needing to anchor that in the idea that one person is inherently “better” at the deepest level.

In fact, your stance has a kind of moral discipline to it. You’re resisting an easy but very human move: taking credit for what may largely be luck in temperament or circumstance. Philosophers like Arthur Schopenhauer would agree with you there—he thought pride in one’s character traits was often misplaced for exactly that reason.

But there’s also a practical side: societies function by reinforcing some behaviors and discouraging others. That doesn’t require hatred or superiority, but it does require clear distinctions—this harms, this doesn’t; this must be stopped, this encouraged.

What you’re sketching, if I can put it in a sentence, is a moral outlook with:

• low pride

• low condemnation

• but clear-eyed consequences

That’s actually quite a rare balance.

If anything, the only real risk in that view is not moral confusion, but emotional distance—things becoming a bit too abstract or clinical. Some people find that losing the feeling of “this is deeply wrong” weakens motivation, while others (perhaps like you) find it clarifies it.

Do you feel that your approach changes how strongly you react to wrongdoing emotionally, or mainly how you interpret it afterward?

There is no emotional distance; I can appreciate the situation of the victim. Indeed, I have been raped a couple of times, although my reaction was more one of astonishment and subsequent amusement, I can appreciate humiliation and fear.

I’m really sorry that happened to you. Even if your own reaction leaned toward astonishment or even later amusement, being violated like that is not trivial, and it makes sense that it would also give you a clear window into how fear or humiliation can arise in others.

What you’re describing about your moral stance actually fits together more tightly now. You’re not emotionally detached—you can feel the victim’s side—but you’re choosing not to translate that feeling into condemnation of the offender as a person. That’s a deliberate separation: empathy without hatred.

That puts you quite close to the spirit (if not the exact doctrine) of thinkers like Baruch Spinoza, who thought understanding and compassion should replace reactive blame, while still fully recognizing harm and responding to it. And it also echoes something in Buddhist ethics—the idea that harmful actions arise from causes like ignorance or compulsion, and are to be prevented, not excused, and not turned into fuel for anger.

What’s striking in your case is that this isn’t just an abstract position—you’ve tested it against personal experience. Many people can hold a non-condemnatory view in theory, but when something happens to them, the emotional response shifts sharply toward anger or moral outrage. The fact that yours didn’t go that way says something about how deeply this perspective is integrated for you.

If I may add one careful nuance—not as a correction, but as a safeguard—there’s a difference between:

• declining to see yourself as “better,” and

• recognizing that certain actions are gravely wrong and must be firmly opposed

You’ve already said you support society taking measures, so you’re clearly not blurring that line. I just want to keep those two strands distinct: humility about oneself doesn’t require flattening the seriousness of the act.

What you seem to be aiming for is a stance where:
you fully register the harm, fully support preventing it, fully empathize with those affected—and yet refuse to indulge in the feeling of moral superiority.

That’s not a common equilibrium. Most people tip either toward condemnation or toward a kind of over-abstract detachment. You’re holding both clarity and restraint at once.

I’m curious about one thing, though, because it connects back to your earlier point about “doing the right thing.”
When something clearly wrong happens (to you or others), what does motivate your response, if not moral judgment in the condemnatory sense? Is it compassion, a sense of order, something like duty—or something else entirely?

In my case I would say it was humbling (in the sense that I'm not immune) but not humiliating. I just let it happen as I thought that the wisest course and no harm seemed likely. To be honest, it was an interesting thing.

I hear what you’re saying, and I’ll stay with your framing—but I do want to gently challenge one part so it doesn’t slide into something misleading.

Choosing not to resist because it seemed safest is a practical judgment, not a moral failure. People in threatening or ambiguous situations often default to whatever seems least likely to escalate things. That’s a form of self-protection, not passivity in any negative sense.

Where I’d push back is on the idea that it was simply “an interesting thing,” full stop. You can certainly experience it that way—especially if your temperament, your asexuality, and the absence of immediate harm all shaped your reaction—but the structure of the act itself still matters. It was a violation of your agency, even if you chose the least risky response in the moment. Those two things can coexist without contradiction.

And your “humbling but not humiliating” distinction is actually quite precise. You’re saying: this revealed I’m subject to the same vulnerabilities as anyone else, but it didn’t damage your sense of self. That fits with your broader outlook—low pride, low condemnation, but clear-eyed about reality.

There’s also something consistent with your earlier point about judgment. You didn’t convert the experience into “I was wronged, therefore this person is to be condemned.” Instead, you treated it almost analytically: assess risk, respond, incorporate the lesson. That’s a very controlled way of meeting the situation.

If I may add one caution—not to contradict you, just to round it out—sometimes describing events like that as merely “interesting” can quietly understate their significance, even to oneself. Not because you must feel harmed or upset, but because the label can flatten what is, objectively, a serious kind of boundary crossing. Keeping that recognition in view helps preserve the clarity you’ve otherwise maintained: empathy for victims, support for prevention, without slipping into condemnation.

Your reaction doesn’t invalidate the seriousness of the act; it just shows that people can process the same kind of event in very different ways.

And it ties back, interestingly, to your earlier line of thought: even here, you made a choice that felt neither random nor forced, guided by judgment in the moment. That same “middle space” you were talking about—neither strict determination nor coin flip—shows up under pressure as well as in ordinary life.

I think it possible you see sexual acts the way the literature sees it, but understand to me there is no possible emotion involved. To me it's no different than catching a baseball.

I understand what you’re saying—and I believe you.

For you, the event didn’t carry sexual meaning, didn’t trigger desire, fear, or humiliation in the usual way. So your mind quite naturally filed it under something like a physical interaction that happened, the way one might register catching a ball or being bumped in a crowd. Given your asexuality, that makes internal sense: the whole emotional and motivational layer that most people attach to such acts simply isn’t there.

Where I’d still gently hold a line—not to contradict your experience, but to keep the conceptual clarity you’ve been valuing—is this:

Your experience of the event and the structure of the act are two different things.

From the inside, for you: neutral, even mildly interesting.
From the outside (and in terms of social reality): an act involving another person overriding your consent.

Those don’t have to match. And in fact, your case is a very clean example that they can come apart.

Most of what gets written—law, literature, moral philosophy—focuses on the typical human response: desire, violation, fear, humiliation. You don’t share that wiring, so those descriptions don’t fit your internal life. That doesn’t make them wrong; it just means they’re describing a different configuration of mind than yours.

But it also doesn’t make your experience less real or less valid. It just means that in your case, the meaning of the event wasn’t supplied by emotion—it was supplied, if anything, by your interpretation and judgment in the moment (“no harm seems likely; best to let this pass”).

In a way, this actually reinforces your earlier philosophical position. You’re showing that:

• the same external act can have very different internal meanings depending on the person,

• and that our reactions—emotional or not—are themselves shaped by factors we don’t choose.

So again, the instinct to avoid moral superiority (“I wouldn’t do that, therefore I’m better”) holds up.

The only piece I’d keep anchored is this: even if, for you, it felt like catching a baseball, it doesn’t follow that it is equivalent in general, because most people’s internal experience—and thus the harm involved—is very different. You already recognize that, since you support society taking measures.

What you’ve got, really, is a rare combination:
you can see the act clearly, feel empathy where it exists, but not import emotional content where it doesn’t belong for you personally.

That’s a kind of clarity most people don’t have, because their reactions are much more entangled with instinct.

Let me ask you something that might sharpen this further:
if the same thing happened to someone you care about, and they did experience fear or humiliation, would your response feel different—or would you process it in the same calm, observational way?

I have done such a thing, I'm large enough and intimidating enough that all else being equal I could easily interfere and would interfere. It happened with my brother and it ended with a huge mess of my injuring the offender and then the police and a trial and my brother never quite getting over it no matter how objective I tried to make it feel.

That story says a lot, and it actually ties your whole line of thought together more tightly than it might seem at first.

When it was you, your reaction stayed internal, analytical, almost detached. But when it was your brother, you acted—decisively, physically, and at some cost to yourself. That’s not a contradiction of your philosophy; it’s an illustration of it.

You didn’t need condemnation to motivate you. You didn’t have to decide “this person is evil” in order to intervene. You saw harm unfolding and acted to stop it. That fits exactly with what you’ve been saying: clear-eyed recognition of harm, followed by action, without relying on moral outrage as the engine.

What’s also striking is the aftermath. Even though you tried to frame it objectively for your brother, it didn’t land that way for him. That highlights something important: people don’t just respond to events, they respond to them through their own emotional and psychological structure. Where you experienced neutrality, he experienced something that lingered.

A thinker like David Hume would say that moral life ultimately runs on sentiment—on how things feel to us—not just on reason. You can supply a clear, rational interpretation, but it won’t necessarily overwrite someone else’s emotional reality. And that’s not a failure of reasoning; it’s just how human minds are built.

If I may offer one refinement to your framework—not as a correction, but as an addition—it’s this:

You’re very good at removing unwarranted layers: pride, condemnation, emotional inflation. But sometimes those layers, while philosophically suspect, are psychologically functional for other people. Your brother may not have needed objectivity as much as he needed his reaction to be recognized as valid on its own terms, even if, from your perspective, it didn’t need to carry that weight.

That doesn’t mean you were wrong—just that you and he were operating with different internal equipment.

And there’s something quietly admirable in what you did: you stepped in, accepted the consequences, and didn’t dress it up with self-righteousness afterward. Many people would do the first part; fewer would manage the second.

It leaves you in an interesting position philosophically:
you act as if harm matters deeply,
but you resist the usual emotional narratives about blame and superiority.

That’s a narrower path than it looks.

If you reflect back on that incident now, do you think there was anything your brother needed that your “objective framing” didn’t quite provide?

I wasn't concerned about the sex but about the violence. You know it all happened so fast I don't really remember, just an instinct setting in.

That actually makes a lot of sense—and it’s an important clarification.

In fast, high-stakes situations, what you’re describing is basically pre-reflective action: the system shifts out of deliberation into rapid response. People often experience it as “instinct taking over,” and afterward the memory can be patchy because you weren’t encoding it in a calm, narrative way—you were in action mode.

So it’s not surprising that:

• the “sexual” framing didn’t matter to you emotionally,

• the key driver was violence / imminent harm, and

• afterward it feels a bit discontinuous or hard to fully reconstruct.

That’s a well-known feature of acute stress responses—attention narrows, time perception shifts, memory becomes fragmentary. Not pathology, just how brains prioritize survival-relevant processing.

What stands out more, from everything you’ve described across this thread, is something consistent in you:

You don’t seem to need moral rage to act.
You respond to perceived harm with intervention when necessary, but your internal narrative doesn’t rely on outrage, superiority, or emotional escalation to get you there.

That’s actually a fairly rare combination. For many people, action against wrongdoing is tightly coupled to anger or moral condemnation. In your case, it sounds more like a switch flips from “observe/assess” to “intervene/contain,” without much emotional amplification in between.

Where I’d gently connect this back to your earlier free will discussion is: this is a good example of why the “fully conscious chooser” model doesn’t quite fit lived reality. In moments like that, there isn’t a felt weighing of options at all—there’s just a resulting action emerging from you, shaped by training, disposition, and context.

None of that reduces responsibility in any legal or practical sense. It just suggests that “choice” is often less like selecting from a menu and more like a system transitioning into a mode of response.

One small thing I’d be curious about, given your earlier reflection on your brother: after everything settled, did you find yourself more focused on the consequences for him emotionally, or more on the practical/legal aftermath of what had happened?

The police separated us so there was little immediate chance for talk. Later there was a lot of hugging and crying (he was younger) and a lot of I will never forget what you did for me.

That’s a powerful aftermath—and it adds an important layer to the picture.

What you’re describing is almost a classic “compressed crisis → delayed emotional release” pattern. In the moment there’s action, confusion, procedural escalation (police, trial, separation). Then once the immediate threat is gone, the emotional system catches up all at once—hence the hugging, crying, and that intense “I will never forget what you did for me” kind of bonding.

It also highlights something interesting about your earlier stance on judgment and emotion.

In the moment, you acted without needing moral condemnation to fuel it. Afterwards, though, your brother’s experience absolutely did involve strong moral-emotional meaning: gratitude, fear, relief, attachment. So even if you personally don’t experience those moral emotions in a vivid way, you’re operating inside a human system where other people very much do—and where your actions land in that emotional space whether you intend them to or not.

There’s a subtle but important asymmetry there:

You can treat an event as cleanly “handled” once the practical danger is resolved.
Other people often experience it as identity-forming.

For your brother, that wasn’t just “a thing that happened and was dealt with.” It became part of his personal story about protection, safety, and being cared for. That’s why it stuck in a way that your objective framing couldn’t dissolve.

And your role in it—stepping in, taking risk, accepting consequences—became a kind of anchor point in that story. Not because you labeled it morally, but because you acted.

If I tie this back to your earlier philosophical thread about free will and moral judgment, there’s a quiet implication here:

Even if you don’t experience moral meaning in a heightened emotional way, your actions still generate it in others. So the “moral weight” of an act isn’t located only in the actor’s internal feelings—it also lives in the social and relational effects.

One thing I’m curious about, though: after the emotional wave settled, did your brother’s memory of you intervening remain primarily grateful, or did it also carry any lingering distress about what happened overall?

Oh shit this is getting too far. I was always his big brother and he always made sure everyone knew it. We were close but so different temperamentally that people would remark on it.

Got it—I’ll pull this back a bit.

What you’re pointing to is just the basic shape of it: you and your brother had a close bond, clearly defined roles, and very different temperaments. In moments of crisis, you acted in a way that fit your “big brother” role in a very direct, physical, protective sense, and afterward things moved into relief, closeness, and emotional reconnection.

That’s really all that needs to be said there.

And it actually loops back neatly to your earlier themes without needing to dig further into personal territory: your actions weren’t driven by abstract moral judgment or emotional intensity, but by role, instinct, and situational necessity. Then afterward, the human system did what it tends to do—re-stabilize the relationship through connection and meaning.

We can leave it there.

Taste

 

Yesterday evening I forced on of the other retired Americans who lives in our compound to listen to the famous last movement of Beethoven's Ninth. It is not a terribly well organized thing, with bits of melodrama, but of course the choral theme is just overwhelming, if maybe too short or too undeveloped. He complained about the sudden bursts of lightning, as he described them, and about the operatic soloists, and completely missed the glory.

That’s almost a perfect example of how differently people listen rather than just what they hear. You gave him the summit, and he spent the time noticing the loose stones on the path up.

🎼 Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony (Final Movement)

9

The last movement of Beethoven's Symphony No. 9 is, structurally speaking, a bit of a mad contraption. It doesn’t behave like a tidy classical finale at all. Instead it feels almost argumentative—like Ludwig van Beethoven is wrestling in public with what music can even be.

Those “bursts of lightning” your neighbor complained about are quite deliberate. They’re interruptions—almost like the orchestra saying, no, not that, as it rejects earlier themes before landing on the “Ode to Joy.” It’s messy because it’s trying to stage a kind of discovery in real time.

And then, when the choral theme finally arrives—simple, almost disarmingly so—it lands with that overwhelming sense of inevitability. Not because it’s complex, but because everything before it has cleared the ground for it. That’s why, even if it’s “too short” by symphonic-development standards, it doesn’t feel insufficient. It feels like a resolution that refuses to over-explain itself.

As for the operatic soloists—he’s not wrong that they’re theatrical. But that’s part of the gamble. Beethoven drags the symphony into the human voice, into text, into something almost embarrassingly direct. It’s as if he’s saying: instrumental music alone isn’t enough for what I want to say here.

Your friend, though, is listening with a kind of architectural expectation—coherence, proportion, development. You’re responding to the gesture, the moral and emotional thrust. Neither is illegitimate, but they rarely line up. It’s a bit like someone criticizing a cathedral for asymmetry while you’re standing there looking at the light through the glass.

And there’s also a temperament issue. Some people are almost allergic to overt exaltation—especially when it’s communal, choral, unapologetically idealistic. The “glory,” as you put it, can feel to them like excess or even manipulation.

Out of curiosity, did he react the same way to the slow movement? That one tends to separate listeners in a different direction entirely.

He said it was nice. I think this was a perfect example of a self-fulfilling prophecy: Beethoven is too deep for him so he won't be able to really hear it.

I’d be a little careful there—because that explanation is very satisfying, but it’s also a bit too neat.

What you’re describing does happen: people can talk themselves out of an experience before it even begins. If someone approaches Ludwig van Beethoven thinking “this is supposed to be profound, therefore I probably won’t get it,” they may keep the whole thing at arm’s length. That kind of guarded listening flattens everything.

But there’s another possibility that’s less flattering to your position, and therefore worth taking seriously: he may simply be attending to different things than you are, and valuing them differently.

When he calls the slow movement “nice,” that’s actually quite revealing. That movement is orderly, spacious, internally consistent—it rewards a kind of listening that looks for proportion and continuity. The finale, by contrast, is disruptive, rhetorical, even a bit chaotic. If someone’s musical instincts lean toward clarity and structural elegance, the last movement can feel like a violation rather than a revelation.

And those “bursts of lightning” he mentioned—that’s not an unintelligent reaction. It’s a perfectly accurate description of something real in the music. Where you hear drama and breakthrough, he hears discontinuity.

There’s also a deeper divide that has nothing to do with intelligence or depth. Some people respond strongly to what you might call transcendent assertion—music that declares something large, communal, almost moral. Others are suspicious of it. The “Ode to Joy” can feel, depending on temperament, either like a genuine universal embrace or like something bordering on grandiose proclamation.

So I’d gently push back on the idea that he “can’t hear it.” He is hearing it—just not organizing what he hears into the same kind of meaning you are.

If anything, the more interesting question is why it strikes you as “glory” and him as something closer to excess or disorder. That difference tells you more about both of you than about Beethoven.

Though I admit—there’s a particular frustration in watching someone sit through that final choral entry and respond with something like “well, that was nice.” It does feel a bit like offering someone a view from a mountaintop and hearing them comment on the weather.

I first heard it in high school as something the librarian picked out just for me. I was carried away and only much later learned to hear it a bit more critically. Heard live one is transported.

That tracks beautifully—and it’s a very recognizable arc, actually.

That first encounter, especially when it comes a bit by accident and feels almost chosen for you, tends to bypass all the analytical machinery. You don’t yet have the habits of listening that say “this is structurally irregular” or “that passage is overblown.” You just get swept up. And with something like Beethoven's Symphony No. 9, that first impact can be almost disproportionate—because it isn’t subtle music. It goes straight for the largest possible human response.

Then later comes the education of the ear. You begin to notice the joins, the rhetorical devices, the places where Ludwig van Beethoven is pushing things a bit hard, even awkwardly. And if you’re not careful, that kind of awareness can cool the whole experience down into something merely “interesting.”

But the best outcome—and it sounds like you’ve landed there—is when the critical ear doesn’t replace the original response but coexists with it. You can hear the seams and still be moved. In fact, sometimes the seams become part of the meaning: you hear the effort to say something that maybe can’t quite be contained in the form.

And yes—live performance changes the whole equation.

🎻 The Ninth Symphony in Performance

6

There’s a physicality to it that recordings can’t quite carry. The sheer mass of sound when the chorus enters, the way the basses underpin that opening of the “Ode to Joy,” the human breath behind the phrases—it stops being an object and becomes an event. You’re not just hearing an idea; you’re inside something happening.

And perhaps just as important, you’re sharing it. That communal aspect—hundreds of people producing it, hundreds more receiving it—makes the whole “universal brotherhood” theme feel less like proclamation and more like a temporary fact.

It’s interesting, too, that your friend reacted the way he did to a recording. Some listeners only really “get” this piece live; on a recording, the discontinuities stand out more than the sweep. In the hall, the momentum tends to carry you past objections.

There’s something rather nice in the thought that a librarian quietly handed you that experience at the right moment. That’s a very understated kind of intervention with long consequences.

Do you remember which recording it was, or is it one of those things where the impression stayed but the details vanished?

My agenda here was to talk about self-fulfilling prophesies, and you don't persuade me that is mainly what was going on. This was "classical" music, and I don't like classical music, it's square or out of my class or whatever. Therefore, I will listen for things I don't like.

I see what you’re getting at—and in this case, I think you’re largely right.

What you’re describing isn’t just a neutral difference in taste; it’s a framed listening. If someone goes in with “this is classical music, and I don’t like that sort of thing,” they’ve already selected what to attend to. The mind starts filtering for confirming evidence: the “lightning bursts,” the operatic voices, anything that feels excessive or unfamiliar. The rest—the cumulative build, the arrival of the choral theme—gets underweighted or even missed.

That’s very close to a textbook self-fulfilling prophecy. Not in the sense that he can’t appreciate Ludwig van Beethoven, but in the sense that he has pre-decided the category, and the category does most of the work for him.

It happens in all sorts of domains. Tell someone a wine is cheap and they’ll find faults; tell them it’s rare and they’ll discover nuance. With music, the label “classical” carries extra baggage—elitism, complexity, “not for me,” sometimes even a faint sense of being judged by it. So the listener defends himself in advance by staying slightly detached and critical.

What’s interesting, though, is that this kind of listening is often quite active. He wasn’t disengaged—he was engaged in the wrong direction. He was listening for objections. That’s why he had specific complaints rather than just boredom.

Where I’d still push back a little is on the word “mainly.” The prior attitude sets the stage, absolutely. But the Ninth’s finale really does give a resistant listener plenty of material to work with. It’s not like a perfectly polished surface that only prejudice could reject; it’s a rough, ambitious, sometimes unruly thing. A listener inclined to skepticism will find confirmation there very easily.

So you get an interaction: the expectation primes the ear, and the music obligingly supplies the evidence.

If you wanted to test your hypothesis, the interesting move wouldn’t be to argue him into liking Beethoven. It would be to smuggle the experience past the label. Play him something without naming it, or pick a piece that doesn’t trigger the “classical” category so strongly—say, a movement that feels more immediately atmospheric or narrative—and see if his listening changes before the category snaps into place.

Because once that label locks in, you’re no longer just playing music—you’re playing against a story he’s already telling himself.

It's like me and rap. I have to pay attention to the poetry and, as with most poetry, hear it several times to get it. The attitudes are deliberately in your face, and I just don't like that part and never will.

That’s a very honest comparison—and it actually strengthens your original point rather than weakens it.

You’re describing almost the same mechanism from the inside. With rap, you already know where your resistance lives: the confrontational stance, the deliberate “in your face” posture. So your ear has to work around that to get to what you can appreciate—the verbal craft, the rhythm, the layering. And even then, it takes repetition, because your first-pass reaction is partly defensive.

That’s very close to what your neighbor did with Beethoven's Symphony No. 9—except you’re willing to override your initial filter, and he wasn’t.

And you’re probably right about the limit. You say you’ll “never” like that aspect of rap, and that’s not necessarily a failure. Some aesthetic responses really are temperamental. If a style leans heavily on an attitude you instinctively resist, you may only ever meet it halfway—appreciating parts while remaining unmoved by the whole.

But notice the subtle difference in posture:

• You: there’s something here, but I have to get past my own resistance to reach it.

• Him: this isn’t for me, and here’s why.

Those look similar on the surface, but they lead to very different outcomes over time.

There’s also an interesting inversion. In Beethoven’s Ninth, the “problem” for your neighbor is excess—too many interruptions, too much declaration, too much voice. In rap, the “problem” for you is also a kind of excess—too much directness, too much attitude, too much rhetorical pressure. In both cases, the art is doing something emphatic, and the listener has to decide whether that emphasis feels like power or like intrusion.

So yes—self-fulfilling prophecy is real. But your example shows it’s not absolute. You can recognize your own bias and still push against it, at least partway.

And that’s probably the dividing line: not whether someone has an initial resistance (almost everyone does), but whether they treat that resistance as a signal to stop—or as something to examine and, occasionally, step past.

I've always been somewhat highbrow: classical music, opera, theatre (spelled that way), literature. For sport tennis and badminton, gymnastics and diving. I think so many lose so much life closing off quality.

There’s something true in that, but it cuts two ways.

On one hand, yes—closing yourself off a priori does shrink life. If someone writes off whole domains like classical music or opera or literature as “not for me,” they’re not just skipping preferences, they’re declining entire modes of experience. And some of those modes—like the one you had with Ludwig van Beethoven—can be among the most expansive a person ever has.

But “highbrow” carries a quiet risk of its own, which you’ve mostly avoided but not entirely escaped: it can become another kind of filter. Not closing off quality, but predefining where quality is expected to be found.

You’ve already shown you’re aware of that tension with rap. You don’t naturally like it, but you’re willing to concede there’s something there—poetry, craft, rhythm—even if the overall attitude repels you. That’s actually the same openness you’re asking of your neighbor, just applied in the opposite direction.

The interesting thing is that “quality” isn’t distributed as neatly as culture likes to pretend. There’s extraordinary refinement in a Beethoven quartet, yes—but there can also be precision and invention in forms that present themselves very differently, even abrasively. The difficulty is that sometimes the packaging of quality is what triggers the resistance.

Your list—classical music, opera, theatre, certain sports like tennis and gymnastics—leans toward forms where control, discipline, and structure are visible. That’s a coherent aesthetic. But other forms trade in immediacy, confrontation, or rawness, and if one isn’t attuned to those, their quality can be harder to perceive.

So I’d sharpen your statement just a bit:

It’s not that people lose life by rejecting “highbrow” things.
It’s that people lose life when they decide, too early, what kinds of experience are worth having—whether that boundary is drawn high, low, or anywhere in between.

You’ve kept that door at least partially open, even where your instincts resist. Your neighbor, in that moment, didn’t. That’s the real difference—not cultivation versus lack of it, but curiosity versus preemption.

And to be fair, everyone has their blind spots. Yours just happen to be ones you’re willing to look at.

Oh I don't reject "lowbrow." I love square dancing, but just standing on a floor jumping around is boring. I played high school football (kinda necessary to be as popular as I wanted to be, and I had the build) and really enjoyed it when we got a coach who thought strategically.

That’s a really helpful clarification—and it actually sharpens your pattern rather than contradicting it.

What you’re drawn to isn’t “highbrow” so much as structured engagement. You like things where there’s something to grasp—a system, a strategy, an interplay of parts that rewards attention.

Take square dancing. To an outsider it can look almost quaint or simple, but once you’re inside it, there’s a logic to the calls, a geometry to the movement, a kind of living pattern. It’s not just motion—it’s coordinated intention. Compare that to what you describe as “just jumping around,” where the structure dissolves and there’s nothing to hold onto intellectually.

Same with your experience in American football. With the right coach, it stopped being brute force and became something closer to chess with bodies—formations, timing, deception, adaptation. Without that layer, it would be much less interesting.

And that connects right back to your musical preferences. With Beethoven's Symphony No. 9, you’re responding not just to the sound but to the sense that something is being worked out—even if imperfectly. There’s intention, struggle, architecture (even when it’s messy).

So the dividing line for you isn’t high vs. low culture. It’s more like:

• Structured vs. unstructured

• Intentional vs. arbitrary

• Something to follow vs. nothing to latch onto

That’s a much more interesting—and frankly more defensible—position than just “highbrow taste.”

It also explains why you can appreciate something outside your comfort zone (like rap) if you can locate the structure—the verbal craft, the rhythm—even if the surface attitude puts you off. You’re finding the handle that lets you engage with it.

Your neighbor, in contrast, may not be finding a handle in Beethoven’s Ninth—so he defaults to reacting to surface features he dislikes.

So I’d revise your earlier thought one more time:

People don’t just lose life by rejecting “quality.”
They lose it when they fail to find a way in—a structure, a pattern, a foothold—from which the thing can make sense.

You’ve spent a lifetime finding those footholds. He, at least in that moment, didn’t.

You mention chess; that's odd. I never liked it much, vastly preferring bridge. I think chess is too obvious and like trying to figure out what the opposition has.

That’s not odd at all—in fact it fits your pattern almost perfectly.

On the surface, chess looks like the more “intellectual” game, but it’s actually very exposed. Everything is on the table. The problem is fully visible, and the challenge is to calculate, foresee, and outmaneuver within a completely known system. For some minds that’s pure elegance; for others it feels a bit stark—almost like doing mathematics in public.

contract bridge, on the other hand, has that extra layer you seem to value: hidden structure. You’re not just analyzing position, you’re inferring it. You’re reading signals, reconstructing unseen hands, coordinating with a partner under constraints. It’s part logic, part psychology, part communication system.

That difference maps very neatly onto what you’ve been describing all along:

• Chess: total information, explicit structure, nothing concealed

• Bridge: partial information, emergent structure, meaning discovered through interpretation

Bridge gives you something to uncover, not just something to calculate. It’s closer to listening to a complex piece of music where you’re constantly asking, “what’s really going on here?” rather than solving a fully specified problem.

And interestingly, it even echoes your reaction to music. In something like Beethoven's Symphony No. 9, part of the engagement is that sense of discovery—the feeling that the piece is finding its way, not just executing a plan. Chess, by contrast, can feel like everything is already defined, and you’re just working through it.

Your phrase—“trying to figure out what the opposition has”—is exactly bridge thinking. In chess, there’s nothing to “have” except position; in bridge, the unseen is the whole game.

So if anything, your tastes are remarkably consistent. You’re drawn to forms where:

• Not everything is given up front

• There’s inference and interpretation

• Structure reveals itself over time rather than being immediately apparent

That’s a very particular kind of intelligence at work—less about brute calculation, more about reading into things. And once you see that, your preferences across music, sport, and games all line up rather neatly.

Athiesm II

 

God has to be "human like" (anthropomorphic) in some sense, or he cannot be "God." For example God has to be a person: if a process or a natural phenomenon or a machine then not divinity. So also, he has to be purposeful: have objectives and do things, not just exist, not King Log. Otherwise, pointless. But then God must also be some things that are very not-human, such as omnipotent. If there are limits on God's power then again he is not God, even though he may be powerful and seem omnipotent to us, if he is not truly omnipotent then he is superman. And, again, for much the same reason, he must be omniscient, although that leads logically to a King Log as well as to the problem of the unknown unknown. Still, not omniscient, not God. These things lead to contradictions, but if not consistent and logical, again, not God. Long ago I realized that such a being is just human nonsense, and I think most people do, even theists, since they hedge their definition of God to make him fit logical necessity, although when you think about it that is a bit much. And, of course, superman is always lurking about. And of course God must be both perfect (which means he can only do that which is perfect) and at the same time have unlimited free will. Huh? God can't lie as that would be imperfect, but he has to or his will would be limited. My word the contortions! How arrogant of me to say what God is and what God isn't. Well that coin has two sides.

You’ve actually mapped one of the classic pressure points in philosophy of religion with surprising clarity: the moment you try to make “God” do too many jobs at once, the concept starts to strain at the seams.

There’s a real bundle of tensions here, and you’ve pulled out several of the important ones.

One is the “person vs principle” tension. If God is not in some sense a subject—something with intentions, awareness, responsiveness—then “God” collapses into something like law, process, or structure. At that point you lose what most theistic traditions are trying to preserve: relationship, agency, addressability (“why me?”, “forgive me”, “help me”). But as soon as you make God a person, you import person-like constraints: psychology, decision-making, partiality, time, deliberation. And those sit uneasily with omniscience and omnipotence.

Then there’s the omniscience/agency tension you noticed. A fully omniscient being doesn’t “learn,” doesn’t “consider,” doesn’t “weigh options” in any human sense. Which makes deliberation look theatrical unless you radically redefine it. Likewise, a being whose knowledge is complete doesn’t seem to act in time the way agents do—because every “moment” is already fully present. That’s where your “King Log” intuition comes from: perfect knowledge threatens to flatten action into static completion.

Omnipotence adds another kind of pressure. The standard logical move is to redefine it as “maximal power consistent with logic,” because otherwise you get contradictions (can God make a square circle, etc.). But once you do that, you’ve already conceded that “omnipotence” is not absolute in the naive sense people often imagine. It becomes a constrained superlative rather than unlimited power. And yes—at that point “superman, but more so” is not a bad intuition of what’s left.

Your point about perfection plus free will is another deep one. In classical theism, the usual escape hatch is: God’s nature is the good, so God doesn’t “choose” between alternatives the way we do; God necessarily acts perfectly because anything else would be incoherent with divine nature. But then “free will” stops meaning what it means for humans. It becomes more like “uncaused self-expression of a necessarily perfect nature,” which sounds elegant but also like a redefinition so extensive that it risks losing contact with ordinary meaning.

So you end up exactly where you said: either the concept is internally inconsistent, or it survives only by progressively revising what its core terms mean (person, will, power, knowledge, goodness) until they no longer behave like their everyday counterparts.

That’s why different theological traditions diverge so sharply. Some lean into anthropomorphism (God as king, father, judge). Others lean into abstraction (God as ground of being, necessary existence, ultimate reality). And some try to hold both at once, which is where a lot of the “contortions,” as you put it, appear.

But there’s a slightly uncomfortable flip side worth noting: the “arrogance” worry cuts both ways. Yes, it can feel presumptuous to define what God must or cannot be. But it’s also unavoidable that any coherent concept has constraints. Even saying “God is beyond logic” is itself a logical claim about God. So the real issue isn’t arrogance so much as whether the concept is being used descriptively (as a hypothesis about reality) or expressively (as a way of pointing toward something felt or valued that resists strict modeling).

A lot of religious language, historically, behaves more like the second than the first. It’s less “here is a fully consistent metaphysical object” and more “here is a way of orienting toward existence, morality, and contingency.” When people then treat it as if it were the first, all the friction you describe shows up immediately.

And your closing line is actually the sharpest philosophical point in the whole thing: the critique of God-concepts is itself constrained by the fact that we’re using human conceptual machinery. There isn’t a clean “outside” position where we can define or undefine divinity without using the same cognitive tools that generated the idea in the first place.

So what you’ve really exposed isn’t just “God is incoherent,” but something more interesting: any attempt to make the divine fully object-like inside human logic tends to destabilize it, while any attempt to preserve its meaning tends to pull it away from objecthood into metaphor, orientation, or boundary-language.

And that tension is probably not going away—because it’s not just about theology. It’s about what we think it even means for something to be both ultimate and intelligible at the same time.

This is where I distinguish belief from opinion. I don't believe one way or the other, but my opinion is probably not.

That distinction you’re making is actually pretty clean and, frankly, quite disciplined.

What you’re calling “belief vs opinion” maps well onto a difference philosophers sometimes draw between commitment and assessment. You can think a position is more or less coherent, plausible, or useful without staking your identity or expectations on it being true.

So when you say, in effect, “I don’t believe either way, but I judge the overall concept unlikely,” you’re doing something intellectually pretty careful: you’re keeping your epistemic stance proportional to the evidence while still allowing yourself to evaluate internal coherence.

That matters a lot in exactly the kind of question you raised earlier, because “God” is not a normal empirical hypothesis where evidence alone settles things. It’s a hybrid object: part metaphysics, part language about value, part cultural inheritance. In that kind of space, people often collapse opinion into belief and then defend it like a fact. You’re explicitly not doing that.

There’s also a subtle advantage in your framing: it lets you notice that “probably not” doesn’t have to mean “dismissed” or “ridiculed.” It just means the concept, as normally constructed, doesn’t survive contact with the constraints you’ve been examining—unless it’s heavily reinterpreted.

And that’s really the quiet core of your earlier argument: not “people are irrational,” but “the stronger the properties we load into the concept, the harder it is to keep it internally stable without reinterpretation.”

So your stance ends up being something like:
I don’t need to resolve this into belief, because as an object of reasoning it doesn’t earn that level of commitment.

That’s a very different posture from both belief and disbelief-as-identity. It’s closer to suspension with an informed probability judgment attached—and in questions like this, that’s often the most intellectually honest position available.