Okay Millennials

Today, I finished listening to Generations: The Real Differences Between Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, Boomers, and Silents―and What They Mean for America's Future by Jean M. Twenge. It is a long book, but I found it very interesting and well worth my time. The book is well organized, and the claims are supported with evidence. Twenge claims individualism, a slow life strategy, and technology explain changes in culture and differences between generations. Twenge uses a lot of data to support her claims.

Thinking about individualism as a driving force in society and intergenerational difference is a useful heuristic for understanding people and culture. The evolution of individualism helps explain social progress.

I'm looking at myself and my love for individualism differently now. I see it more as products of my culture and placement in time than my critical analysis of philosophy, economics, or history. Although I can easily supported my values and ideas, I see how my values have the greatest influence over my thinking. Looking back at my adulthood, my values haven't changed very much even though many of my opinions have drastically changed.

I strongly recommend reading the following. If you like what you read, check out Twenge's book! This is the final section of her book. It's an excellent stand alone essay! 

...That data clearly shows that attitudes, personality traits, behaviors, education, and the speed of life have all changed tremendously over these six generations...

Contrary to past theories, the generations did not become who they are by experiencing major events at impressionable ages. Instead, generations differ because technology has radically changed daily life and culture, both directly and via technology’s daughters individualism and a slower life. Gen Z doesn’t believe that gender is fluid because they were born after 9/11; they believe gender is fluid because that is the next step for an increasingly individualistic and online culture. Millennials aren’t marrying later because they were young during the Great Recession; they are marrying later because adult development has slowed as technology created the triple trends of more protected children, more years of education to prepare for information-age jobs, and medical advances enabling longer life spans. Gen Z isn’t depressed because of the economy; they’re depressed because smartphones and social media created an atmosphere of constant competition and severed them from in-person human interaction. 

Rising individualism weaves through the story of each generation. Silents harnessed individualistic thinking when they fought for the abolition of racial segregation and overturned laws that discriminated based on gender. Boomers wielded it when they protested the Vietnam War draft and challenged traditional rules about what women could and couldn’t do. Gen X’ers put their own twist on individualism by valuing self-confidence and harboring distrust. Millennials elevated positive self-views to new heights and supported LGB people’s individual rights to be who they are and love who they love. Gen Z makes the individualistic argument that everyone can choose their gender—and that there are more than two. All cultural systems have trade-offs, and individualism has brought Americans a culture with unprecedented freedom, diverse voices, and a belief that people can be who they want to be. However, it has also created more distrust of others, and a fragmented social fabric. Leaving social rules behind to favor the individual brings both freedom and chaos, both liberation and disconnection. 

The slow-life strategy has grown with each generation, delaying traditional milestones at every stage of the life cycle. Children are safer but less independent; teens are less likely to drink alcohol, drive, or work; young adults postpone marriage, children, and careers; the middle-aged feel and act younger; and seniors work and travel at older ages than ever. The slow life grew from a whisper for Boomers, who married young but had children a little later, to a shout for Millennials, who graduated from college in record numbers and delayed marriage and children longer than any previous generation. By the time Gen Z came along, the slow-life strategy was at full scream, with driving, working, and even sex delayed. 

The slowdown wasn’t completely linear—Gen X’ers had a fast childhood and adolescence followed by a slow adulthood—but the end result was not just a slowing of the developmental trajectory but a shift in values and behaviors. Those have included parents believing children need constant supervision, 17-year-olds rarely going out with friends, parents solving problems for college students, marriage postponed until one’s 30s, the middle-aged wearing ironic T-shirts, and the election of political leaders deep into their 70s. These trends aren’t completely bad or good—they’re simply the product of more complex technology giving us more time. 

Like individualism, the slow-life strategy has trade-offs, especially during adolescence: more protection and physical safety, but less exploration and independence. In prime-age adulthood, it leads to delayed partnership and parenthood, creating more uncertainty in young adulthood but more mature spouses and parents. In older adulthood, longer and healthier lives are the upside; the downside is a larger generation gap between political leaders and the young, and a striking delay in the ascendance of the next generation into leadership (cue Gen X eyeing Boomers). With technological progress continuing to march forward, the slow life is likely here to stay. 

Then there’s the direct impact of technology... Each new advancement changed day-to-day life, from Boomers and Gen X’ers watching hours of TV as kids to Millennials discovering instant messaging and early social media. Gen Z got an especially strong dose of technology transforming routines, with smartphones and ubiquitous social media pushing young people’s social lives online and driving the alarming rise in depression, self-harm, and suicide after 2012. Then, after 2015, mental health issues came for Millennials as the toxic combination of political polarization and social media moved up the age scale. From longer lifespans to labor-saving devices to virtual meetings eliminating commutes, technology has saved modern citizens countless hours. Yet we often choose to spend that extra time consuming the products of technology. We have taken technology’s priceless gift of time and used it to watch funny videos and lust after other people’s lives—diverting, but not always enlightening or beneficial. 

The lightning-fast pace of technological change has also produced the largest generation gaps in attitudes since the Boomers defied their Greatest generation parents in the 1960s...

Accelerating individualism has so radically changed attitudes, especially around gender, that even many Millennials feel like they can’t keep up. The slowing down of the life cycle has meant older and younger generations crossed important milestones at very different times, creating ample opportunities for criticism and misunderstanding. This all plays out in an online media environment that emphasizes the negative, heightening generational conflicts that might not be so severe if people discussed them face-to-face. 

As the primary instigator of generational and cultural change, technology presents the ultimate trade-off. Technology has given us instant communication, unrivaled convenience, and the most precious prize of all: longer lives with less drudgery. At the same time, technology has isolated us from each other, sowed political division, fueled income inequality, spread pervasive pessimism, widened generation gaps, stolen our attention, and is the primary culprit for a mental health crisis among teens and young adults. This is the challenge for all six generations in the decades to come: to find a way for technology to bring us together instead of driving us apart. 

Recognizing the widespread impact of technology helps us see that all generations have been buffeted by its winds. Instead of debating which generation is to blame, we can realize that the generations influence each other as they all navigate cultural change. Demystifying generational differences, as this book attempts, may also reduce intergenerational conflict. The more we understand the perspective of different generations, the easier it is to see we’re all in this together.

I Used to Love Her, But I Had to Kill Her

This is an extra rough draft.

This is the longer explanation of my background with Star Wars from The Jedi Suck Trilogy.

I loved Star Wars (SW) growing up. Luke Skywalker was my favorite. I took apart brooms to use as light sabers. I pretended I to use the force with the help of the wind and or a fan. I had and played with the original toys. I watched the Original Trilogy (OT) on VCR over and over again. As an adult, my love for Star Wars continued. I argued with people in person and online. I watched Star Wars on DVD many nights before bed. A few minutes at a time, I'd take days to months to finish each film. I explored the expanded universe books and comics. I'd spend hours reading Wookiepedia.

My love for Star Wars its first blow upon the release of Revenge of the Sith. I went opening night with a group of friends. My buddy next to me was texting his girlfriend throughout the movie which annoyed and affected my experience. Overall, I was disappointed. No Darth Vader! I liked the dark side in Anakin slaughtering the village of sand people in Attack of the Clones. I wanted to see a modern Darth Vader killing jedi knights, not a crying Anakin throwing a tantrum at Obi Wan Kenobi. I've since come to appreciate Revenge of the Sith, especially with the addition of the deleted scenes that sell the fall of Anakin a lot better.

Since Revenge of the Sith, Star Wars has produced disappoint after disappoint. So much potential energy wasted. Meanwhile, I have broadened my tastes and knowledge. Now, it's really hard to enjoy Star Wars. So many childish and silly characters, creatures, or technologies. The worst part is the inconsistencies in both logic and continuity. With the abundance of Star Wars nerds, it's truly alarming that the movies and shows can continuously produce content that creates and furthers discontinuity. Seriously, hire one person, or program an AI, whose only purpose is to fact check and verify continuity. This could start to bring balance to the force.

I might expand of this later. In recent years, I find the commentary and fan productions to be the best Star Wars content. I find them a lot more enjoyable than the original content. I have a playlist of my favorite fan edits. The animations are the only Star Wars content I've been able to enjoy. I'm more forgiving with the animations because they're intended for children. The exploration is rewarded. The animations have some great moments and scenes. Tales of the Jedi and The Seige of Mandalore are my favorite stories Star Wars has released in the last 19 years. Here are my recommendations for where to go and start with the animations.

Kenobi: A New Lie

Obi Wan Kenobi is manipulative and a liar. 

My Background

I loved Star Wars (SW) growing up. Star Wars was a big part of my childhood, but now it's hard to care. Click here for a longer version of my background. Because Star Wars is a global empire, I'm often called to action in a Star Wars discussions. Thus, this rant.

Introduction

The World According to Star Wars, by Cass R. Sunstein, provides excellent Star Wars commentary. Sunstein's passion and intellectualism inspired me to rewatch the Prequel Trilogy (PT) and the Original Trilogy (OT) in chronological order, episodes 1-6. A few friends joined me and we discussed, mostly argued, about the movies. I was mostly complaining about logical inconsistencies and the childish parts. Watching the movies became more like work than fun. Most of the time, I would have preferred to do something else. There are a lot of great scenes and shots, but the non great aspects distract me so much from the story.

This time, it is blatantly obvious that the Jedi are wrong about most important issues addressed in the Star Wars trilogies. This topic inspired a three part series titled The Jedi Suck:

• Kenobi: A New Lie - Obi-Wan Kenobi sucks.
• Yoda: The Empire Tells the Truth - Yoda's mistakes highlight how Jedi suck
  
• Jedi Suck: Return of the Same - not sure yet, but it needs a 3rd essay.

The Jedi Suck series will sum why the Jedi suck by focusing on the errors of the two remaining Jedi in the OT. (don't get me wrong the Sith suck too, but no essay required for that).

Master of Manipulation

Shortly after Obi Wan Kenobi saved Luke Skywalker and the droids from Sandpeople, the camera shoots to Luke and Kenobi discussing Anakin Skywalker. Kenobi uses Anakin Skywalker to manipulate Luke against Uncle Owen: (click here to read or watch the full scene within the original context)

"That's what your uncle told you. He didn't hold with your father's ideals. Thought he should have stayed here and not gotten involved."

This sets up Uncle Owen as the opposition. According to the Prequel Trilogy, Uncle Owen is a step sibling with next to zero interactions with Anakin. Kenobi insinuates Uncle Own choose to lie about Luke's father. But Kenobi was the one who delivered Luke to Owen. Kenobi most likely instructed Owen to raise the newborn and hide his identity. Why not tell Luke more of the truth? Why not give Luke a clearer and more complete version of the story? Luke is with Owen because of Kenobi and the Jedi! Not because of Luke's parents or Uncle Owen. Kenobi and Yoda decided to hide Luke and keep the truth from Luke. Owen has been the father to Luke, not Kenobi. Kenobi has been a strange old hermit. You could argue Owen is more concerned with Luke's well being than Kenobi. For these reasons, Kenobi manipulates Luke. Kenobi adds:

"I have something here for you. Your father wanted you to have this {light saber] when you were old enough, but your uncle wouldn't allow it. He feared you might follow old Obi-Wan on some damned-fool idealistic crusade like your father did."

Straight lie. Anakin Skywalker didn't tell Kenobi about his wife's pregnancy, not to mention leaving a light saber for a child. Kenobi further pits Luke against his Owen. Kenobi implies that it's Owen who prevented Luke from training, fighting, and adventures.

Luke asks Kenobi how his father died. Kenobi says:

"A young Jedi named Darth Vader, who was a pupil of mine until he turned to evil, helped the Empire hunt down and destroy the Jedi Knights. He betrayed and murdered your father. Now the Jedi are all but extinct. Vader was seduced by the dark side of the Force."

This is the most acceptable lie in the conversation, but still a lie, and questionably acceptable. 

After Leia's message, Kenobi wants Luke to join him on a mission. Luke says no. Kenobi says:

"That's your uncle talking;"

Kenobi is constructing Owen as the manipulator. According to Kenobi's reasoning and information provided, Owen holds Luke back from Anakin's wants and desires.

Recap of manipulation, Kenobi creates an opposition between Luke and Owen by describing differences  between Anakin and Owen (the accuracy of these claims are questionable). As far as Luke knows, Kenobi reveals the truth about Luke's father (although Kenobi intentionally didn't). This exposes Uncle Owen as untrustworthy (but Kenobi is as, if not more, untrustworthy). In conclusion, Kenobi links Luke's ideas with Uncle Owen's lies.

Finally Kenobi reminds Luke that the choice is Luke's, not Uncle Owen's. Kenobi says:

"You must do what you feel is right, of course."

Of course! Kenobi gives Luke the illusion of agency. Luke is free to choose. Except, Luke can not properly" feel" what is right because he isn't well informed.  Kenobi is well informed, and he could have better informed Luke. Yet, Kenobi plays the "you must do what you feel is right, of course" card.

This is text book manipulation. The scene structurally parallels how Palpatine deceives Anakin in Revenge of the Sith. Palpatine draws attention to insecurities of Anakin's. Palpatine uses those insecurities to cast doubt on the Jedi, Senator Amidala, and Kenobi. Palpatine's manipulation is more blatant, but Kenobi is doing the same thing. He's lying or bending the truth to manipulate Luke against the inevitable argument with Uncle Owen about leaving home. Kenobi doesn't know Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru are dead. So he needs to distance Luke from Owen and create reasons to build credibility of Owen. Kenobi does this by using Luke's attachment to his biological father (more on this to come in parts two and three). Kenobi is building his authority and argument by aligning himself with Anakin, the jedi. Kenobi ignores Anakin's fall to the dark side and the responsibility Kenobi feels about his role in Anakin's fall. Kenobi leaves out all the parts about the jedi being incompetent and misguided which would be very important for a person considering following an old hermit on a suicide mission.

Luke isn't informed enough to "do what he feels is right." Owen doesn't get the chance refute what Kenobi says, and Kenobi controls the flow of information. After Owen's death, Luke is left with few if any alternatives options than to follow Kenobi. 

(I'm going to note, but not expand, that Luke could have and would have banged his sister because of Kenobi's lies)

Was Kenobi Right?

Hell no.

Kenobi is controlling Luke's decision by not giving Luke more information. I doubt many Star Wars fans would want to be treated that way by a mentor. I doubt many education, psychology, or economic studies find that being less informed makes for preferable decision making.

Kenobi is the school district that only teaches abstinence only sexual education. It's ineffective, but even if it was effective, it'd be questionable because it doesn't help students make informed choices. It doesn't help students understand the complexities of sex, sexual relations, biology, etc. It's a manipulative approach to education that attempts to control young people. Abstinence only policy makers may have the students best interest in their minds, but that doesn't make it right. Kenobi isn't being selfish, but that doesn't make him right either.

Kenobi doesn't trust people because of the fall of Anakin and the Republic. Kenobi doesn't trust Luke to make the right choice. Kenobi thinks he knows what's best for Luke because he learned from his and the jedi's failures with Anakin. As usual, Kenobi and the Jedi learned the wrong lesson. Luke restores balance to the galaxy because of his attachments, not because of old jedi living in isolation. More to these ideas in the next essays.

Conclusion

Don't be like Kenobi! (Luke eventually makes similar mistakes with Ben Solo)

Teach your children, students, mentees, etc by educating them. Education isn't and shouldn't be a selection bias to protect students. Students and young people are resilient. Don't let the Darth Vaders of the world earn credibility by telling or teaching young people "the truth." The truth about topics that teachers/parents avoided for someone's protection. Tell your Lukes yourself. They can handle it and learn from it. Teach them to think critically and attempt to make rational choices. Teach them a variety of systems of thinking. They'll be able to use the force better with the more tools and knowledge they have.

Kenobi and Luke Scene

This is the full scene for anyone who wants the full context for my essay Kenobi: A New Lie. Watch the scene here in two parts, Part 1 and Part 2, or read the scene below. I bolded the text I used in my essay.

In Kenobi's home.

LUKE: No, my father didn't fight in the wars. He was a navigator on a spice freighter.

BEN: That's what your uncle told you. He didn't hold with your father's ideals. Thought he should have stayed here and not gotten involved.

LUKE: You fought in the Clone Wars?

BEN: Yes, I was once a Jedi Knight the same as your father.

LUKE: I wish I'd known him.

BEN: He was the best star-pilot in the galaxy, and a cunning warrior. I understand you've become quite a good pilot yourself. And he was a good friend. Which reminds me... I have something here for you. Your
father wanted you to have this when you were old enough, but your uncle wouldn't allow it. He feared you might follow old Obi-Wan on some damned-fool idealistic crusade like your father did.

Ben hands Luke the saber.

LUKE: What is it?

BEN: Your fathers lightsaber. This is the weapon of a Jedi Knight. Not as clumsy or as random as a blaster. An elegant weapon for a more civilized time. For over a thousand generations the Jedi Knights were the guardians of peace and justice in the Old Republic. Before the dark times, before the Empire.

LUKE: How did my father die?

BEN: A young Jedi named Darth Vader, who was a pupil of mine until he turned to evil, helped the Empire hunt down and destroy the Jedi Knights. He betrayed and murdered your father. Now the Jedi are all but extinct. Vader was seduced by the dark side of the Force.

LUKE: The Force?

BEN: Well, the Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together.

They play the Leia message.

BEN: You must learn the ways of the Force if you're to come with me to Alderaan.

LUKE: (laughing) Alderaan? I'm not going to Alderaan. I've got to go home. It's late, I'm in for it as it is.

BEN: I need your help, Luke. She needs your help. I'm getting too old for this sort of thing.

LUKE: I can't get involved! I've got work to do! It's not that I like the Empire. I hate it! But there's nothing I can do about it right now. It's such a long way from here.

BEN: That's your uncle talking.

LUKE: (sighing) Oh, God, my uncle. How am I ever going to explain this?

BEN: Learn about the Force, Luke.

LUKE: Look, I can take you as far as Anchorhead. You can get a transport there to Mos Eisley or wherever you're going.

BEN: You must do what you feel is right, of course.

A Response to the Meaning of Life

Siddhartha to Govinda:

“What should I possibly have to tell you, O venerable one? Perhaps that you’re searching far too much? That in all that searching, you don’t find the time for finding?”

Introduction

This is for my friend Brendan. Brendan is having something like existential dread about the meaning in looking for a meaning in life. I can relate. Here is an excerpt from a personal essay of Brendan's:

"I wonder, heading toward age 49, if the size of this question today, for me, is mental illness, bad thinking habits responding to feelings, or, maybe, unused energy festering. I ask the questions, then I "feel" bad. No answer! You've been at it a long time! It's how it is and going to be! Live with it! Just get some sun, a good meal, a rest, some exercise! Go have fun! Go do something for someone! You'll feel differently."

Brendan suspects his searching may be a groundhog day cycle until death or that "knowing" the meaning of life is more like a mask people wear. He wrote a follow up response here, he asks:

Is the starting point, "We cannot know"?

Or is the starting point, "We can experience the meaning of life ourselves, but cannot speak it adequately to others"?

Or is the starting point, "We can know the meaning of life through living life"?

Or, or, or ... round and round we go ... where we stop, well, death ... but before then?

This is all very simplistic, child-like thinking. Why? Why? But why?

I met Brendan because of my love for Siddhartha. Brendan read Siddhartha with me in 2023. I like his reference to "child-like." Childlikeness is an important theme in Siddhartha's quest. Siddhartha first despised the childlike people; then he admired them; and finally he became one of them. Siddhartha needed to become a childlike person. Maybe Brendan does too.

For Brendan

What should I possibly have to tell you, O venerable one? You're eight years older than me. You read, write, and think more than I do. I feel an arrogance in writing this. I doubt anything I can share will solve your dilemma. Your own advice is probably better than mine. And still, I find the exercise worth my time. May it be worth yours too.

I suspect your restlessness and sadness is more linked to your psychological and emotional state than any philosophical implications of the meaning of life.

Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT)

You're probably knowledgeable of CBT. You may know it as ancient wisdom or as modern psychology. Either way, it's worth revisiting.

Since emotions and thoughts are products of biological, psychological, and cultural factors microseconds to millions of years prior, I believe Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT) is a very useful and practical therapy (I summarized it here). Behavior, emotions, and thinking are interconnected. Your advice is a CBT approach. "Just get some sun, a good meal, a rest, some exercise! Go have fun! Go do something for someone! You'll feel differently." If you're depressed, CBT may work. You don't need a therapist although it may help. You can run tests on yourself to see what helps you feel better. Pray with your community, like your teacher suggests. Are you getting enough social interactions? Are you meeting people in person? I have further suggestions if you're interested.

Ultimate Meaning

Is there one singular meaning of life that applies to each individual human?

I doubt it. How could there be? How many of the smartest humans in the history of civilization have looked? Have spent their entire lives reading and thinking about these questions? There answers haven't satisfied everyone. Laozi, Confucius, Siddhartha Gautama, Socrates, Jesus, Mohammad, and the list goes on. They have all reached billions of humans, yet they don't have an answers for all. If these enlightened geniuses couldn't figure out the universal answer for all, is it possible?

For billions of people these enlightened thinkers have solved the meaning of life. There is evidence to support any of the ideas. Motivated reasoning makes the evidence even stronger. Our biases, limits, and ideas on what's possible determine what we find and reject. The great spiritual and philosophical leaders found excellent answers for the cultures and environments they spread. These ideas have been naturally selected by humans. The religions/ideas that provided the most meaning and utility spread. I could keep going, but my point is that the religions, ideologies, and systems of thinking are here today because they are useful, not necessarily because they are true. I think many of them are true, especially in the non universally objective realm.

I personally like simpler answer one's grandmother might give.

Now I'm curious, do you believe life on Earth evolved by processes similar to what the theory of evolution suggests?

An evolutionary answer would be reproduction of genes. That's a good meaning of life answer. But it doesn't provide the answers for how to live. Or how to find meaning in ones life. Humans evolved in an environment very different than the civilizations people produced. This creates problems for the modern/civilized man. Modern culture and technologies are both awesome and terrible. There are books written about this topic. And I tend to agree that agriculture and civilization were overall a bad deal for human psychology. I ironically came across this clip from Dawkins today, The Meaning of Life.

Maybe a conversation would be better. I'm thinking of more questions than answers now.

Biological, Psychological, and Cultural

I like an answer Robert Sapolsky gives in his book Behave about why the chicken crossed the road. Here is a very short sample: 

 "It actually makes no sense to distinguish between aspects of a behavior that are “biological” and those that would be described as, say, “psychological” or “cultural.”"

You can't talk about behavior without an interconnected approach that considers biological, psychological, and cultural factors. If you can't talk about behavior without a multidisciplinary approach, you probably can't talk about meaning and purpose without discussing biology, psychology, and cultural.

There are countless factors that affect biological, psychological, and cultural. You can't control the past factors: the environment your ancestors grew up; the prenatal environment in your mother's womb; your childhood culture, etc. All of these aspects and countless others influence how you think and feel.

Most people find meaning in the traditions of their society, culture, and family. This makes sense. As science, philosophy, and collective learning expand, and technology connects more and more communities globally, there seems to be a paradox of choice. There is so much to learn and know. One can always seek to understand and know more. Maybe Brendan is suffering a paradox of choice. Maybe he would have been happier in a closed off society following the traditions of his ancestors. Or maybe Brendan would have been the non conformist in his tribe feeling similar anxiety. It's impossible to know.

Epistemology

How do you know anything? Observation, logic, reason, empiricism, faith, intuition, etc. How might the great ideas or possible meanings of life be tested?

There will be a problem in proving any of these ideas. A systematic approach could find consensus or convergence of ideas. Science could measure observable outcomes. Logic could rule out illogical arguments. But there is a verification problem. How can the meaning of life be verified? I'm curious what you think.

Conclusion

I think you're short changing yourself. You have many answers. But you're not satisfied with them. I can relate. 

I've found seeking to be less and less meaningful. I love to learn and reflect. But I've stopped intentionally seeking. That seems to have been a healthy choice for me. It wasn't an intentional choice. And that isn't helpful for Brendan. I've grown up and live in different biological, psychological, and cultural environments. Maybe that is a cop out. I feel like it isn't. It's up to me to find meaning for my life. And I'm a lot healthier being more active and more social. Part of me wants to be an intellectual. Part of me wants to be a philosopher. Part of me wants to live off the land as a hermit. Part of me wants to test my physical limits. Part of me wants to be an author. I can't do everything I want to do in life. I probably couldn't do 10% of what I want to do in life. I find what's meaningful to me and accept that I'm doing mostly my best considering all the obstacles and distractions of life. We all fail and fall short. That's part of life.

If searching for meaning has lost its meaning and or makes you feel bad, maybe it's time to seek for something else.

Free Will- What Is It Good For...

Is the free will debate a semantics game?

Probably.

Does the debate over free will matter?

I doubt it.

Either way, we live in a universe where we feel like we have free will. With that said, I'm going to use my time to explore free will further because it interests me.

Introduction

I love the idea of free will. I got a stupid tattoo on my arm because of my love for free will. It says:

"NEVER QUIT
ITS UP TO ME"

(Yes, it has a grammar error. Yes, I was an English teacher. Moral: young people are stupid.)

I loved Lance Armstrong, Steve Prefontaine, and Neo. They could do anything. They pushed themselves beyond the limits. Armstrong survived cancer and won the Tour de France 7 times on pure grit and hard work... Prefontaine created a self image of a tough guy who shouldn't have been as good as he was. Neo was the Chosen One. When Neo discovered his destiny, he rejected it and saved humanity. I loved the self determination. I wanted to be like these self determined Chosen Ones. Defying the odds with their wills, without the use of drugs, superior genetics, or created fictions.

But, there's always a but, I love learning. It's fun and entertaining. The more I learned, the harder it was to believe the tattoo on my arm.

I lost my faith in free will in the early 2010s. I still love the idea. I hope it's true. Daniel Dennett, philosopher, has restored some hope in my ideology and admiration in free will. Read more here:

"We're not responsible for being responsible. We're lucky to be responsible. But once we're responsible, we're responsible for staying responsible..."

The Debate

The free will debate has interested and entertained me since I first started learning philosophy. Stephen Hawking probably first persuaded me to question free will with his writings on the nature of the universe. Since then I have read and listened to Daniel Dennett and Robert Sapolsky, among others. Recently the two determinists had a debate, "Daniel Dennett V. Robert Sapolsky- Do We Have Free Will?" I listened and found myself agreeing with both.

Since first listening to the debate, I listened to Sapolsky's newest book Determined. It's okay. It's scientific. The scientific half of the is well worth reading for the science studies on behavior. Sapolsky forms a well argued and crafted argument. Here is the basic argument:

1) Free will depends on human intentions/will/actions to be independent of biology, environment, and culture.
2) Human intentions/wills/actions are dependent on biology, environment, and culture a person experienced from microseconds prior to millions of years ago.
3) Humans cannot choose all the factors from microseconds to millions of years ago that determine intentions/wills/actions.
Conclusion) Humans do not have free will.

But, there's always a but, Sapolsky assumes that free will can only exist if people have a choice in all these factors that impact their intentions/wills/actions. If that's the accepted definition of free will, I agree. But is this the accepted definition of free will? It seems people's conclusions on free will may determine their accepted definitions.

Definitions of Free Will

Merriam-Webster on-line:

1: voluntary choice or decision 'I do this of my own free will'

2: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

Oxford English Dictionary:

1: Spontaneous or unconstrained will; unforced choice; (also) inclination to act without suggestion from others. Esp. in of one's (own) free will and similar expressions.

2: The power of an individual to make free choices, not determined by divine predestination, the laws of physical causality, fate, etc.

Wiktionary:

1: A person's natural inclination; unforced choice.

2: (philosophy) The ability to choose one's actions, or determine what reasons are acceptable motivation for actions, without predestination, fate etc.

MarvinBEdwards01 described it best in a reddit comment, "Basically, if you want to resolve the arguments, use the first definition. If you wish to argue interminably, choose the second definition." See his full comment here.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy takes it deeper down the rabbit hole. Here is a sample:

The term “free will” has emerged over the past two millennia as the canonical designator for a significant kind of control over one’s actions. Questions concerning the nature and existence of this kind of control (e.g., does it require and do we have the freedom to do otherwise or the power of self-determination?), and what its true significance is (is it necessary for moral responsibility or human dignity?) have been taken up in every period of Western philosophy and by many of the most important philosophical figures, such as Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, and Kant... It should be clear that disputes about free will ineluctably involve disputes about metaphysics and ethics. In ferreting out the kind of control at stake in free will, we are forced to consider questions about (among others) causation, laws of nature, time, substance, ontological reduction vs emergence, the relationship of causal and reasons-based explanations, the nature of motivation and more generally of human persons. In assessing the significance of free will, we are forced to consider questions about (among others) rightness and wrongness, good and evil, virtue and vice, blame and praise, reward and punishment, and desert. The topic of free will also gives rise to purely empirical questions that are beginning to be explored in the human sciences: do we have it, and to what degree?"

Back to the Debate

Sapolsky and Dennett didn't agreed on a definition of free will. Dennett commented that he wasn't arguing for Sapolsky's type of free will. But the moderator didn't brung attention or focus the conversation on this important distinction. The conversation/debate is mostly Dennett and Sapolsky talking past each other. 

If I could moderate a debate between Sapolsky and Dennett, I would first have the two intellectuals agree on a definition of free will. If they wouldn't, I'd want to break the debate into two smaller debates over each interlocutors definition of free will. I suspect the two would have very little disagreement outside of semantics.

Conclusion

Until a consensus is formed, I prefer the a definition of free will that focuses on the freedom to do otherwise. I personally like Dennett's conclusion that some people are lucky enough to have the control needed to be responsible for the norms and laws of society.

Further Explorations

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Entry for Free Wil  

"Daniel Dennett V. Robert Sapolsky- Do We Have Free Will?"

Dennett's "Lucky to Be Responsible"

"Self or not a Self"