Perceptive Happiness

Last week I made the comment that regardless of those who may claim 'free-will' is an illusion, most of us act as if perception is reality. I will get to free-will in a few moments, but first I want to examine this perception/reality paradox. Is it okay to treat perception as reality if it is not reality? Because isn't that what we are doing when we say that we 'act' as if perception is reality? And even if we are just acting, do we have a choice? Or is perception, in actuality, reality as suggested by the philosopher Gerorge Berkeley? And if this is True, then what is reality? Is reality also perception? Or must reality be measurable, tangible, or empirical in its nature? Which brings up the question, are thoughts empirical? Why do we have such difficulty agreeing on the concept of a transcendental reality? Or, for those who agree on the possibility of a transcendental reality, why do we have such difficulty specifically defining or identifying said entity or entities? I refer back to what a neurosurgeon once said; that they had cut open many skulls, seen many functioning brains, but had not once seen a thought. Does that not prove the existence of transcendental reality? I guess that depends on how you differentiate/define empirical and transcendental. I don't have, nor have I run across, definitive answers for these epic questions; though we have been asking them for ages.

So now I want to examine this whole idea of free-will ...

How does one really know at any given time if they are exercising free-will? Does it depend on the circumstance? Do we have free-will in some situations and not in others? If everything we do is determined by previous empirical causes or predetermined by transcendental forces beyond our comprehension, (or some degree in between), then what's the point? I would maintain that by our actions (the fact that every day, we keep putting one foot in front of the other) most of us apparently believe there is a point, and that we do exercise (at least some) free-will; so why even ask the question?

(Speaking for myself) I believe I ask the question because I sometimes confuse free-will with control. I forget that free-will applies to choices and just because I am proactive and execute on carefully thought out choices, does not mean I control the outcome or consequences. I make predictions and have an intuitive sense of what is 'right' for me, but once my free-will begins to romp and cavort with other's free-will, my predictions may miss the mark by a wide margin. And in my frustration, I mistake this for an absence or shortage of free-will. My free-will was exercised and defined by the choices I made, not by the outcome; and as I see evolving outcomes I can make new choices, thus exercising free-will (again) that will go out (again) and network (again), thus impacting my desired result (again). And on and on it goes... Some will still refute free-will with deterministic arguments, but I fall clearly on 'Team Free-Will' and will continue to exercise it through carefully thought out choices.

So I am stating that as my perception and my reality and my free-will intimately intertwine, (merging here, and lashing out there), and then repeat this dance of digression with other's free-will in the form of actions and behaviors, I must remain balanced and know to recognize the difference between free-will and control. This now (as my written thoughts often do) seems obvious.

Yet with all this said, the (so-far) unanswerable question remains - where and how is the why?

This entry was posted in Philosophy. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Perceptive Happiness

  1. Pingback: An Offer of Happiness | hopelesshappiness.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *