Philosophical reflections of modern times open before us an amazing and multifaceted world of freedom, where personal sensations and objective laws of relationships are closely intertwined.

The Dual Nature of Free Will: Subjectivity Meets Determinism

Philosophical reflections of modern times open before us an amazing and multifaceted world of freedom, where personal sensations and objective laws of relationships are closely intertwined. At the beginning of our journey, we experience freedom as an inner sensation filled with possibilities and a burst of energy, yet this subjective experience does not always reflect the true limits of choice. On one hand, personal emotions and psychological states help us understand what truly matters, making us feel like masters of our own destiny. But as soon as we try to step beyond the narrow confines of individual perception, we realize that a true act of will cannot ignore the hidden underlying laws of causality that guide our actions.

Moving further in the discussion of freedom, it becomes clear that a wide range of alternatives always unfolds before us, allowing us to choose between different goals. Here, an interesting picture emerges: we can independently determine the direction of our lives and favor one path over another. However, the necessity to choose remains inevitable, and even when it seems we are free, fundamental cause-and-effect relationships continue to hold us in their embrace. Thus, the act of making any decision becomes both an expression of self and an element of a larger process, where personal initiative merely “sublimates” the inevitable flow of events.

In the end, freedom appears as a dynamic and contrasting phenomenon, where subjective experiences coexist with objective determinants. This complex picture teaches us to accept the multifaceted nature of choice and to realize that, despite the apparent independence, our decisions are always rooted in the broader laws of the universe.

Is there real choice, or is everything in life already predetermined?

In answering your question, it is evident that the philosophical reflections presented in the quotations leave room for a dual understanding of freedom. On one hand, some reflections indicate that the feeling of freedom, while an important subjective experience, does not correspond to the objective reality of choice. For example, one source notes:
"The problem of freedom does not lie in the subjective sensations of freedom or unfreedom. It may very well be that a psychologically freely performed action... makes us all the more slaves to our unworthy passions... But as long as we cannot grasp the complete perspective of our lives, it is unlikely that the sensation of freedom or unfreedom will coincide with the perceived— with actual freedom or unfreedom. In any case, the question of freedom is unsolvable within the limits of a single psychology, although a true resolution must also encompass psychological data. But that means we must step outside the confines of psychology and address the question of freedom itself — not just the sensations of freedom or unfreedom accompanying a volitional choice."
(source: link txt)

On the other hand, another perspective on freedom is presented where it is emphasized that we are often free to choose among different target determinants, yet the very necessity of choosing is inevitable. That is, although the options before us may be numerous, we cannot avoid the need to choose:
"The horizon of possibilities before us is always open. We are free to choose one circle of target determination or another. We can even opt to do nothing at all and lead a vegetative life in the manner of Oblomov. We are not free regarding causal-natural determinants. However, before us lies a sufficiently wide field of choice among various target determinants, and we are capable of choosing between different means of achieving the same end. We are free in the subject of choice, but we are not free in the necessity to choose."
(source: link txt)

Thus, it can be said that on one hand there is room for freedom in choosing specific paths and means of achieving goals, but on the other hand, the very act of choosing is predetermined by the overall course of cause-and-effect relationships. The act of choosing, as the introduction of a new determinant, does not negate the law of causality but merely “sublimates” it into purposiveness. This indicates that the question of real choice remains complex and multifaceted, where objective determination coexists with a subjective emphasis on the possibility of choice.

Supporting citation(s):
"The problem of freedom does not lie in the subjective sensations of freedom or unfreedom... But that means we must step outside the confines of psychology and address the question of freedom itself — not just the sensations of freedom or unfreedom accompanying a volitional choice." (source: link txt)

"The horizon of possibilities before us is always open. We are free to choose one circle of target determination or another... We are free in the subject of choice, but we are not free in the necessity to choose." (source: link txt)