Determinism and Existentialism -- plz help

Hi Guys, I've been reading the forums here on and off for a while and decided to make my first post today. I have been having a lot of trouble lately with regards to determinism vs free will.

I have read several post here that lead me to believe that this is a reasonable smart community with members I should have no trouble getting along with, which is why I am posting here.

My question is concerning the existentialist view of free will. I don't understand it, I don't understand anything anymore. How does man make choice if he is free? surely to make a choice you must have an impulse or drive to make a choice, right? but if you have an impulse or drive to choose is that not determinism? from the first choice you make, you must live to make further choices on behalf of that initial choice. But where did the initial choice come from? where did the impulse to make that initial choice come from if you are free?

Another point is to ask why is it that other people make different choices? to put this clearly I ask: If a man is born into a certain situation, he has a certain set of initial choices to make to decide his meaning in life. But everyman is born into a different situation with different initial choices presented to him. Isn't this still determinism? doesn't the environment he is from still act as a constraint on his will? doesn't the environment he is born into give him the initial set of choices to choose from?

I have no background in Philosophy, I have only just recently bought some introductory books and decided to apply for university studies in this field as the result of my current curiosities. I know this whole thread might not make any sense to most people as a result of my lack of understanding and education in philosophy. I really hope some members here with experience or education in existentialism can shine some light on this for me. thanks, and sorry for the length of this post.

 

The focus on freedom in existentialism is related to the limits of the responsibility one bears as a result of one's freedom: the relationship between freedom and responsibility is one of interdependency, and a clarification of freedom also clarifies that for which one is responsible.

So you need a definition for freedom, and also in this instance, one for will. The irreducible will of all life is, to be. It is free to all.

 

Why do you think that if we have freedom we must have an impulse to make a choice? This is called reasoning from past causes, when it's equally possible to make a choice with the future consequences in mind. The freedom to choose actions depends on what one thinks the best result of that action. I suppose then question arises how do we have freedom if there is only one consequence we think best, and something must be the cause of that. This is assuming we are not omniscient and are limited by our own brains, so assumedly we go by intuition or our best guess.

 

For me determinism is the only answer that makes sense. We're all subject to the laws of physics and if we were born in the same place at the same time with the same set of variables one million times we would live the same exact life one million times over.

One positive I take from this is the ability to reason away guilt. Always do your best to be considerate of others and spread positivity in the present and future, but don't fret about past mistakes. They were bound to happen.

Time is so fascinating and mysterious. Here's a little video talking about people's perception of it and how different cultures approach it.

http://fora.tv/2010/03/25/Philip_Zimbardo_The_Secret_Powers_of_Time_Animated

 

Thanks for the input guys, I admit when I wrote this I wasn't really experienced with Existentialism or Philosophy in general. I seem to have found some answers regarding the Existentialists view of Determinism.

From what I have found out it appears that Determinism doesn't really matter. The Free will discussed in Existentialism seems to be based of the fact that from our perspective as humans we can never escape the fact that we have to make choices. Meaning that even if Hard Determinism proves to be 100% percent true, It doesn't matter. We still have to decide on things. Even if we had 100% knowledge of every antecedent even in an unbroken chain of events, we could still not see the future outcome of a "choice", without actually making said choice. Hence, we are "condemned to be free" as Sartre puts it. Even if the freedom is just an illusion, it is all that we have, the illusion becomes the reality. Thats what I got out of my research anyways, what do you guys think?

I have come to admire Existentialism more now, I see it as a kind of guide that tells us what to do when we are thrown into a world that appears to have no designated meaning, and how to find our way towards fulfillment in life without worshiping some diety who may or may not exist.

 

My most recent escapade concerning determinism is that at the question of psychological differentiation. Determinism to Sartre is at once human nature which meant that at concern with what and how you mean it: you out there making that so-called choice: is it different because of the definition OR because it couldn't be uniquely different? One day suddenly the world changed and there existed no ballast to show that we had common criteria for Choice.

But Sartre really showed how we can regard ourselves in an ostensible way separated away from each other: synchronizable and all that. Besides being in the World we are within the World in remoteness ways.

Best to improve our humanity for the consideration of who and why we are.

 

I understood the thread up until the last two posts. I think Sartre may be trying to confuse us.