How is it that during medieval times when society was so conservative, not allowing any social mobility...

How is it that during medieval times when society was so conservative, not allowing any social mobility, free will was taken for granted as given to us by god but today, when the modern world allows for much more social mobility, we(in our every day view of life) tend to favor a more deterministic physicalist view of reality...
WHICH CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHERS WRITE ABOUT AND MAKE A GOOD CASE FOR FREE WILL?
not as determinists define it but as something absolute that is inheent to the structure of reality(cause a true free will, the kind that i think we all wish for, is only possible only within a world view that alraedy gives space for such things)?

I persoanly. intuitivly, feel like people are repetetive in the way they lead their lives and the descisions they make, but the question is, is it because our societies are structured in heirarchies and rules that make the world seem deterministic?
I mean on the one sense we can move within social structures more than befoer but on the other hand the structuring of our lives is much more pervasive than before.

And please refrain from 17th centruy philosophy/theology. Not that i dont respect it but if used it has to be modified, taking into account all we know now.

You've got no replies, yet I find your question interesting.
I don't know if free will is still a very contemporary issue. I'm not saying it's worth nothing, but I'm not certain it's used under these terms.
To be quite honest I don't see very much how you can take this question without considering past ontologies, ways of thinking and living, etc. despite what you said about 17th philosophy. Since you seem to be wanting to take it on a sociological approach, it would be a good idea to see what the concept of "free will" was referring to (if referring to something) in Medieval times (and to be more precise, where and when), and its evolution during the last centuries (this concept is far from being simple) ; simultaneously, see how these concepts were in discussion with their own societies. The risk otherwise is to compare oranges and apples, by forcing what one thinks to be the concept of free will in past times which didn't knew it in such a form.
I can't see how one could ask how the term is heard today, without leaning on the history of the concept and the social evolution behind it.
To say it with other words : if you ask how we could analyse medieval societies by the "free will" filter, you risk both anachronism, and deluding yourself on the actual/contemporary meaning of the concept

Well, maybe we can think of free will as the ability to imagine taking certain actions. Perhaps you are constrained by physical reality but you can still imagine doing them. You might imagine walking out of a prison cell but since its closed you cannot. You might imagine yourself fling but since you are bound by gravity you cannot.
You can always try to do as you imagine it can just result in your physical death or your inability to go through with an action towards its desired outcome.
In this sense what then limits free will is a deterministic view of human thought and mind.

free will is a meme

I think neurologists have already definitively answered this question, in that they've proven that thoughts and desires are part of a chain of biological causality, and consist fundamentally of chemical reactions. To argue that there is a "free will" that exists outside of this chain is basically an argument crutching on faith that people have souls that aren't subject to the current neurological understanding of the mammalian mind. Not saying having faith is bad, or even stupid, you gotta do what you gotta do to be OK with existence, but when you get down to bona-fide establishment empirical brass tacks, it seems to be that free will is an illusion.

Memes are incredibly deterministic

I get what you mean and can agree to a certain extend, though one could think to the terms in another way : the sentiment of free will (if such thing exist, hence my previous post ) and its links to society. That would be another question besides the one you're speaking of.

because when you're not allowed to walk to the invisible walls of the game world it's easier to believe they're not there

You don't even need to examine reality to reject Free Will. You can arrive to the conclusion of Free Will being an illusion with logic alone.

1. All things are either part of a causal chain or purely random
2. No possibilities but those two exist
3. Compatibilism is nothing but sophistry
4. Ergo, free will doesn't exist, determinism is true

But that is only if you tie free will with a scientific neurological investigation.
A scientific research of the way in which our brain works neurologically is different to an approach to free will as a personal phenomena.
We percieve external reality through our senses and different external tools a certain way.
looking at a brain and experiecing things as a brain might be two different things by definition.
We can look at free will as our actual experience of reality, as this experience per se.

Perhaps we cannot simplify our experience to the movement of neurons much like we cannot simplify the working of a cell into the working of its individual atoms according to the rules of atomic interactions.
Take the color black.
Scinetifically, using tools and mathematics, we can say that black is not a color if we define color according to light of certain awvelengths that hits our eyes. But that is simply the scientific mathematical approach.
You however, as a human being can say black is a color if you refer to colors as certain experiences of your consiousness.
If experience is the sum workings of your brain
Perhaps, using current scientific methodology you can never predict the actions of a human, because human actions and desires and will rely exactly on one's personal experience, as in the way you personally experience yourself and reality is the only FULL simulation of your brain.
As in, a full simulation of a your brain is exactly you existing.
You can predict certain actions another human will take but not predict his experience and you can say that free will is exactly that experience. Not free will as we see it implemented in physical reality as external observers but free will as the personal experience of one's mind as it imagines.
Free will as our descisions as we imagine them.
I can imagine myself jumping out of a window but i will not do it. It is a will that i did not express physically.
The mental will is the internal experience of a full simulating mind in progress.
An external enurological analysis will never be able to capture it, at least using current methodologies and defintiions of scientific methods and objectivity.

(you)
Not sure If i made myself clear.
Lets say for a moment(try please even if such a statment seems wrong to you) that scinetific exploration and conclusions are not superior to personal experience, just different and allow to acheive different goals.
So, given certain needs to achieve certain outcomes we use scientific exploration of reality.
The scientific method is a certain way of aggregating our sense perceptions of the world and analyzing them socially.

But you and each human have a unique status because we each experince the world personally. The reality of this experience can be said to be your experience as working biological machine in the process of operation.
It is exactly this fully articulation of your workings that an external examination cannot grasp. It can only grasp it as a machine through the specific methodologies of the scientific method, a partial understanding.
The only full description of your operation as a human is the description of your fully bodily operations in the process of your self description/working/operatinion.

We can construct a human, or grow a full human brain but we will still only understand it externally.
We might even be able to predict this human's ACTIONS but we cannot predict its full simulation as that simulation is exactly the way this human experiences reality as himself.

>when the modern world allows for much more social mobility,

Your next line is 'anyone can be president!!!'

Compared to medieval societies you might as well say so.

I'm pretty sure a random peasant in medieval society had a better chance of being king than a random pleb in modern society of being president.

A random pleb could become part of the clergy and rise that way, it was sort of a backdoor to social mobility.

Nowaday there isn't a backdoor any more.

this is a nonsensical argument.
stop it, both of you.

The more interesting question is not whether or not free will exists, the real question worth pondering is "what ethical principles can you derive from the knowledge that our actions are predetermined?" I think at this point God becomes a more attractive idea to work with lol

>(you)
>Not sure If i made myself clear.
>Lets say for a moment(try please even if such a statment seems wrong to you) that scinetific exploration and conclusions are not superior to personal experience, just different and allow to acheive different goals.
>So, given certain needs to achieve certain outcomes we use scientific exploration of reality.
>The scientific method is a certain way of aggregating our sense perceptions of the world and analyzing them socially.

>But you and each human have a unique status because we each experince the world personally. The reality of this experience can be said to be your experience as working biological machine in the process of operation.
>It is exactly this fully articulation of your workings that an external examination cannot grasp. It can only grasp it as a machine through the specific methodologies of the scientific method, a partial understanding.
>The only full description of your operation as a human is the description of your fully bodily operations in the >

Regardless of the nature of the experience of existing, any cognitive response to stimuli isn't deliberate or intentional, so regardless of whether or not we have the sentiment of free will, you can't rationally deny that in fact we do not have it. As an illusion, free will is subtle and powerful enough to be able to convince itself of its own existence.

I'm not talking about subjective experience, you can't argue about that. I'm talking about using the best tools we have available to come up with informed, objective, conclusions about ethical issues. Free will's lack of existence certainly has a bearing on how we should behave, and we shouldn't confuse the issue by bringing in each others nebulous subjective experiences of the subject

ure irl pic looks like vidya

>taking into account all we know now.
>implying we know anything
Stop deluding yourself.
>empiricism
Neurology is an absolute joke amongst the already ancient joke that is science.

In addition, you're forgetting Christian compatibilism.

It's not like empiricists know anything about Christianity though, too busy stroking their overgrown ego.
Nice assumptions, very logical.

1. user is a massive jerkoff
2. Most men jerk off
3. Ergo, literally everything, including user's mindhappenings, is just divine/cosmic and mental jerk off.

This argument I just made up honestly has more rigour than your aimless mess.

Freedom is a meme, people are happier when they are told what to do.

But you are reducing the entire experience of existing to some motor function. It is exactly on the most complete and full experience of you as you is there free will.
We are faced with physical limitations of reality but our existence is not causal because causality is a result of sense precpetion wich is only a subset of the full human existence.
Yes, reality as observed by us is causal but our reality of existence which is no less real is not causal since it is not obsevd or observable but is its own self determinator.

The fact we observe reality and frame it causaly does not mean we are causal. The fact that when i walk into a wall i bump into it does not mean my existence as myself is causal, only that the way i structure reality through percpetion and analysis is causal.