Nerd-sniped: Free will is an incoherent idea. We don't choose our preferences, which dictate our choices. (And even supposing you can choose a preference, that's only due to the preexisting desire to have such a preference. Turtles all the way down.) What would an unconstrained choice even be? Just random, arbitrary? That doesn't sound "free" either.
Ancient religion and philosophy taught that habits influence desires far more strongly than desires influence habits.
It is possible to want different desires (if you disagree, ask any recovering drug addict). So even conflicting desires can exist simultaneously on multiple planes of consciousness.
A powerful way to change your desires to be what you want them to be is to change your habits.
Yes, and that raises the question: by what mechanisms do we change our habits?
I like an idea mentioned by James Clear (author of the "Atomic Habits" book) that each action we take is a "vote" towards establishing or breaking a habit.
There are connections between this notion and neurochemistry, such as Hebbian learning.
One important mechanism for changing habits is to join a community of people who are practicing the habits you wish to practice. A thoughtful, intentional choice of whom to associate with is one of the most powerful forms of agency we possess.
Zooming out a bit, local communities of people who practice virtuous habits are an indispensable cornerstone of society, for by them we gain agency to desire and do what is virtuous.
> Zooming out a bit, local communities of people who practice virtuous habits are an indispensable cornerstone of society
That's a pretty big claim, and I'm the kind of person that tends to challenge almost everything ... but heck, I have to admit that I largely agree. Well said.
I've lived many places, and the lived experience in some particular places, in some particular ways, just works better. It often has to do with most people being both trusting and trustworthy.
I would add that _locality_ isn't only about spatial dimensions. Some online communities have high degrees of locality, in a sense.
> for by them we gain agency to desire and do what is virtuous.
Again, at first I was going to push back on how you used 'agency' here, but I think I see what you probably mean: being in a better environment _helps_ an individual to choose from a better set of options, allowing them to be the best version of themself.
Sure, but what motivates that change in habits? Does it spontaneously arise? Does is trace back to some other event? Neither of these illustrate a degree of freedom.
The idea isn't incoherent so much as the word free invites a lot of creative interpretations.
Free will is really all about making decisions that guide the evolution of the universe, rather than being a powerless observer. The fact that our decisions are constrained due to circumstances does not change the fact that we make them.
> Doxastic voluntarism is a philosophical view that people elect their own beliefs; that is, that subjects have a certain amount of control over what they believe
Do you hold such a view as a first principle? Or did you arrive at it via consideration of other factors?
