What do you think?
Rate this book
Freedom Regained: The Possibility of Free Will
It’s a question that has puzzled philosophers and theologians for centuries and is at the heart of numerous political, social, and personal Do we have free will? In this cogent and compelling book, Julian Baggini explores the concept of free will from every angle, blending philosophy, sociology, and cognitive science to find rich new insights on the intractable questions that have plagued us. Are we products of our culture, or free agents within it? Are our neural pathways fixed early on by a mixture of nature and nurture, or is the possibility of comprehensive, intentional psychological change always open to us? And what, exactly, are we talking about when we talk about “freedom” anyway?Freedom Regained brings the issues raised by the possibilities—and denials—of free will to thought-provoking life, drawing on scientific research and fascinating encounters with everyone from artists to prisoners to dissidents. He looks at what it means for us to be material beings in a universe of natural laws. He asks if there is any difference between ourselves and the brains from which we seem never able to escape. He throws down the wildcards and plays them to the What about art? What about addiction? What about twins? And he asks, of course, what this all means for politics.Ultimately, Baggini challenges those who think free will is an illusion. Moving from doubt to optimism to a hedged acceptance of free will, he ultimately lands on a satisfying it is something we earn. The result is a highly engaging, new, and more positive understanding of our sense of personal freedom, a freedom that is definitely worth having.
239 pages, Paperback
First published April 2, 2015
41 people are currently reading
345 people want to read
About the author
Julian Baggini
77 books600 followersJulian Baggini is a British philosopher and the author of several books about philosophy written for a general audience. He is the author of The Pig that Wants to be Eaten and 99 other thought experiments (2005) and is co-founder and editor of The Philosophers' Magazine. He was awarded his Ph.D. in 1996 from University College London for a thesis on the philosophy of personal identity. In addition to his popular philosophy books, Baggini contributes to The Guardian, The Independent, The Observer, and the BBC. He has been a regular guest on BBC Radio 4's In Our Time.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
October 13, 2019
Genau sowas will ich eigentlich die ganze Zeit lesen! 😍
August 10, 2016
‘Freedom Regained’ touches on most of the main positions in the free will/ determinism debate, and Baggini manages to present the arguments in a totally accessible way. There is little new or astounding here, but maybe there doesn’t need to be. It reads well and stimulates. Who could ask for more?
May 2, 2019
2.5 stars.
July 13, 2015
Every review I've read has been terribly enthusiastic about this book. And don't get me wrong, I thought it was really interesting - intelligent and challenging. But I can't deny that there were a few things that irritated me about it. The author seemed to assume that the reader would automatically agree with his assessment of various theories and arguments, leading to statements like "No-one could deny..." - well, actually, why couldn't they? It annoyed me that he couldn't seem to admit that people might seriously disagree with him (unless they were actually philosophers, in which case it's fine). Also, there are two or three times where his sentences literally just don't make any kind of sense. But all in all it was a fairly decent read.
June 11, 2025
The author, Julian Baggini, is (I think it's fair to say) a pop philosopher. A serious thinker combined with a considerable amount of self-promotion. ("Not that there's anything wrong with that," said the blogger.) I became aware of this book when I looked back at his WSJ review of Science and the Good, which dealt tangentially with the issue of "free will." I've been a longtime fan of that topic.
I was very impressed with Baggini's approach to "free will": he's not so much arguing for a position for or against, but outlining his earnest search for the truth behind the topic. Perhaps unique for a book of this type, Baggini goes out and interviews other philosophers and researchers. Also artists and addicts. He fairly presents their views and insights. For a relatively short book, it's a real tour de force. His writing style is clear and mostly accessible to even a philosophical dilettante like me.
Baggini urges the reader to avoid the trap of thinking of "free will" as a binary, all-or-nothing deal, where we are either (a) completely deterministic bags of molecules, perhaps with some quantum coin-flipping going on; or (b) completely in control of our actions with the ability to choose any future path at any moment.
The truth, argues Baggini, is somewhere in between, depends on our situations, values, and past histories. Which makes things a little messy, but manageable. For this (very bad) Lutheran, his deployment of Martin Luther's famous quote "Here I stand, I can do no other" was very on-target.
Baggini's exploration takes him to various free will-related topics, some surprising: artistic expression, legal responsibility, addiction, mental illness, and more.
Not that I'm in total agreement. Almost as an aside, Baggini claims "Freedom merely as absence of constraint and presence of consumer choice is a very thin value indeed". Whereas I think, given its relative rarity and fragility, it's actually a pretty good deal, and not a "very thin value" at all.
Baggini's also read Free Will, by anti-free willer Sam Harris. Interestingly, he quotes the same bit of the text that I did back in 2015, where Harris is musing about Joshua Komisarjevsky, participant in a 2007 Connecticut rape-murder. Harris makes the (to me) sloppy, albeit astounding, claim:
If I had truly been in Komisarjevsky's shoes on July 23, 2007—that is, if I had his genes and life experience and an identical brain (or soul) in an identical state—I would have acted exactly as he did.
Baggini lets this go largely unremarked, but I thought back then (and still do) that there's a real problem with "I" in Harris's sentence. Given Komisarjevsky's brain, genes, experience, etc.: there's no room for Harris's "I" to squeeze in.
At the end, Baggini comes close to making a fully-libertarian argument. But then backs off considerably with (to me) weak hand-waving about the justified role of the state in providing health care, education, transportation infrastructure. Ah well.
I realize that I'm coming close to complaining that Baggini didn't write the book the way I would have. So don't get me wrong: if you're interested in "free will", this is a very good book to check out.
December 2, 2020
This is not a bad book at all. Baggini splits the book up nicely in chapters where he handles different aspects of the problem. And there is quite something in detail that one can learn. The problem for me is that I do not really think the Freedom-of-Will-problem is a genuine philosophical (or ethical) problem at all (and you might well ask why I read the book in the first place).
The main thing Baggini has to contribute can be found in Wittgenstein (family resemblance) and Dennett (the different stances). And that is more or less all that can be said about the problem.
I liked the fact that he talks a lot of responsibility. E.g. the fact that it used to be the case that politicians took responsibility (and stepped down) even if they were not personally responsible. And also he says that there are degrees of freedom. And philosophers by and large do not like that.
The book deserves three stars. But not this edition. There is no index and no bibliography which is a shame. And then it a bad translation. The translator gives us the terrible vulgar "nichtsdestotrotz" dozens of times. This is really awful.
And then there is the famous quote by J.B.S. Haldane that gets translated as:
"Das Universum ist nicht nur wunderlicher, als wir annehmen, sondern verrückter, als wir je vermuten könnten." That took my breath away. It sounded so terribly wrong. So I checked.
The original is:
"The universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." You do not have to know a word of German to see how wrong the translation is. There are many variations imagine instead of suppose, strange instead of queer. But if you use four instead of two words you just have no respect for language.
The main thing Baggini has to contribute can be found in Wittgenstein (family resemblance) and Dennett (the different stances). And that is more or less all that can be said about the problem.
I liked the fact that he talks a lot of responsibility. E.g. the fact that it used to be the case that politicians took responsibility (and stepped down) even if they were not personally responsible. And also he says that there are degrees of freedom. And philosophers by and large do not like that.
The book deserves three stars. But not this edition. There is no index and no bibliography which is a shame. And then it a bad translation. The translator gives us the terrible vulgar "nichtsdestotrotz" dozens of times. This is really awful.
And then there is the famous quote by J.B.S. Haldane that gets translated as:
"Das Universum ist nicht nur wunderlicher, als wir annehmen, sondern verrückter, als wir je vermuten könnten." That took my breath away. It sounded so terribly wrong. So I checked.
The original is:
"The universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." You do not have to know a word of German to see how wrong the translation is. There are many variations imagine instead of suppose, strange instead of queer. But if you use four instead of two words you just have no respect for language.
June 3, 2023
Über Willens- und Handlungsfreiheit nachzudenken bringt den Kopf schnell zum Schwirren, weshalb Ich Julian Baggini es hoch anrechne, Thema für Thema strukturell vorzugehen, sich nicht zu sehr in Details zu verlieren, aber auch genügend Wiederholungen einzustreuen.
Das Buch besitzt so etwas wie einen Spannungsbogen, was für Sachbücher wohl recht ungewöhnlich ist. Das liegt vor allem daran, dass nach und nach Misskonzeptionen abgearbeitet werden und er keinen frühen Einblick in seine Auffassung vom freien Willen gibt.
Gleichzeitig fühlte es sich für mich am Schluss dann doch nicht ganz befriedigend an, auch wenn Ich viele der Gedanken super und ganz und gar nicht als offensichtlich empfand. Denn: (Achtung, kleiner Spoiler) was am Ende bleibt ist eine Negation von dem was der frei Wille ist. Ich verstehe die Überzeugung, dass der freie Wille nichts konkretes ist, dass er keine klaren Grenzen haben muss. Aber Ich benötige dennoch einen Eindruck davon, wie Ich meinen freien Willen verwirklichen kann, was alles dazu gehört. In welchen Fällen es frei ist, und wann nicht.
In spirituelle Sichtweisen des freien Willens sowie solchen aus nicht--westlichen Kulturen wird kaum eingegangen. Vermutlich vor allem weil ihm die Praxis und das Wissen davon fehlt und er in dem Sinne nicht frei ist, diese vernünftig zu thematisieren und darüber zu reflektieren. Aber Ich denke, dass beispielsweise Mönche, die sehr achtsam ihre mentale Aktivität verfolgen, unsere Intuitionen super bestätigen oder widerlegen können. Ebenso Mystiker, die die Grenzen des Bewusstseins und damit auch die des freien Willens erforschen.
Was ich mir eigentlich von dem Buch erhofft habe, war mehr über die Neurowissenschaften und speziell über die Philosophie dieser herauszufinden. Das Kapitel dazu war sehr gut, aber kam mir viel zu kurz. Es werden überzeugte Aussagen darüber getroffen, welche Vorstellungen sie widerlegt haben sollen, wofür mir die Argumentation ungenügend erschien. Es wird der Materialismus kritisiert, aber gleichzeit wird angewandt und nicht fundamental in Frage gestellt. Es wurde nichts genannt, was über Korrelation hinausgeht. Wahlweise wird das Selbst im Bewusstsein und dann wieder im Unterbewusstsein verortet
Das Buch besitzt so etwas wie einen Spannungsbogen, was für Sachbücher wohl recht ungewöhnlich ist. Das liegt vor allem daran, dass nach und nach Misskonzeptionen abgearbeitet werden und er keinen frühen Einblick in seine Auffassung vom freien Willen gibt.
Gleichzeitig fühlte es sich für mich am Schluss dann doch nicht ganz befriedigend an, auch wenn Ich viele der Gedanken super und ganz und gar nicht als offensichtlich empfand. Denn: (Achtung, kleiner Spoiler) was am Ende bleibt ist eine Negation von dem was der frei Wille ist. Ich verstehe die Überzeugung, dass der freie Wille nichts konkretes ist, dass er keine klaren Grenzen haben muss. Aber Ich benötige dennoch einen Eindruck davon, wie Ich meinen freien Willen verwirklichen kann, was alles dazu gehört. In welchen Fällen es frei ist, und wann nicht.
In spirituelle Sichtweisen des freien Willens sowie solchen aus nicht--westlichen Kulturen wird kaum eingegangen. Vermutlich vor allem weil ihm die Praxis und das Wissen davon fehlt und er in dem Sinne nicht frei ist, diese vernünftig zu thematisieren und darüber zu reflektieren. Aber Ich denke, dass beispielsweise Mönche, die sehr achtsam ihre mentale Aktivität verfolgen, unsere Intuitionen super bestätigen oder widerlegen können. Ebenso Mystiker, die die Grenzen des Bewusstseins und damit auch die des freien Willens erforschen.
Was ich mir eigentlich von dem Buch erhofft habe, war mehr über die Neurowissenschaften und speziell über die Philosophie dieser herauszufinden. Das Kapitel dazu war sehr gut, aber kam mir viel zu kurz. Es werden überzeugte Aussagen darüber getroffen, welche Vorstellungen sie widerlegt haben sollen, wofür mir die Argumentation ungenügend erschien. Es wird der Materialismus kritisiert, aber gleichzeit wird angewandt und nicht fundamental in Frage gestellt. Es wurde nichts genannt, was über Korrelation hinausgeht. Wahlweise wird das Selbst im Bewusstsein und dann wieder im Unterbewusstsein verortet
June 29, 2017
Free will is one of the most contentious - if not the most contentious - subjects for philosophical enquiry, but Baggini in his excellent book makes his arguments, examples and conversations a delight to read. He takes on reductionists such as Sam Harris (who denies human beings have free will) and neuroscientists in particular in this no-holds-barred, but very readable survey.
Baggini's conclusion is that we do have free will, that philosophers using reductionist or individualist templates (i.e. ignoring the fact that human beings live in societies) are blind to what's in front of them, and that free will is not a thing in itself of which we have all or none but rather a gradient of possibilities. He also links these conclusions to the nature of human responsibility, in a superb argument against those who think modern neuroscience means we are all slaves either to our genes or to our biochemistry.
At the end of the book the 'ten myths of free will' are stated then argued against, with a qualifying coda about the place of government in this debate.
Always a clear thinker, Baggini has the rare gift of conveying exactly what he thinks to the general reader. This is the second book by him that I've read, and I'm sure I'll be reading more.
Baggini's conclusion is that we do have free will, that philosophers using reductionist or individualist templates (i.e. ignoring the fact that human beings live in societies) are blind to what's in front of them, and that free will is not a thing in itself of which we have all or none but rather a gradient of possibilities. He also links these conclusions to the nature of human responsibility, in a superb argument against those who think modern neuroscience means we are all slaves either to our genes or to our biochemistry.
At the end of the book the 'ten myths of free will' are stated then argued against, with a qualifying coda about the place of government in this debate.
Always a clear thinker, Baggini has the rare gift of conveying exactly what he thinks to the general reader. This is the second book by him that I've read, and I'm sure I'll be reading more.
July 10, 2017
Baggini does a fantastic job of dismantling the black-and-white dilemma of freedom versus determinism, and makes a strong case for thinking about the problem in terms of degrees (as a problem of 'vagueness', as it's called in traditional analytical circles). The more I study philosophy, the apparent it is to me that all philosophical problems are problems of vagueness: freedom, beauty, truth, goodness, happiness, and knowledge all involve layers of complex vagueness. One might argue that it is precisely the job of the philosopher to suss out the objects of clarity from this fog. I am inclined to be sympathetic to such an argument. But Baggini says that some things like freedom are inherently gray, and attempting to impose a black-and-white regime on the idea is a mistake. He doesn't reference this explicitly, but I am reminded of a famous Christian prayer that sums the final chapter of this book nicely: Lord, give me the courage to change the things I can, the patience to suffer the things I cannot, and the wisdom to know the difference...
April 26, 2021
I bought this book as I fell in love with the remarkable cover. What kind of freedom is present in the mechanical crane's claw grasping of an orange ball amid the jumble of other colourful prizes? Baginni never just surveys different arguments--he relates them to people's lived experience and so we have chapters on the artist, the dissident, the addict, etc. He ends by clearly stating his own position on free-will in a powerful, concise way. Debates over free-will are tied to questions of responsibility, retribution and definition. Baggini is an articulate journalist of philosophical issues and the one aspect of the field which could have covered in more depth is the unconscious. I wonder how the late Freud might have situated 'free-will' in his thought; or, for that matter, the late Beauvoir. Still, to be fair to Baggini, this is not an academic survey of what others have thought.
February 23, 2020
The problem of free will has engaged, or should one say, haunted philosophers since the age of the classic philosophers, providing more or less fruitless, often misleading and even harmful efforts to explain the phenomenon. In the recent decades, science has added essential insights and provoked further discussions on this difficult problem. Julian Baggini tries to break up the often black or white approaches to the topic, questioning first our understanding of "free will." He argues for a more gradual view of free will, without negating the scientific evidences of the mind being founded on a material basis. His book, as other books by the author, is definitely worth while reading, if you're interested in arguments on the topic, in a langauge accessible to non-philosophers.
April 4, 2019
I chose to read this because I am curious to see what modern philosophers have to say about free will.
It's not a bad book but I had trouble getting through it.
I would sometimes spend an hour reading and find that I had only gotten through a few pages but that's me.
Is it worth reading - I think yes.
If nothing else, it will give you something to think about, not only about the different ideas concerning free will but also on how to view things in general.
It's not a bad book but I had trouble getting through it.
I would sometimes spend an hour reading and find that I had only gotten through a few pages but that's me.
Is it worth reading - I think yes.
If nothing else, it will give you something to think about, not only about the different ideas concerning free will but also on how to view things in general.
June 21, 2019
My ratings of books on Goodreads are solely a crude ranking of their utility to me, and not an evaluation of literary merit, entertainment value, social importance, humor, insightfulness, scientific accuracy, creative vigor, suspensefulness of plot, depth of characters, vitality of theme, excitement of climax, satisfaction of ending, or any other combination of dimensions of value which we are expected to boil down through some fabulous alchemy into a single digit.
Currently reading
December 18, 2019By the time I post this review, its rating is around 3.7. I earnestly think that the book should deserve a higher rating. The concept of free will is very complicated. Julian is able to describe it in plain English, making it concise and easy to understand. It is also quite thought-provoking. It helps me start with a better understanding of the complications involved in the concept of free will from the sociological, philosophical, scientific and psychological perspectives.
August 14, 2017
This is a great contribution to the free will debate. I understand the arguments on all sides much better now. The matter is considered from many different angles and offers a rebuttal to those who simply dismiss compatibilism without seriously engaging with it. The free will debate is still far from settled, although now I do lean more towards compatibilism having read this.
February 24, 2021
It's not only a very well informed book on the subject, but also Baggini is each day becoming a very cherised author to me. A very clear philosopher that makes such intricate subject more accessible.
the treatment is an almost novelesque with a structure with certain levels of suspense. Obviously the author holds his own position and makes a very good point.
the treatment is an almost novelesque with a structure with certain levels of suspense. Obviously the author holds his own position and makes a very good point.
March 4, 2025
這本書讓我第一次意識到「自由」原來有這麼多不同的角度、層次，我從來沒有從這麼多角度審視自由意志的議題。以前我也像大家一樣，覺得自由意識是非有則無的一樣能力，而在書中我第一次認真思考自由背後的各種意義。我非常喜歡這本書的編排方法，從不同群體的角度切入自由意志這項棘手的哲學議題，討論、合併各領域專家的想法，逐漸帶出作者心中最有實踐價值、最符合人世需求的自由定義，打破許多不準確的刻板印象，真的讓我學到很多。另外，每個小結後的總結非常好，能幫助讀者重新看過這張的內容，不會迷失在文字中。但是我覺得書中許多語句太過拗口、沒有以自然的方式敘寫，形成閱讀時的困難，可能是翻譯的問題。之後會想找原文版本來看！
February 2, 2021
aanrader
dnf
January 30, 2023DNF.
March 21, 2020
The book comes to one conclusion which is that the idea of "free-will" as a human being is impossible. While at first, this is a scary concept the author does a good job justifying their position. Would you say that you have free will to act given the world suddenly heats up by 5 degrees or perhaps the environment now has a role to play on you? The book provides some excellent food for thought
February 27, 2017
Excellent, very clear. I just wish that I could remember all the arguments
December 19, 2024
📚✨ Are you ready to challenge everything you thought you knew about free will?
Here's why you can't miss this book:
🔍 Engaging Writing Style: Baggini breaks down complex ideas like you're chatting over coffee, making philosophy accessible to everyone.
🎨 Diverse Perspectives: Explore free will through the eyes of artists, addicts, and political dissidents—real-world experiences that will leave you pondering.
🧠 Thought-Provoking Arguments: Discover how free will is a spectrum, not just black and white. Baggini argues we earn our freedom, not just possess it.
📖 Smooth Structure: Each chapter builds on the last, creating a compelling narrative that's hard to put down.
🌟 If you're curious about philosophy, psychology, or the essence of choice and responsibility, this book is MUST-READ. You’ll find yourself reflecting on Baggini's insights long after you finish.
Here's why you can't miss this book:
🔍 Engaging Writing Style: Baggini breaks down complex ideas like you're chatting over coffee, making philosophy accessible to everyone.
🎨 Diverse Perspectives: Explore free will through the eyes of artists, addicts, and political dissidents—real-world experiences that will leave you pondering.
🧠 Thought-Provoking Arguments: Discover how free will is a spectrum, not just black and white. Baggini argues we earn our freedom, not just possess it.
📖 Smooth Structure: Each chapter builds on the last, creating a compelling narrative that's hard to put down.
🌟 If you're curious about philosophy, psychology, or the essence of choice and responsibility, this book is MUST-READ. You’ll find yourself reflecting on Baggini's insights long after you finish.
August 21, 2021
“We do have free will, if we understand free will in the compatibilist way."
- Libertarian free will is unfounded and naive, hard determinism is too pessimistic and asks too much of free will much like the libertarians. Compatibilism defines free will in such a way that we can actually possess it. We do not need to be able to act other than how we do in the moment to be free; our choices can be predictable and still free; we can be responsible for our acts even though we couldn't have done other than we did in the moment; free choice doesn't need to be conscious; you don't need to choose your beliefs in order to be capable of acting freely; free will isn't binary, but exists on a spectrum and is not a single capacity.
- There are different definitions of free will, and people have different intuitions regarding what free will should entail meaning that there will never be accord as to what free will actually is, and therefore, if we have it or not. Free will need not be understood as being the same as the common sense view of free will; the actual answer can evolve based on our deeper understanding of the concepts involved.
- Libertarian free will is unfounded and naive, hard determinism is too pessimistic and asks too much of free will much like the libertarians. Compatibilism defines free will in such a way that we can actually possess it. We do not need to be able to act other than how we do in the moment to be free; our choices can be predictable and still free; we can be responsible for our acts even though we couldn't have done other than we did in the moment; free choice doesn't need to be conscious; you don't need to choose your beliefs in order to be capable of acting freely; free will isn't binary, but exists on a spectrum and is not a single capacity.
- There are different definitions of free will, and people have different intuitions regarding what free will should entail meaning that there will never be accord as to what free will actually is, and therefore, if we have it or not. Free will need not be understood as being the same as the common sense view of free will; the actual answer can evolve based on our deeper understanding of the concepts involved.
February 8, 2017
This book makes you think deeper at the subject of free will and autonomy. I felt that the writer was presenting rather a lot of different ideas and approaches about free will and leaving the reader to decide for himself/herself (How fitting). I liked the chapters and how they were titled and characterized. I have to say though that the dryness of the philosophical aspect of the book lead me to put aside and then go back to it again to be watered by few spills of examples or readings by other opinions. Still, the writer did a good job approaching the subject and its treatment.
June 28, 2016
I enjoyed the clear manner of writing. It was relatively easy to understand. It felt like I was listening to a buddy talk philosophy to me over a beer at lunch. The thing I didn't like about this book was it wasn't clear what the point was. Of course the last chapter sums up what Julian thinks about freedom but leading up to the last chapter was a study of what freedom wasn't. I kept waiting for an explanation of what freedom is, in Julian's mind, and felt let down by the last chapter. It was an interesting read but didn't sell me on the concept because the concept wasn't made clear.
January 2, 2020
Very informative read. I was in dire need of some clarity on the subject, and this book provided me with such clarity from multiple perspectives (the artist's perspective is masterfully written). At times the author is slightly repetitive, which always turns me off, but he certainly offers insightful ideas. The free will debate is everything but black and white - and the book addresses some of the nuances that most of us easily overlook.
September 19, 2015
A birthday present, so not my usual choice of book, but i still enjoyed it. He managed to blend in bits and bobs from neuroscientists, artists, judges etc without losing the flow of the book. The conclusion was a bit garbled but the rest was great.
May 11, 2015
Super clear and engaging, highly recommend.
July 25, 2015
A fantastic contribution to the debate. Baggini writes clearly and illustrates the ideas and arguments with effective examples.
August 25, 2016
so shitty lmao
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews