What do you think?
Rate this book
Guides for the Perplexed
Free Will: A Guide for the Perplexed
In everyday life, we often suppose ourselves to be free to choose between several courses of action. But if we examine further, we find that this view seems to rest on metaphysical and meta-ethical presuppositions almost all of which look problematic.
How can we be free if everything is determined by factors beyond our control, stretching back in time to the Big Bang and the laws of nature operating then? The only alternative to determinism is indeterminism, but is not indeterminism just there being a certain amount of randomness in the world? Does not randomness hinder you from being the author of your actions?
Free Will: A Guide for the Perplexed looks at how much of the structure of our everyday judgments can survive the arguments behind such questions and thoughts. In doing so, it explores the alternative arguments that have been advanced concerning free will and related notions, including an up-to-date overview of the contemporary debates. In essence, the book seeks to understand and answer the age-old question, 'What is free will and do we have it?'
How can we be free if everything is determined by factors beyond our control, stretching back in time to the Big Bang and the laws of nature operating then? The only alternative to determinism is indeterminism, but is not indeterminism just there being a certain amount of randomness in the world? Does not randomness hinder you from being the author of your actions?
Free Will: A Guide for the Perplexed looks at how much of the structure of our everyday judgments can survive the arguments behind such questions and thoughts. In doing so, it explores the alternative arguments that have been advanced concerning free will and related notions, including an up-to-date overview of the contemporary debates. In essence, the book seeks to understand and answer the age-old question, 'What is free will and do we have it?'
- GenresPhilosophy
204 pages, Paperback
First published January 15, 2011
41 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
April 22, 2016
Continuum has published another book in the Guide for the Perplexed series. In an era where academic research proliferates, this series fills a real need. Timothy Mawson’s book is a valuable contribution to this series, introducing the readers to the fascinating but often complex philosophical issues pertaining to the discussion of free will.
Perhaps somewhat surprising, this book clearly advocates one side in the discussion (libertarianism), rather than trying to give a more descriptive overview of the competing views and their respective arguments. This does not imply, however, that Mawson’s exposition is unfair. But being one of the ‘perplexed’ of the intended readership, it is not clear to me after reading this book, what the relative sizes are of e.g., the compatibilist vs. incompatibilist academic communities. One could question the added value of this book, however, as there already exists an introduction advocating a similar view, a book Mawson points out and commends in the ‘Further Reading’ section: Robert Kane. A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will. Oxford: OUP, 2005.
The argument throughout the book is well structured. Each section or chapter builds logically on the previous one. The conclusion to each chapter is always a clear recapitulation of the main points established. The overall conclusion, which is very brief, does the same for the whole book. A more developed use of subtitles, however, would have enhanced the reading experience and the usefulness of this book for quick reference. This is all the more remarkable as some chapters easily lend themselves to further subdivision.
The writing style is informal, making continuous use of entertaining examples that make the abstract arguments concrete. The style would have benefitted from a more strict editing, however, as the reader is often lost in long sentences containing bracketed side-thoughts and clarifications between dashes (cf. the 10 line sentence at the end of p. 165 continuing on p. 166).
A short introductory chapter sketches the reason why there is a free will discussion through an extended example. Chapter Two really sets the stage for the book in outlining the five building blocks that constitute the common sense view of humans being free agents. Together they form the tradition called ‘Libertarianism.’ These views are (1) Indeterminism, (2) Moral Responsibility, (3) Incompatibilism, (4) Ultimate Authorship, and (5) being well-informed, un-rushed and un-coerced. These views are helpfully and repeatedly referred to through 5 sentences: “Sometimes I could do something other than what I actually do. Sometimes I’m morally responsible for what I do. If I couldn’t do other than what I actually do, then I wouldn’t be morally responsible for what I do. If I wasn’t the ultimate author of my actions, then I wouldn’t be morally responsible for them. To the extent that I did not will an action under the morally salient description, I am not fully morally responsible for it” (52, 169, 174). It is the claim of Mawson that these thoughts are “independently licensed by common sense even if they are perhaps not licensed thereby to the same extent” (51).
View 2 and 5 are primarily discussed in Chapter Two, but the other views each get assigned a separate chapter. Chapter Three through Five discuss arguments that challenge elements of this common-sense view. Chapter Three (Incompatibilism) starts with arguments for and against the incompatibilist thesis, and constitutes the longest chapter of the book. The chapter starts with the meta issue of where the ‘dialectical balance’ falls on the issue of Incompatibilism: Mawson discusses whether Incompatibilism is innocent until proven guilty. He makes the case that belief in Incompatibilism is properly basic because there are good arguments for the truth of Incompatibilism, and the arguments against it can be successfully countered.
Having argued that Incompatibilism is true, Indeterminism is tackled in Chapter Four. Here as well, the meta-issue shows that Indeterminism is innocent until proven guilty. Mawson rightly points out that neither Determinism nor Indeterminism can be proven from a scientific basis, even if the current state of the art of the sciences seems to favour Indeterminism. However, Indeterminism can be defended by the positive argument that “given Incompatibilism and our moral responsibility, Indeterminism must be right” (142).
The final chapter (5 Ultimate Authorship) discusses the problem of the ultimate authorship of human actions. This chapter is the shortest (apart from the Introduction and Conclusion). This is understandable as this book contains a cumulative argument, with this chapter building on the previous ones.
The book ends with a short glossary explaining key terms and definitions, followed by the endnotes and a bibliography. The endnotes give ample reference to alternative views, but without substantiating the alternative. Overall, the endnotes are very much worth the read, as they often contain substantial information or comments. The ‘Further Reading’ section would be more helpful to the reader new to the field if it was an annotated bibliography.
For theologians interested in the free will discussion, it is worth noting that the whole issue of divine foreknowledge and free will is not tackled. And although the issue of ‘soul’ is touched upon briefly, one would have wished for more. But one cannot blame Mawson for making the reader to wish for more. Having introduced the perplexed reader ably and skilfully into the discussion, he is to be commended for whetting our appetite.
Perhaps somewhat surprising, this book clearly advocates one side in the discussion (libertarianism), rather than trying to give a more descriptive overview of the competing views and their respective arguments. This does not imply, however, that Mawson’s exposition is unfair. But being one of the ‘perplexed’ of the intended readership, it is not clear to me after reading this book, what the relative sizes are of e.g., the compatibilist vs. incompatibilist academic communities. One could question the added value of this book, however, as there already exists an introduction advocating a similar view, a book Mawson points out and commends in the ‘Further Reading’ section: Robert Kane. A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will. Oxford: OUP, 2005.
The argument throughout the book is well structured. Each section or chapter builds logically on the previous one. The conclusion to each chapter is always a clear recapitulation of the main points established. The overall conclusion, which is very brief, does the same for the whole book. A more developed use of subtitles, however, would have enhanced the reading experience and the usefulness of this book for quick reference. This is all the more remarkable as some chapters easily lend themselves to further subdivision.
The writing style is informal, making continuous use of entertaining examples that make the abstract arguments concrete. The style would have benefitted from a more strict editing, however, as the reader is often lost in long sentences containing bracketed side-thoughts and clarifications between dashes (cf. the 10 line sentence at the end of p. 165 continuing on p. 166).
A short introductory chapter sketches the reason why there is a free will discussion through an extended example. Chapter Two really sets the stage for the book in outlining the five building blocks that constitute the common sense view of humans being free agents. Together they form the tradition called ‘Libertarianism.’ These views are (1) Indeterminism, (2) Moral Responsibility, (3) Incompatibilism, (4) Ultimate Authorship, and (5) being well-informed, un-rushed and un-coerced. These views are helpfully and repeatedly referred to through 5 sentences: “Sometimes I could do something other than what I actually do. Sometimes I’m morally responsible for what I do. If I couldn’t do other than what I actually do, then I wouldn’t be morally responsible for what I do. If I wasn’t the ultimate author of my actions, then I wouldn’t be morally responsible for them. To the extent that I did not will an action under the morally salient description, I am not fully morally responsible for it” (52, 169, 174). It is the claim of Mawson that these thoughts are “independently licensed by common sense even if they are perhaps not licensed thereby to the same extent” (51).
View 2 and 5 are primarily discussed in Chapter Two, but the other views each get assigned a separate chapter. Chapter Three through Five discuss arguments that challenge elements of this common-sense view. Chapter Three (Incompatibilism) starts with arguments for and against the incompatibilist thesis, and constitutes the longest chapter of the book. The chapter starts with the meta issue of where the ‘dialectical balance’ falls on the issue of Incompatibilism: Mawson discusses whether Incompatibilism is innocent until proven guilty. He makes the case that belief in Incompatibilism is properly basic because there are good arguments for the truth of Incompatibilism, and the arguments against it can be successfully countered.
Having argued that Incompatibilism is true, Indeterminism is tackled in Chapter Four. Here as well, the meta-issue shows that Indeterminism is innocent until proven guilty. Mawson rightly points out that neither Determinism nor Indeterminism can be proven from a scientific basis, even if the current state of the art of the sciences seems to favour Indeterminism. However, Indeterminism can be defended by the positive argument that “given Incompatibilism and our moral responsibility, Indeterminism must be right” (142).
The final chapter (5 Ultimate Authorship) discusses the problem of the ultimate authorship of human actions. This chapter is the shortest (apart from the Introduction and Conclusion). This is understandable as this book contains a cumulative argument, with this chapter building on the previous ones.
The book ends with a short glossary explaining key terms and definitions, followed by the endnotes and a bibliography. The endnotes give ample reference to alternative views, but without substantiating the alternative. Overall, the endnotes are very much worth the read, as they often contain substantial information or comments. The ‘Further Reading’ section would be more helpful to the reader new to the field if it was an annotated bibliography.
For theologians interested in the free will discussion, it is worth noting that the whole issue of divine foreknowledge and free will is not tackled. And although the issue of ‘soul’ is touched upon briefly, one would have wished for more. But one cannot blame Mawson for making the reader to wish for more. Having introduced the perplexed reader ably and skilfully into the discussion, he is to be commended for whetting our appetite.
May 26, 2025
Good grief! This is the very first book in the "A Guide for the Perplexed" series that I read and it fails me miserably. I expect that a book with such a subtitle would be digestible for general readers, instead it turns out to be a typical book written by a typical philosopher (who lives in a lofty ivory tower so high from the ground) that I had read before. I find my self more, rather than less, perplexed reading this book! At least the author should have said in a foreword warning that this book is not for a general public readership!
The author uses writing tools such as thought experiment, logic, metaphors but without a mind for a general public in any way. Some parts of the narrative are easy enough to understand but they soon shatter in light of what follows that appear wayward or so esoteric, for example a metaphor using "Mutiple Worlds" (multiverse) style that some physicists use. No one in this world (or in this entire universe) has ever proven this theory is a a scientific fact. The theory is from those physicists who are "Lost In Math", as a book says! (Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray)
The writing style of the author is almost always long winding, annoyingly repetitive ad nauseam, even regretably wayward to a layman like me. The author may have a good intention to communicate but he is really, desperately in need of a fine art of writing to make his writing truely is "A Guide for the Perplexed". (He works at Oxford University. I do hope there is such a class there all year round.) This is why I think I will think more than twice if I want to read a book by a philosopher. I really hope the author learn to adjust his narrative style to suit a general pubic readers.
For readers who are seriously interested in understanding this thing about Free Will, the following book is a much better choice to read and have a much better chance of getting it: Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will. Judicious ccientific narratives are much much more conducive to understanding than ivory-tower philosophy style any day! And Dr. Sapolsky's writing is superb for general public to digest.
The author uses writing tools such as thought experiment, logic, metaphors but without a mind for a general public in any way. Some parts of the narrative are easy enough to understand but they soon shatter in light of what follows that appear wayward or so esoteric, for example a metaphor using "Mutiple Worlds" (multiverse) style that some physicists use. No one in this world (or in this entire universe) has ever proven this theory is a a scientific fact. The theory is from those physicists who are "Lost In Math", as a book says! (Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray)
The writing style of the author is almost always long winding, annoyingly repetitive ad nauseam, even regretably wayward to a layman like me. The author may have a good intention to communicate but he is really, desperately in need of a fine art of writing to make his writing truely is "A Guide for the Perplexed". (He works at Oxford University. I do hope there is such a class there all year round.) This is why I think I will think more than twice if I want to read a book by a philosopher. I really hope the author learn to adjust his narrative style to suit a general pubic readers.
For readers who are seriously interested in understanding this thing about Free Will, the following book is a much better choice to read and have a much better chance of getting it: Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will. Judicious ccientific narratives are much much more conducive to understanding than ivory-tower philosophy style any day! And Dr. Sapolsky's writing is superb for general public to digest.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews