As the thinking is what matters, I reserve the original raw thinking after the formal essay.
Trimmed Version
Before delving into the materials we learnt this term, freedom seemed a transparent concept: the simple ability to choose what one desires. Yet, a shadow of doubt inevitably emerges: Is what we “want” truly our own, or is it merely a precarious balance between inner cravings and outer forces? When we talk about free will, what we are actually discussing?
History and myth offer a gallery of forces that shape human choice—oracles, fate, political power, and biological instinct. On the surface, every choice Oedipus made seemed to spring from his own volition. No one forced him to flee Corinth; no one commanded him to strike the stranger on the road. Yet, from a higher perspective, his every step was shadowed by the oracle. His “free” decision to leave his home was, paradoxically, the very mechanism that delivered him to his tragic fate. Here, freedom appears as an illusion: a man walking a path he believes he is paving, only to find the stones were laid long before his birth. We find this unsettling. We feel the suffocating power of fate. Was Oedipus a free man, or was even his very temperament—his “hot temper” and “wisdom”—merely a set of pre-installed parameters leading to a predetermined end?
To escape this deterministic trap, we might look to Socrates. Facing the Athenian court, he was presented with a clear calculation: to persuade the citizens and live, or to deliver his Apology, refuse escape, and accept the hemlock. He chose the latter. Here, we find a different flavor of choice. In the tiger’s world, a hungry predator might forgo a hunt to avoid injury—we classify this not as free will, but as survival instinct. It is a calculation of risks. But Socrates’ choice was incommensurable with such biological or social logic. He weighed his life against his pursuit of truth and found the latter heavier. This choice feels “free” precisely because it breaks the standard mold of self-preservation.
From these examples, we may derive a clearer, albeit indirect, description: Free will is the choice made beyond calculation. “Calculation” here refers to objective reasoning—the machine-like processing of variables to find the “optimal” path. If you are told it will rain, you bring an umbrella; if a tiger is too dangerous, you retreat. These are predictable, almost algorithmic responses. If every person under the same conditions would act identically, can we truly say they are acting freely? Or are they simply executing a program?
I am inclined to view free will through the lens of probability. Let $P_i$represent the likelihood of a certain action being taken by an individual within a population. The more “calculable” an action is—the more it aligns with standard survival, social norms, or logical optimization—the higher its$P_i$ becomes. In this light, free will shines most brightly in the “statistical outlier.” It is not that free will is merely “acting differently” for the sake of it, but rather that it manifests when an individual transcends the “standard way” of thinking.
Oedipus’s flight from Corinth was a calculated escape from a curse—a high-probability reaction to fear. But the moment Oedipus blinded himself, he stepped out of the oracle’s shadow and into the light of his own agency. There was no “reason” for such agony, no calculation that would recommend self-mutilation. It was a leap. Similarly, Socrates’ acceptance of death was a rejection of the “optimal” biological program. These great, “weird” moments in history are what we instinctively recognize as the peak of human freedom.
Thus, we arrive at a conclusion that bridges the ancient and the modern:
Free will is the moment when a person refuses to become a machine that merely executes a program. It is a leap toward a purpose higher than one’s own calculations—even if that leap brings worldly harm. In that moment of illogical, uncalculable sacrifice, the soul renders itself no longer predictable or exhaustible by any probabilistic model. It is the glorious anomaly that proves we are more than the sum of our inputs
The row thinking (my CoT)
Before reading relevant materials, freedom seemed easy to understand, meaning one may choose what he wants to do. But is what we ‘want’ really the very thing we want? Or is it just a balance between our actual desire and outer forces? When we talk about free will, what we are actually discussing?
There are tons of matters that might influence one’s choice–oracles, fate, prophecy, political powers, to name a few. When we make decision, those factors will inevitably contribute to it. Every choice Oedipus made seemed totally out of his own free will, but it was obvious that the oracle could be the decisive factor for him to leave the place he grew up. After that, his characteristics naturally rendered him the final tragic ending. No one told him that he should leave, or he should kill the people he meet on the road. From this perspective, every choice was made by himself. But we notice that, oracle made him leave, and his hot temper killed his father. Then his wisdom helped him become the king, marrying his mother. Except the first step, everything seemed natural. But from a higher perspective, everything seemed had already been settled down by fate. It felt unsettling; we sensed the overwhelming power of fate. Did Oedipus really have his own free will? Or even what he shall think had already been settled by fate?
This way, we fell into something that could not discussed at all. We could say everything was settled down, but we could not know it before it has happend. We could say every thought that emerges in our minds was set by a mysterious force. However, these could not be verified, so it has no room for discussion. Then how do we think over free will? What is free will? A hungry tiger chooses not to hunt a bison because it may get hurt. Is this choice out of free will? An inner voice tells me not. I tend to classfiy it as out of survival intuition. Then what is free will? We may recall Socrates. Among those ancient figures, the way Socrates acted might suit ‘free will’ the best in my mind. Then we could delve into it to see why. He was faced with two choices: to persuade the citizens and be freed, or to deliver the Apology, to refuse his students’ help and accepting his death. He chose the latter. Is there anything that will contribute to the former or latter? Of course. His life and his pursuit stood for the former and the latter respectively. Between them, Socrates chose one. And I find this suits ‘free will’. Then why Oedipus seemed not so ‘free’? If there was not such a oracle, maybe he would not leave Corinth. And leaving Corinth caused the following bad outcomes. But in the end, Oedipus blinded himself. This action seemed out of free will. So, from these examples, we may find a clearer meaning for free will.
Free will is the choice one makes beyond calculation and outer factors, the choice made out of ‘no reasons’. Here, reasons are not including inner factors like faith, characteristics, otherwise there is no free will at all. Calculation means objective reasoning, like if you fight with a tiger, you are more likely to be killed. For Socrates, his pursuits weighed heavier than his life. Under such situation, different people could have different answers, and none of answers could be judged ‘wrong’, so it is beyond calculation. For Oedipus, his leaving was out of the oracle, while he blinded himself out of his own choice. This seemed fit pretty well. Then how about Aeneas? Aeneas was described faithful. Though Mercuid sent Jupiter’s messenges to him, he thought of his son, thought of his kingdom. So actually I tend to say that he made this choice out of free will. Love for Dido and mission he carried, he chose the latter. But this could be more complicated, as gods’ attitude weighed a lot for that period of time. From another perspective, however, we may find that, if he chose to live with Dido, would Jupiter allow all these to happen? So this way, Aeneas seemed not that free. And we shall see that, for most circumstances, there is not pure free will. In situations like what Aeneas or Socrates faced, free will could also be like a certain distribution of weigh for several factors. For Socrates, pursuits weighed more than life. For Aeneas, his faith weighed more than his love. But we could see that such free will is different from the way Oedipus blinded himself. This difference should be natural. We are not always choose one from A and B. We might suddenly want to run for a while or jump in the muddy puddles. In different situations, free will has different forms. This sounds natural. But also naturally, we want a final answer that might describe free will in a sentence instead of discussing it in different situations.
It could be hard to give the very sentence. But from above, we may give a indirect description. If someone acts out of free will, different person might act differently under the same conditions. In other words, free will links to specific individual. This aligned with my intuition. However, in this way, every action we mentioned above becomes out of free will. But as I have mentioned, by intuition, Oedipus left Corinth was not out of free will, while the description I just gave seemed quite reasonable. Luckily, this is just a logical problem. If someone acts out of free will, then… So this is not a sufficient condition but a necessary condition. If different person might act differently under the same conditions, we could not say firmly that this action is out of free will. But why not? It’s true that someone might stay in Corinth, ignoring the oracle. This way it seems free. So the intuition actually built on the ground that the oracle meant a lot for people then. In this way, running away from his father and mother could be easily calculated. Or we could take it in another perspective. We could almost every action partly out of free will, also its opposite. So we assign our attention on the ratio of free will. If weather prediciton goes that it will rain tomorrow, you then cancel your trip to climb a mountain, of course you may go ahead with an umbrella, but most people might choose to cancel. The same as why we might focus more on the ratio of free will. Under every situations, every choice could be possible. So we could say every action is free, but this is useless. The only way to get something is to focus on the partition. Idealy, we might assume every action has a posibility to be made among all people. We call it $P_i$, namely the posibility i happens. Then we want to know how free an action is. The less$P_i$ is, the more likely you made this decision out of free will. I am not saying that free will means acting differently. It is hard to judge whether something could be ‘calculated’ and act following a standard way without thinking, just like a machine. And the likelihood people will do might reveal whether it could be ‘calculated’ to some extent as we are all human, we have similar features. I have to say that this relation could be false, as it was created by a sudden whim. What I really want to show is free will shines as it goes beyond a standard but machine-like way.
The moment Oedipus blinded himself, or the moment Socrates embraced his death… these profound moments feel almost unbelievable, and we intuitively recognize them as acts of free will. They could have chosen comfort; they could have chosen to live. Yet, they pursued something higher, taking a ‘weird’ or illogical step that led to personal disaster but resulted in a pure, shining soul.
Thus, we could give a conclusion:
Free will is the moment when a person refuses to become a machine that merely executes a program, and instead takes a leap toward a purpose higher than his own calculations — even if that leap brings him harm in the world, it renders his soul no longer predictable or exhaustible by any probabilistic model.