Reddit reviews Free Will (Oxford Readings in Philosophy)

It's not a long book, but you could do far worse than look at the relevant Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy pages:

Start with:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

Then maybe:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incompatibilism-theories/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incompatibilism-arguments/

and definitely

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

redditors seem to have a bit of a blind-spot for compatibilism.

then from there you'll know the kind of direction you'll want to take your reading in.

The Oxford Readings In ... series is usually pretty good for collecting influential and interesting papers. I don't know how good this one is, but you could try:

http://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Oxford-Readings-Philosophy/dp/019925494X

This is Stroud's book on dealing with metaphysical subjects. It doesn't directly deal with the problem of free will, but I HIGHLY recommend you read this book because it allows you to gain insight into what a lot of books and papers are missing, namely, what I was talking about 'coherence' or an 'unmasking explanation' (his terminology, actually):
http://www.amazon.com/Quest-Reality-Subjectivism-Metaphysics-Colour/dp/0195151887

Searle's book on Rationality. What I had paraphrased is actually in this book (... I think, it's been a little while since I read it), but I know he addresses the problem of free will since it's important to him in tackling rationality:
http://www.amazon.com/Rationality-Action-Jean-Nicod-Lectures/dp/0262692821

Here's a book that has a ton of papers from prominent philosophers in the field. This actually gives a good overview of the whole debate. I recommend P.F. Strawson's Essay, Wallace's Essay, and ... I forget the other one. IIRC, there are essays by Lewis and van Inwagen if you're really into logic approaches:
http://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Oxford-Readings-Philosophy/dp/019925494X

It's only a few but I hope that helps~

There are different kinds of laws and relationship. There are causal relationships between physical objects which from empirical observation we may come to believe are precise and exceptionless, like the laws of physics. But psychological laws or the relationship between an rational agent and their reasons for acting may not take this form.

Think about your OCD: you may have a strong desire for a certain action, but you also have a higher-order desire that your compulsive desire for this action not be so strong. There's no limit in principle to this hierarchy of desires. For a rational agent like yourself no compulsion to do X, no matter how strong, can guarantee that he does X.

You probably possess certain moral values: things you believe are good and reasons for acting that you believe are good. Yet you often find yourself acting for reasons that you don't believe are good and doing things that you know are bad. Having certain moral values does not entail that you will always act one way or another.

People with MI often find this situation frustrating: you know you some action or thought X doesn't cohere with your moral values of ideals, you desire in some way not to do or think X but somehow X still occurs. But this conflict seems the be the only path we can take to getting better.

From my personal experience and from observing others, people with MI are often the strongest believers in free will, because we have first-hand experience with this anomalous relationship between the physical aspect of our mind and the mental or purely rational aspect. There is a constant battle to assert our will and
to act according to the motivations and desires and values we know are good ,against other motivations and desires that are not what we will. Acting randomly or without motivation and desires and values is not freedom. There are lots of good books and papers on compatibilism that you should check out, like this.

You should not take this advice if you have a genuine interest in the subject and wish to extend your knowledge beyond rhetorical polemics, which is all you'll get from Harris.

The Oxford Readings on Free Will would be a better choice. This book is an anthology of important and recent essays that cover pretty much every major positions on the issue of free will. The introductory essays in this series are especially helpful in giving a detailed overview of the respective issues.

Schopenhauer's prize essay on the question of whether free will can be proven from self-consciousness is also helpful and relevant. His answer to the problem will probably seem odd since it is derived from his own metaphysical system and formulated to be deliberately provocative. But he gives a clear explication of the issue in a lively and readable style, and he is sensitive to the problem of moral responsibility, which he attempts to save from his negative conclusion.

"Intense specialization"?

Free will, dude? Come on. Preach from your made up ivory towers harder.

>If you're genuinely interested in the topic and want to understand it, here's a good starting point: https://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Oxford-Readings-Philosophy/dp/019925494X

I have read essays from this book. I am familiar with the topic.

Do you have a rebuttal or just more hand waving and holier-than-thou ramblings?

Like I said, it's a waste of time to have a debate on an area of intense specialization with someone who doesn't know the foundations or even basic terminology of the field.

If you're genuinely interested in the topic and want to understand it, here's a good starting point: https://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Oxford-Readings-Philosophy/dp/019925494X