(Part 2) Best free will & determinism books according to redditors

That seems to be the big problem bringing up the relevance of whether or not the universe is determined: if it is, then at least there's something causing me to form my beliefs, so that when I form the belief that a lion is about to kill me, the lion is in fact chewing on my leg; if it isn't, then how the heck am I forming my beliefs in a way that relates to what's going on around me if the lion chewing on my leg doesn't cause me to form the belief that a lion is about to kill me?

So I want some sort of determinism in place when talking about macroscopic events, otherwise I'm forming beliefs willy-nilly, but I don't want want this determinism all the way down to when I have the chance to stop, think, and make a deliberate choice between options, otherwise when I'm faced with a choice, I want to be able to say that I weighed the options and made a choice using my critical facilities in a way that isn't determined to the same extent or in the same compelling way as me forming the belief that a lion is about to kill me.

Dan Dennett's Freedom Evolves is, I think, a good introduction to compatibilism, which is the stance that determinism and free will (or something that looks suspiciously like free will) are compatible. The SEP article will also help. I personally have no dog in the race: I think that the future is open (I find it more comforting, and it makes sense in light of other assumptions I make), but compatibilism could still work if the future is not.

Sounds like you got it! Here is a JSTOR link to Frankfurt's seminal paper. Since you are a student you should be able to access its full version.

I recommend that you take a look at those who have disagreed with Frankfurt and his cases:

1. Ginet (1996)
   
   
2. Kane (1996)
   
   
3. McKenna (1997)
   
   
4. Naylor (1984)
   
   
5. O'Conner (2000)
   
   
6. Otsuka (1998)
   
   
7. Rowe (1991)
   
   
8. van Inwagen (1983)
   
   
9. Widerker (1995)
   
   
10. Wyma (1997)
    
    
11. Zimmerman (1988)
    
    An awesome dissertation would be to lay out your project, show how Frankfurt helps your case, outline the best responses to Frankfurt in those 11 sources (only the best! don't do them all!), and then respond those objections to Frankfurt.

A good one for metaphysics

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.

If you're looking for a very good overview, I suggest picking up a copy of Teach Yourself Nietzsche.

The same thing happened to me in my first year undergrad when we were being introduced to problems of free will and determinism. I remember asking myself about the "point of all this if we didn't have free will". And then I realized a couple of things:

1. That's not really a meaningful queation, at least I didn't find it meaningful upon reflection. It seems to me that posing a question about the "point of life" is a cathegorical error, with the free will bit included or without.
   
   
2. As someone already noted, determinism/free will debate is much more nuanced than professors present it to early undergrad students. Try to find a position that doesn't upset you as much. A great source
   
   
3. Anxiety would soon die out in the same way Hume claims Pyrrhonean arguments die out in the dynamics of everyday life (if you don't know what I'm talking about, look up here). At some point the illusion of free will overpowers your rational arguments and you just keep on living like you used to.

It's just an adorable new fad these days...for people to read about Lamont's experiments and familiarize with Harris' logic and conclude that free will is an illusion. You should read Mark Balaguer's analysis of the "debate." If you'd like a TL;DR on it: it's still a purely philosophical debate, yet to be encroached by empirical support of any real value. Ergo, your confidence that I "have no idea" why I chose to do what I did is astray from scientific integrity.

And to all the redundant rest: you and I differ fundamentally in our stances on the responsibility that human beings have for themselves and their society. I endorse the individual who supports himself, thereby contributing to overall productivity. I have little sympathy for the individual who decides not to act on their own behalf..especially in a welfare state in which their lack of discipline then becomes my burden.