Educate yourself, please.
en.wikipedia.org
If you insist that "free will" is redundant,
What I "insist" has nothing to do with it.
"Free will" IS redundant, because there is no such thing as a non-free will. A will is by definition free. 'A' cannot equal '!A.'
why not consider it simply repetition for emphasis?
As I stated before, repeating something for emphasis is by definition NOT redundant.
"Free" is being used to describe something that is already defined as free, and is thus redundant.
It's like saying CPU unit. "Unit" is part of the definition. There's no need to say "unit" again. "Unit" is redundant, because there's no need to emphasize that a CPU is a unit.
It is not that I don't see your point. You do have a valid point. However, the use of the word "free" with the word "will" does emphasize man's ability to choose freely.
Something which "will" already does. "Will" is enough emphasis to make the point. "Free will" becomes redundant.
Just like shalom shalom.
Or Psalm 136 where God gets a bit "redundant" with the phrase,"for his mercy endureth forever"
136 O give thanks unto the Lord; for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever.
2 O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever.
3 O give thanks to the Lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever.
4 To him who alone doeth great wonders: for his mercy endureth for ever.
5 To him that by wisdom made the heavens: for his mercy endureth for ever.
6 To him that stretched out the earth above the waters: for his mercy endureth for ever.
7 To him that made great lights: for his mercy endureth for ever:
8 The sun to rule by day: for his mercy endureth for ever:
9 The moon and stars to rule by night: for his mercy endureth for ever.
10 To him that smote Egypt in their firstborn: for his mercy endureth for ever:
11 And brought out Israel from among them: for his mercy endureth for ever:
12 With a strong hand, and with a stretched out arm: for his mercy endureth for ever.
13 To him which divided the Red sea into parts: for his mercy endureth for ever:
14 And made Israel to pass through the midst of it: for his mercy endureth for ever:
15 But overthrew Pharaoh and his host in the Red sea: for his mercy endureth for ever.
16 To him which led his people through the wilderness: for his mercy endureth for ever.
17 To him which smote great kings: for his mercy endureth for ever:
18 And slew famous kings: for his mercy endureth for ever:
19 Sihon king of the Amorites: for his mercy endureth for ever:
20 And Og the king of Bashan: for his mercy endureth for ever:
21 And gave their land for an heritage: for his mercy endureth for ever:
22 Even an heritage unto Israel his servant: for his mercy endureth for ever.
23 Who remembered us in our low estate: for his mercy endureth for ever:
24 And hath redeemed us from our enemies: for his mercy endureth for ever.
25 Who giveth food to all flesh: for his mercy endureth for ever.
26 O give thanks unto the God of heaven: for his mercy endureth for ever.
No one could rightly say that the phrase "His mercy endures forever" is redundant in that passage.
But when talking about a will, there is no situation where "free" is needed to provide emphasis, EXCEPT in the context of trying to say that there is such a thing as a non-free will.
This is what I've been trying to say.
By using "free will" rather than will, it implies through it's use of "free" that there is such a thing as a "non-free" will.
Just like saying "I have a full-time job" implies that there exists part-time jobs, in the same way "free" carries specific descriptive information, distinguishing it from the unmarked or default term (will, which is free by definition).
It's called "markedness." By highlighting a specific aspect of a word, you inherently contrast it with the "unmarked" word.
Consider what I said above:
"But when talking about a will, there is no situation where "free" is needed to provide emphasis, EXCEPT in the context of trying to say that there is such a thing as a non-free will."
If I were to have added "human" to that sentence, so that it read, "But when talking about a
human will," it would have specified only one kind of will, and would have inherently implied that there are wills that are not human (and there are), but since that would
markedly limit the scope of what I say to only human wills, when what I say applies to ALL wills, both human and non-human, I chose not to include the word human.
The same principle applies to "free will."
Since there is no such thing as a will that is not free, saying "free will" inherently implies that something other than a free will exists, which by definition of the word "will" cannot be true, thus putting "free" in front of will is superfluous, redundant, unnecessary. Wills are free by definition, and that is all the emphasis that is needed. Adding more emphasis changes the meaning.
I asked you to provide an example of a "non-free will," for a two-fold reason: one, because it would provide an external reference point from which to test my assertion that there is no such thing as a non-free will in order to avoid confirmation bias, and two, assuming you could not, to show you that your position is untenable, meaning, not able to be maintained or defended against attack or objection.
The fact that you have not provided, and continue to not provide, an example of a non-free will only further supports my position, and will continue to do so the longer you refuse, or until you concede the point, at which point my position will have been established, and at which point you should, if you're intellectually honest, discard your position as untenable.