Category: Free Will

Introduction

Free will has been a controversial concept for many centuries, as there is no way to prove or disprove its existence. However, different philosophical approaches at different times sought to comprehend the essence of the phenomenon and explain its origin. Determinism and libertarianism represent two opposing beliefs about a person and the reasons for his actions. Baron dHolbach argued that freedom is an illusion and the will of man comes from the brain, which dictates only predetermined impulses. Jean-Paul Sartre, on the contrary, described freedom as a unique feature of human beings who are condemned to constant choice.

Baron dHolbach and Determinism

Determinism is philosophical teaching about the lawful universal interconnection and interdependence of the phenomena of objective reality. Determinism, as a term and generalizing concept, serves to designate a class of philosophical concepts that assert or recognize the conditionality and determinability of all existing phenomena of the observed world. It includes a man with his inner, subjective, spiritual world, and some primary, substantial reality (for example, By God  theological determinism, by nature  naturalistic determinism, or by the cosmos  cosmological determinism, and others). However, more often, with the concept of determinism, the philosophical doctrine of the natural causality of all phenomena of the objective world of their universal, natural relationship and interdependence is associated. For the most part, these ideas relate to the world of science and rationale.

Regarding human beings, the central idea of the philosophy of determinism is the inability of a person to avoid fate. Thus, the adherents of the concept assume that every action in the present is defined by the action in the past. Determinism argues that given the complete physical state of the world at any point in time, only one future sequence of events is physically possible (List 88). Thus, everything in the world is governed by cause and effect, which are predetermined in advance and cannot be changed. Free will implies that there is an alternative for the agent when choosing an action. In other words, a person must make a choice in favor of one or another effect for the same cause. However, determinism argues that no such alternative exists for the agent. For any situation, there is only one possible course of action, which is predetermined by past events. Therefore, determinism and free will are incompatible since this philosophy in principle denies the existence of the possibility of choice.

Baron DHolbach was a materialist and naturalist, focusing on the study of the physical objective world. Thus, he believed that a person cannot even for a moment avoid control of nature. Humans and their actions are determined by explicit or concealed causes over which they have no power (Pettit 00:01:24). DHolbach argued that a person is not free since all his or her desires are dictated by nature. He explains that man is necessarily conditioned by the impressions he receives from the external world, by the ideas which come into being within his brain (as cited in Vauléon 113). Moreover, the philosopher notices that people think that they are free, which is a delusion. Any of their actions are predetermined by external causes, but their consciousness presents it as free will.

According to the ideas of determinism and DHolbach, there is only one version of an event in the past. However, a person is inclined to imagine alternatives that, nevertheless, did not occur. Accordingly, people think about the future, idealizing many possible ways. However, DHolbach believes that this is not correct since the future, like the past, has only one predetermined path of development. Thus, the philosopher claims that the will is merely a modification of the brain, and a brain is just a physical object (Pettit 00:04:20). As with any other physical object, the human brain obeys the laws of nature. Thus, any desire which prompts action is external and predetermined. DHolbach also emphasizes that a person is guided exclusively by pleasure or survival, which determines his motivation. Thus, humans have no choice but are under the control of either natural or social circumstances.

Jean-Paul Sartre and Libertarianism

Libertarianism takes a completely opposite position to determinism regarding the consideration of free will. The philosophical theory assumes that free will requires alternative possibilities, and that the world actually offers such alternative possibilities: we do indeed have the genuine choice (List 17). Thus, libertarianism argues that determinism cannot be considered at the same time as the idea of free will. Followers of the direction see the concept as the ability to act or not to act according to the will. They believe that people are actually choosing from the many options which exist in any situation. A person is neither compelled to act nor do it randomly, which together constitutes his free will. However, people also bear moral responsibility for all decisions made, which form their moral character.

In contrast to determinists, libertarians argue that the future is not predetermined and is created at the moment a person commits an act. The strongest evidence for the existence of free will is an inner sense of freedom. Libertarians argue that by rejecting this assumption, a person excludes any evidence which comes from experience, including determinism. The theory considers a person as a combination of two factors: personality and moral character. The first is formed under the influence of external factors such as upbringing, environment, and circumstances of life. However, the moral self is different, as it plays a key role in decision-making. This part has a will independent of the circumstances, which leads to unexpected behavior of a person, which may contradict his or her upbringing. Thus, the individual obeys the rules of pleasure and survival, but the moral character can resist them on the basis of moral responsibility. Thus, libertarianism argues that human free will is the ability to resist natural factors and make choices.

Jean-Paul Sartre is a French existentialist philosopher who denied the existence of God, and therefore predestination. The philosopher formulated a statement that later began to express the essence of the whole existentialist theory, appearing as existence precedes essence (Gosetti-Ferencei 51). He denied the possibility of the existence of a definite goal prepared for a person by factors beyond his control. The main differences between man, and the philosopher, represented self-consciousness and the absence of a specific goal. Created objects have a certain purpose, while a person is born without it, and only in the course of life does he or she acquire it. The only thing which, according to Sartre, people cannot change or choose is the right to freedom. They are initially born free and constantly shape the future with their actions.

Existentialism, in this case, is an extension of libertarianism, since Sartre explains that a person is not only condemned to freedom but also bears involuntary responsibility throughout life. The philosopher does not deny that people do not choose the conditions of their birth and upbringing. However, once they are aware of themselves, they are fated to make choices all the time, which determine the essence. Existence is a fact, while essence develops over time, consisting of the actions which give meaning to life. Thus, Sartre asserts that there is no God who could bestow a specific purpose, and the responsibility for everything lies only on the shoulders of a man.

The philosopher is preoccupied with the infinite amount of choice which is available to man. He believes that such primordial freedom is confusing and causes anxiety. Sartre argues that people can lead any life and become what they want to be since they have no restrictions. However, each act reveals not only the essence but also what a person should be. Such responsibility is a burden on people and makes them feel fear and anxiety. As libertarianism, existentialism discusses the morality of certain human actions. Sartre believes that any choice must be made in accordance with the essence. Thus, a person must constantly maintain his self-awareness and independence, not imitate objects, and not objectify others.

Despite the fact that Sartre considered freedom as a burden, he also condemned life without striving for it. He denied the virtue of people who accept everything that happens and do not study alternatives. Thus, by not using all the possibilities presented, the person is guilty of restricting freedom, consequently denying the essence and nature of man as a free being self-conscious creature. Thus, the philosopher believes that all is given to people in existence and freedom. They can use these components to create their essence and fill it with meaning through choice and action.

The Position Chosen

It is difficult to abandon one or another approach since it is basically impossible to prove the incorrectness of the views presented. However, the determinism approach makes one think about what, in principle, cannot be grasped. As Baron dHolbach argued, the brain is a biological product, and therefore the creation of nature. Probably, the desire of a person to realize himself as a free being is a necessity and an illusion that was created for people. In this case, any doubt about the predetermination of what is happening is defined in advance, which makes any action or thought meaningless. In my opinion, this approach does not correlate with the essence of philosophy. This science triumphs human thought and the desire to know the world through ones own self. Thus, determinism is more suitable for natural sciences since it implies observation exclusively.

As Sartre reasoned, the choice fills the human being with meaning and gives it essence. The approach of libertarianism and existentialism seems to be the most correct, precisely from a humanistic and philosophical perspective. Philosophy puts a person at the center of the study, and not uncontrolled processes occurring around him or her. If determinism considers people as part of a natural mechanism, libertarianism presents them as separate independent entities. Thus, the acceptance of free will as an innate right of human beings seems to be the most correct.

Conclusion

Determinism and libertarianism are two opposing persuasions that explain the causes of human actions. On the one hand, the future is predetermined, and any choice is an illusion. On the other hand, only the fact of existence is defined in advance for people, while all actions shape their future. In any case, a person is not yet able to comprehend the truths regarding such complex matters. However, the ideas of libertarianism seem to be more humanistic, while determinism is more applicable to the natural sciences.

References

Baron dHolbach on Hard Determinism: There is no Free Will. YouTube, uploaded by Gordon Pettit, 2020. Web.

Gosetti-Ferencei, Jennifer. On Being and Becoming: An Existentialist Approach to Life. Oxford University Press, 2020.

List, Christian. Why Free Will Is Real. Harvard University Press, 2019.

Vauléon, Florian. Reading Jean-Jacques Rousseau through the Prism of Chess. University of Michigan Press, 2019.

People use their free will to make decisions every day: what to eat for breakfast, when to leave home, how much time to spend on social media, and many others. The choice is often quick and subconscious; the current pace of living simply does not leave much time to analyze the causes and consequences of a chosen course. However, sometimes, people put significant effort into decision making and, in a way, determine their future. Numerous factors, such as environment, upbringing, and social connections, affect human choices, but they do not take away the responsibility for the consequences of individual actions.

Free Will Theories

It is challenging to work with a broad and wage idea of a free will, although philosophers worldwide have touched on it. As Lavazza (2019) points out, there is no universally accepted definition of it. Thus, any discussion about the existence of human free will is more about the points of view than an absolute truth. Some philosophers state that peoples behavior is predetermined by their circumstances and cannot be changed instantly at the moment of decision making. This view assumes that humans are not responsible for their actions, as they cannot affect the result. Subsequently, people would think less about those potentially affected by them by separating themselves from the consequences of their actions.

Others consider human desires to follow a specific path of action to be the main propelling force behind the events. In this case, people carry either partial or full responsibility for their actions (List et al., 2020). Robert M. Chisholm, a libertarian philosopher, does not deny the effect of circumstances on peoples decisions, but separates them from individuals reaction, leaving some responsibility in place (McKenna & Pereboom, 2016). While philosophers did not come to a single conclusion about the free will, they have presented several possibilities on this subject to be studied and discussed further.

Roderick Chisholm on Free Will

Chisholm supports the combined influence of the world and the persons free will on the individuals choice-making but states that people are responsible for their reactions and decisions as mindful and social beings. He wrote that, in some cases, in doing what we do, we cause certain events to happen and nothing  no one  causes us to cause those things to happen (McKenna & Pereboom, 2016, p. 62). Chisholms views take into account more factors than opposing theories, as he divides the responsibility for the events taking place.

Most decision-making occurs in a complex environment: past and present experiences, a particular atmosphere, and timing. Moreover, a persons moral upbringing and intelligence play a part in their choices. While humans cannot control major physical and social forces, they can choose how to behave about them, and this reaction is their responsibility (List et al., 2020). This approach analyses more factors than supporting solely free will or determinism.

The Opponents of Chisholms Theory

Pereboom and Caruso do not support Chisholms theory about free will. According to them, free will is an illusion, but this does not affect our lives (Lavazza, 2019, p. 1). In other words, all peoples actions and decisions are based on biological and physical circumstances, and the feeling of control in the human mind is just a trick played by the brain. In addition, since human natural and social responses are usually directed at the safety of an individual and societys prosperity, there is no actual need for free will.

Not all philosophers connect or even correlate the free will with responsibility and morals. Sometimes people act out of fear or greed, without having any greater good in mind. Peter van Inwagen defines free will as the ability to do otherwise, not necessarily facing the immoral behaviors consequences afterward (as cited in McKenna & Pereboom, 2016, p. 154). This goes back to the problem of defining the free will for the discussion purposes.

Chisholms Theory: Response to Criticism

It would not be proper to consider all the factors that affect human decision making to have the same influence. For example, solar activity is impossible for people to control, political movements require significant social power, and ones irritation while commuting to school can be easily controlled by inner discipline. Yet, all of them may have an effect on ones behavior. Chisholm divides the factors into two groups: the ones people can control and the ones they cannot. The former ones can be considered deterministic, as they are nearly impossible to avoid. The latter ones, including non-reflexive human reactions, can be controlled; thus, people should be responsible for them. The world in which individuals would not affect anything cannot exist (McKenna & Pereboom, 2016). Moreover, strict determinism would prevent society from developing, as people would have no motivation to change the world around them for the better.

Chisholm argues against free will being merely an opportunity to choose an alternative action under certain circumstances. As human beings and society members, people would exercise free will through moral dilemmas and face the consequences afterward. He also uses examples of people being confused or misled in making their decisions to show how simplifying the free will to physical actions does not reflect its substance (McKenna & Pereboom, 2016). Humans are responsible for their ways of reacting to particular situations and problems.

The Essence of the Free Will

The free will has always been a controversial topic, as for people it is hard to separate their personal influence from the biological or psychological reaction. Philosophers have tried to describe the characteristics of this phenomenon. For example, List defines them as having a goal, alternatives, and inner motivation (List et al., 2020). According to these requirements, any unintentional actions cannot be caused by free will. In their turn, McKenna and Pereboom (2016) put moral responsibility forth as an essential factor. In their interpretation, the exercising of free will is a mindful practice with a set goal. While it can be tempting for humans to put all the responsibility onto higher beings (like God) or natural forces, connecting free will to the moral decisions may lead to further development of the society.

Conclusion

Free will is a complex and hard to comprehend phenomenon that humans may never be able to understand completely. Philosophers have been arguing about its definition and meaning for centuries, yet there is still no universal guideline to exercising the free will. Chisholms theory on it seems more thorough than strictly deterministic and non-deterministic ones. It promotes individual moral responsibility for personal decisions without denying the impossibility of controlling some factors. In the end, people can look deeper and broader into the meaning of the free will and choose the definition that reflects their life views better, as no universal guideline exists to this moment.

References

Lavazza, A. (2019). Why cognitive sciences do not prove that free will is an epiphenomenon. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 326. Web.

List, C., Caruso, G., & Clark, C. (2020). Free will: Real or illusion? A debate. The Philosopher, 108(1), 1-20. Web.

McKenna, M., & Pereboom, D. (2016). Free will: A contemporary introduction. Routledge.

Free will could be described as an ability to choose. People have always wanted to be free, and to achieve this; people gave their lives. Modern people are much more fortunate because they have rights. However, there is still no concept of absolute freedom, and a person cannot be free. If people had absolute freedom, without any limits, prohibitions, and moral norms, then the security of the whole society would be in jeopardy. Responsibility limits freedom and allows one to be responsible for the consistency of choice. Moreover, the phenomenon of fate limits the freedom of will, which is considered within the framework of determinism. Thus, free will is an illusion since this phenomenon is limited by fate and moral, administrative, civil, and criminal liability.

Many literary works depict the conflict between determinism and free will. For example, in Sophocles Oedipus Rex, the protagonist does everything to avoid the prophecy of the Delphic oracle. However, the more actions he takes, the faster the prophecy is fulfilled (Sophocles 19). Likewise, no matter how hard Bulstrode tries to hide his past in George Eliots Middlemarch, coincidences reveal his hypocritical deeds. In turn, in The Alchemist, Paulo Coelho depicts the confrontation between fate and free will. King Melchizedek tells Santiago: At a certain point in our lives, we lose control of whats happening to us, and our lives become controlled by fate (Coelho 7). The idea of the work is that a balance is needed between ones own choice and the predestination of fate.

A common theme in Dostoevskys works is human freedom. According to Dostoevsky, human freedom, in order to remain precisely freedom, and not just another kind of necessity, must inevitably include freedom of arbitrariness (Dostoevsky 35). This possibility of arbitrariness is a condition for the moral choice to be not forced but genuinely free. In Crime and Punishment, Rodion Raskolnikov tests the boundaries of his nature. For the supposed good of most people, he decides to kill an old pawnbroker who harms people. Nevertheless, it turns out that not everything is permitted to a person. When a person destroys another person, he ceases to be a person (Dostoevsky 76). When a person exercises will, ignoring the norms of human existence and other peoples interests, including their desire to be free, this is arbitrariness followed by responsibility. Thus, the above literary examples support the idea that free will is limited by responsibility and destiny.

Works Cited

Coelho, Paulo. The Alchemist. Translated by Alan R. Clarke. 1992. Books Library.

Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Crime and Punishment. Translated by Constance Garnett. 2001. The Project Gutenberg eBook.

Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. Notes from the Underground. Translated by Constance Garnett. 1996. The Project Gutenberg eBook.

Sophocles. Oedipus the King. Translated by Ian Johnston. 2004. SLPS.

In philosophy and social sciences, a debate regarding the existence of free will resulted in the creation of a deterministic approach. The classical doctrine of determinism suggests that every event and incident in human life is controlled by laws of nature and mystical powers. Thus, the deterministic views opposed the concepts of freedom and free choice. Some critics of the predetermined existence advocated the freedom of thought. Christian List suggested that humans intrinsic motives should be distinguished from the physical realm and, therefore, not determined by external factors (Menges 3). Thus, the causal determinism of the twentieth century, which was primarily caused by political authority, might be congruent with libertarianism due to the developments in the compatibility theory and Lists account of libertarianism.

The determinism of the twentieth century formed as a result of various processes. The natural desire to analyze and compare all options has inspired humans to create different interpretations of the events in their lives (Willoughby et al. 136). As a result, causal determinism emerged and attempted to describe human existence and all its aspects. According to it, every moment has a particular cause and is governed by universal rules that people are not able to modify. In the twentieth century, E. Fromm proposed the idea that determinism may be connected to the authority and the state (Costello et al. 1). Fromm believed that humans naturally aspire to deny freedom under conditions that endanger their existence or the certainty in their lives. (qtd. in Costello et al. 2). In addition, technological advances allowed people to share their ideas freely and also achieve a more considerable influence. The state and the central parts of authority started using media as an instrument of propaganda. The administration aimed to increase obedience by using informational propaganda. Thus, people became more susceptible to information and the deterministic approach under conditions of constant political pressure. Consequently, the authority and political processes contributed to the increasing dominance of deterministic views.

As opposed to determinism, libertarianism emphasized the possibility of free choices. One of its core concepts was the probability of certain acts having no correlation with incidents, politics, or the state (Pleasants 9). Researchers defined three distinct types of libertarianism to explain its purposes and postulates. First is the non-causal libertarianism, which states that the freedom of actions is not governed by any circumstances (Pleasants 10). The second agent-causal model suggested that the possibility of a free choice is caused directly by the performer of the action (Pleasants 10). Lastly, indeterministic libertarianism describes the process of examining the options under the conditions of an unstable environment (Pleasants 10). To explain the processes of indeterminism, Pleasants stated,

Thus, an action would be indeterministically caused if the following counterfactual holds: were the circumstances leading up to that action to be repeated a number of times with every fact about the actors psychology and external environment remaining the same, sometimes the action would occur as it originally did and sometimes it would not (11).

Libertarianism postulates functioned as an opposition to the deterministic approach and insisted that various parts of human existence are regulations dictated by voluntary decisions.

The contradiction between free will and determinism is most often depicted through a quadripartite model. In this system, the first element is free will which signifies independence of thoughts (Costello et al. 2). The second element, fatalistic determinism, proposes fate as the critical determiner of events in human life (Costello et al. 2). Next, scientific determinism claims that material aspects of life have more significant input (Costello et al. 2). Finally, the concept of unpredictability proposes the chaotic nature of events. It suggests that human life consists of parts that are difficult to predict, and therefore people have to rely on such concepts as luck and chance (Costello et al. 2). The quadripartite model served as a systematic division of the different ideas and emphasized their dissimilarity.

In the process of the debates between determinism and free will, originated a view that attempted to unify both perspectives and denied their incompatibility. The central proposition of compatibilism is a principle that specific actions simultaneously may be caused by the external factors or the agent (Pleasants 11). According to the defenders of the theory, the ideas of incompatibility arise from erroneously idolatrous images of causality (Pleasants 11). The images state that all forms of correlation between acts and external sources are supported by the factors of coercion, pressure, or restriction (Pleasants 11). However, a person may achieve a level of freedom in his actions even under the pressure of the environment. One of the ideas of such freedom is supported by the claim that at least minor choices are situated within the realm of the performer itself. One of such ideas suggested that a person always has a specific range of options at any given moment of time (Menges 2). Contrary to libertarianism and determinism, compatibilists provided arguments supporting the possibility of coexistence of the two opposing theories and attempted to unify them.

One of the supporters of the compatibility of predetermined incidents and free will was C. List. He proposed that the freedom of choice includes the availability of multiple courses of action, while the deterministic approach suggested only one physical option (qtd. in Menges 3). This idea allowed for further integration of the opposing theories because the availability of various choices naturally leads to only one physical action (Menges 3). Another result of such reasoning introduced the fact that human psychological desires may influence the physical realm (Menges 3). If such desires have a certain degree of influence on the environment, it may lead to the idea that some parts of physical determinism are not valid. As an example, human biological thirst causes psychological responses in conciseness and affects an individuals thoughts (Menges 3). This process may also happen in reverse, and instead, thoughts may cause chemical reactions that would initiate physical transformations. Thus, Lists account of liberty contributed to the further investigation and provided a foundation for the potential coexistence of the theories of determinism and libertarianism.

Causal determinism formed as a result of attempts to explain human life in the era of technological advancements. Largely influenced by authority and politics, it was used as a tool to govern societys reasoning and increase obedience. In contrast, libertarianism insists that some aspects of human existence are not controlled by the environment or other external factors. Then, the compatibility theory attempted to unify opposing views and present a unique explanation of the reality of choices. F. Lists ideas promoted the potential unification of the different approaches. Finally, as a result of compatibility theory contributions, the determinism and libertarianism theories may be considered interrelated.

Works Cited

Costello, Thomas H, et al. Escape from Freedom: Authoritarianism-Related Traits, Political Ideology, Personality, and Belief in Free Will/Determinism. Journal of Research in Personality, 2019, pp. 157.

Menges, Leonhard. Free Will, Determinism, and the Right Levels of Description. Philosophical Explorations, vol. 25, no. 1, 2021, pp. 1-18.

Pleasants, Nigel. Free Will, Determinism and the Problem of Structure and Agency in the Social Sciences. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, vol. 49, no. 1, 2019, pp. 3-30.

Willoughby, Emily, et al. Free Will, Determinism, and Intuitive Judgments about the Heritability of Behavior. Behavior Genetics, vol. 49, no. 2, 2019, pp. 136-153.

The problem of free will or the question of determinism is a fundamental problem of human cognition and the nature of ones thoughts. This problem is characterized by a well-known philosophical reflection on whether mans mind generates his being or vice versa, and a great deal depends on it. Whether a persons free will exists or their behavior is dictated by a series of circumstances that can be recreated.

The principle of determinism implies that every event has a cause. On the other hand, human thinking skill is difficult to assess from determinism since thoughts are constantly generated in the human head and make people different. In favor of the idea of determinism, much of the human science evidence correlates human conditions, the process of growing up, and other factors with whom one will become in the future. A curious example is the Scandinavian penitentiary system, in which prisoners fare better than most of the free people on the planet. Nevertheless, Scandinavian countries have relatively low recidivism rates (Lappi-Seppälä, 2018), which may serve as an example to prove that a persons living conditions, and social experiences determine their future behavior.

The philosophical problem of free will lies at the heart of understanding neural network development. Suppose a persons behavior is a direct consequence of something the person has experienced or a consequence of any other cause. In that case, this cause can be recreated, which is what developers of neural networks do. The creation of artificial intelligence challenges the idea of human free will because it shows that human behavior can be recreated. Nevertheless, at the moment, no technology can fully replace humans and their ability to think, but there are already programs capable of creating paintings, music, and books.

Thus, the philosophical question of the existence of free will is constantly being reinterpreted, especially since the advent of neural networks. Several questions remain as to whether a machine with all of the original human data can continue to develop autonomously and whether it can recreate an exact copy of the human mind. The emergence of such technology can have a detrimental effect on the idea of and completely change humanitys view of itself.

Reference

Lappi-Seppälä, T., & Koskenniemi, L. (2018). National and regional instruments in securing the rule of law and human rights in the Nordic prisons. Crime, Law and Social Change, 70(1), 135-159.

Introduction

Libertarians argue that people are, indeed, free. A libertarians views on free will tend to fall into one of two camps: the principle of alternate possibilities (AP) or the principle of ultimate authorship (UA). AP conceptualizes the idea that one would have acted differently. On the other hand, UA hypothesizes that when determining who should be held accountable for an actions consequences, it all depends on the individual (Mumford & Anjum, 2015). This brings about the problem of free will for libertarianism.

Discussion

The problem occurs if the focus is placed only on necessity and possibility. According to proponents of modal dualism, each modality can only take on one of these interpretations (Mumford & Anjum, 2015). Individuals implicit support for modal dualism limits their ability for free choice. This demonstrates that the AP or AU principles can be followed, but not both. In libertarianism, the tension between what is required and what is possible is expressed in the first person, which leads to two problems. For AP, a problem arises when one contends that, assuming his or her actions are required, there would be no alternative way to carry them out (Mumford & Anjum, 2015). Thus, it would appear he or she has very little control over the current circumstances, hence no AP. For UA, when the outcomes of my choices are ultimately determined by external factors, one would seem to have very little say in the matter. Hence, he or she would lack UA.

The article helps solve these two problems. In their discussion, Mumford and Anjum (2015) argue that agents may be libertarian APs and UAs while still adhering to the laws of causation. This position is plausible, as they use the paradigm of causal dispositionalism to show that distinguishing determinism from causality is possible at both the conceptual and ontological levels. However, this depends on an accurate understanding of the dispositional modality within causation. In such an instance, dispositional modality could provide a description of a phenomenon it generates but does not control. Agents would preserve their causal connection while displaying both AP and UA.

Conclusion

Overall, the free will conundrum may be solved if an understanding of causation and agency is expanded to include the dispositional modality. In fact, the causal dispositionalism paradigm would show that determinism and causality can be separated both conceptually and ontologically by having a clear understanding of the dispositional mode of causation.

Reference

Mumford, S., & Anjum, R. (2015). Freedom and control: On the modality of free will. American Philosophical Quarterly, 52(1), 1-11.

John Searle and Rene Descartes on Dualism

Descartes philosophy can be represented as an extreme manifestation of dualism since the philosopher believed that a mind does not have any physical properties and, thus, is related directly to consciousness. Searle, on the other hand, believed that there is a strong biological connection between the functions of a body and those of a mind.

George Berkeley and Thomas Hobbes on the Mind

Berkeley believed that the sensual experiences affected the ideas emerging in ones mind. Hobbes point of view, in its turn, represented an extreme interpretation of dualism as the philosopher assumed that all mental processes are derived from physical motion.

Materialism, Determinism, and Free Will

According to the Determinist interpretation of reality, the world is run by the laws of physics, which define the outcomes of every event. Therefore, being an integral part of the physical world and having the corresponding properties, people are also subject to the influence of these laws. Materialism, on the other hand, states that mind does not have any physical relationship to the body and, therefore, cannot be controlled by it. Hence, the dependence of mind on the physical conditions and environments is doubtful at the very least.

Ume and Milarepa on the Self

According to Hume, even a close observation of ones self, i.e., the identification of the changes that occur to it and the attempts at understanding its essence, does not lead to capturing any tangible results. Instead, only transient emotions and impressions can be identified; therefore, the phenomenon of self cannot leave any evidence. Milarepa, on the other hand, viewed self as a concept that one can be aware of.

Human vs. Computer

The fact that a computer can beat a user at the game of chess does not imply the fact that the computer can think. Instead, the phenomenon in question displays the ability of a computer program to provide programmed responses to particular circumstances and to the change thereof.

Free Will and Gods Plan

On the one hand, the presence of Gods plan denies the possibility of free will existence. On the other hand, the choices that people make in order to follow the track that God has designed for them are made based on peoples own decisions. Therefore, it can be considered that the two phenomena are coexistent.

Paradox of Buridans Donkey and Spinozas Argument

According to the existing interpretation of the paradox of Buridans donkey, the animal, when being both thirsty and hungry, and placed between a stack of hay and a pail of water, will hesitate to make the choice between the two to the point where it will die from water and food deprivation. Spinoza explains the given metaphor of peoples behavior by their inability to make a rational choice when in need for two or more items simultaneously.

Alyosha Karamazov: Personal Freedom

The life choices made by Alyosha Karamazov in Dostoyevskys The Brothers Karamazov can be defined as the ones based on free will due to his acceptance of the environment in which he lives and the ability to make choices within the boundaries of the limitations that the circumstances set. In other words, it is his choice not to rebel against the limitations mentioned above and not to despair, which means that he has the capability of making a choice.

Human Beings Outside Determinism

According to determinists from Dostoyevsky to Sartre, the existence of free will can be proven by the fact that people are able to choose how they feel about a particular phenomenon or a situation. Moreover, one is free to choose whether to be good or evil, which means that free will is a fact.

Anselm and Gaunilo: The Ontological Argument

Anselm claims that the very meaning of God is simple enough for literally everyone to understand it. The simplicity thereof, thus, defines its veracity and proves the existence of God. Gaunilo, in his turn, creates the setting of a perfect island and, therefore, argues that everything can be justified using Anselms argument.

Freud and Nietzsche: Rationality of Religious Belief

Freud claimed that belief in God lacked rational backing to a significant extent and considered religion the refuge of the people who are afraid of death. Nietzsche, while also assuming that religion was irrational due to a complete absence of evidence that could prove the opposite. While Nietzsches point of view is understandable, Freuds approach seems more legitimate due to the connection that he makes to peoples emotional landscape.

Tolstoy and Kierkegaard: Rationality of Religious Belief

Coining the term the leap of faith, Kierkegaard stated that no external events could possibly change one, and that the change process could only be started by an individual. Therefore, he denied the rationality of religious belief; Tolstoy supported him in this respect.

Pascals Wager

According to Pascals argument, it is more reasonable to behave in accordance with what God stated as acceptable as acting otherwise will lead one to eternal punishment; in other words, the negative outcome outweighs the pleasure of making ones own choices. However, based on profit, the specified speculation is unlikely to help one get to Heaven.

William Paleys Version of the Design Argument

Paleys argument refers to the function that every single element of reality has. The specified phenomenon proves the existence of God in Paleys opinion.

Problem of Evil

The problem of evil concerns the inconsistency of the idea that omnipotent God allows the existence of evil. From the theological perspective, however, the existence of evil can be justified as the premise for developing free will in people (i.e., providing them with a chance to make a conscious choice between good and evil).

The play Oedipus by Sophocles is a Greek disaster, which investigates the difference of destiny. The play spins around Oedipus, a man who in the end winds up lowered by his destruction. Emotional, verbal, and situational incongruity can be noted in Oedipus Rex. Dramatic inconsistency is a major piece of the play as the characterizing component and trademark which enables the group of spectators to comprehend the fundamental character and makes a feeling of dread since Oedipus’ catastrophe could turn into their own. Verbal incongruity happens when a character discusses a circumstance or individual where the person in question accepts its reality anyway and the crowd realizes that they are most certainly not. Sophocles uses hinting to make a verbal difference. Situational incongruity includes a circumstance where activities affect what is planned. Situational incongruity was the foundation of the play since it made up the biggest clash of the whole play. These three components together help the pursuer investigate the incongruity in Oedipus.

Sensational incongruity happens first in the story when Oedipus unconsciously slaughters his dad, King Laius. Oedipus grew up accepting that his actual dad was, ‘Polybus of Corinth’. After hearing the prescience for his life, Oedipus leaves Corinth to keep himself from slaughtering his father. During his voyage, Oedipus meets King Laius and murders him. The incongruity is discovered when Oedipus moves toward becoming a ruler and embarks to discover the King’s killer. While during the time spent discovering King Laius’ killer, Oedipus discovers that he killed King Laius and that he ought to have searched for himself the entire time.

Notwithstanding the sensational incongruity, Sophocles utilizes verbal incongruity a few times all through the play, including when Oedipus converses with the individuals of Thebes. Sophocles discusses how the open has fallen and about the enemy of King Laius. Oedipus says that he realizes that the individuals are experiencing numerous things and he likewise says that they are sick. The incongruity is discovered when the pursuer realizes that Oedipus is extremely the ‘wiped out’ one. This carried light on the relationship between Oedipus and his mom and how they didn’t realize that they were truly related. The pursuer realizes that Oedipus exists as the wiped out one since he murdered his very own dad, particularly when Oedipus says, ‘Cursed is the blood he shed with his very own hand!’ and laying down with his natural mother.

The events in the story Oedipus the King, that is written by Sophocles tells us about a hidden relationship of a man’s free will occurring within the infinite order or fate that the Greeks believe will lead the world in a uniformed purpose. The man was free to choose and was mostly believed to be in control of their actions. Fate and free will describe a lot about Oedipus the King because of all of the choices made by everyone. Majority of the people in the world use fate and free will as the two things to help them make choices. “To state that the fact that God knows in advance what human beings will do in some circumstances does not impinge on human freedom”(Florio). Free will is when you get to choose everything in your life and how it is going to be. “To state that human beings are able to change God’s past beliefs” (Florio). Some people feel they are responsible for their own actions in their life. One of the most disputed themes of the story Oedipus Rex is free will. This profound particular strand runs alongside the other ideas, but always influence them. Whether a man is considered to be the master of his own fate and his own fortune is still an uncertain question. Sophocles has placed Oedipus in an unsure position where his fate lies in his hands and where he has free will to escape any situation that should rise against him. Oedipus has both personality and opportunities which could have saved him even though the prediction of the oracle. Therefore, the question of free will stands out large in Oedipus Rex.

In a religious sense, fate is forced upon a person. If a person has the fate to do something it means the course of action has already been determined by divine forces for him. However, it leaves a controversial question of whether an individual has the freedom to act, or not, though from the first part of the play, it seems that Oedipus has full freedom to take action. Jocasta too tries to take control of her fate to prove the oracle. However, when the truth is revealed during the plague, Oedipus accepts his fate saying, “Apollo told me once – it is my fate.”

Both the concept of fate and free will played an integral part in Oedipus’ destruction. Although he was a victim of fate, he was not controlled by it. Oedipus was destined from birth to someday marry his mother and to murder his father. This prophecy, as warned by the oracle of Apollo at Delphi was unconditional and inevitably would come to pass, no matter what he may have done to avoid it. His past actions were determined by fate, but what he did in Thebes, he did so of his own will.

Some people believe in fate and free will. These are the people who don’t know if our life depends on fate or free will or even both. People usually do whatever guides them in life. They don’t know if that is God, fate, or free will that is guiding them in life.

Fate and Freewill all started in Oedipus the King when Oedipus’ parents decided to abandon their son. “An oracle came to Laius… that it was fate that he should die a victim at the hands of his own son” (773-786 Sophocles). This is the reason his father abandon Oedipus so the oracle wouldn’t be fulfilled. This is an example of free will because King Laius decides to try and change the future. If King Laius decides to keep Oedipus he would be waiting for destiny to take over. That will be more of fate because King Laius would be waiting on fate to see if it happens or not. Once Jocasta puts all of the pieces together she notices that Oedipus fulfills his fate. Her free will didn’t want Oedipus to find out who he truly was. She also hung herself after everything that went down. Fate never said anything about Jocasta hanging herself but she couldn’t live with what she had down. What this shows is certain things in life you can get around.

Overall fate and free will is the decision on whoever chooses. Your destiny depends on you and how you choose it. Life will throw you obstacles but you decided how you are going to get around them. Yes, everyone will have their different beliefs in the world but that is how everything goes. Sometimes things are going to happen in your life that you cannot control. You can try everything you can to get around it but it will still happen.

The themes of the book include statesmanship and warcraft, goodwill and hatred, free will, virtue, and human nature. Regarding statesmanship and warcraft, Machiavelli relies on the fact that good laws act in accordance with a good military. A famous quote from The Prince where Machiavelli states “the presence of sound military forces indicates the presence of sound laws”. He portrays his understanding of war as a necessity in the development of states.

A big chunk of the book is dedicated to explaining how to conduct a good war. Regarding the theme of goodwill and hatred, Machiavelli depicts that a prince must avoid being hated by his people if he wants to remain in power. It is explained that it is more of an advantage for a prince to be feared instead of loved, but being hated can lead to a prince’s destruction. Machiavelli states that a prince should not be worried about being hated only when he is entirely certain that the people who hate him will not be able to rise against him. Conclusively, acquiring the goodwill of the people does not have much to do with a prince wanting to keep the people happy. Instead, goodwill is a strategy used to protect the security of the prince’s reign. Relating to the theme of free will, Machiavelli uses the words “prowess” and “fortune” many times throughout the book in order to define two specific ways that a prince can gain power. He defines prowess as an individual’s talents, and fortune as chance or luck. A chunk of his goal in this book is to determine the amount of a prince’s success or failure that is a result of his own free will and how much is actually caused naturally. Machiavelli is very certain that human beings are able to have some control over their destinies, but he seems equally as confident that humans don’t have full control over events. In The Prince, Machiavelli defines virtues as qualities that are admired by others. Virtues could include generosity, compassion, and devotion. The last theme of The Prince is human nature. Machiavelli claims that several traits are built-in in human nature. He states that most people are generally content with the status quo and only a few desire an increased status.

Machiavelli repeatedly accused others of failing to conquer Italy. He talked a lot about how other people were trying to conquer Italy the wrong way and he recognized the perfect, appropriate, exact way to do so. Machiavelli was a very intelligent man and he displays his intelligence many times throughout the book, The Prince. In the last chapter Machiavelli claims that “fortune now prefers the introduction of a new order in Italy, introducing the formation of new legal and military institutions. He claims that “Italy’s present ruin has prompted its people to reclaim the worth of an Italian spirit.’ Machiavelli also argues that the masses want and need change, leading to the birth of a new Italian state. This priority of the people’s wishes indicates the modern power of the masses. Machiavelli strongly encourages Lorenzo to return Italy to its greatness of the past and he really tries to persuade him to do so through the reunification of Italy. He encourages Lorenzo to use goodwill and military arms to reshape Italy and make it great again. He lays out the historical context of Italy and explains the past failures of rulers concludes that he believes Lorenzo is the only one who can bring back Italy’s pride and glory.

His dedication is a letter to Lorenzo de’ Medici, the nephew of Giovanni de’ Medici. Machiavelli desired to return to the good graces of the Medici family. Lorenzo became the duke of Urbino. The dedication gave me, as the reader, an idea of Machiavelli’s intended audience. The Prince is originally aimed to offer recommendation, educate, and influence the minds of rulers. This book was originally intended to be a key or manual for aspiring princes. It was essentially a “how-to” guide to become a prince, or win and keep power. This book was intended to help Lorenzo de’ Medici achieve eminence as a prince. Machiavelli wanted to persuade Lorenzo that he was a friend with experience in politics and knowledge of the ancients. Overall, Machiavelli’s goal was to provide Lorenzo with advice that was useful, efficient, and easy to understand. He concludes at the end of the book that he strongly believes that only Lorenzo is capable of bringing back the pride and glory of Italy. I think the main reason he dedicated the book to Lorenzo was to get back into good graces with the Medici family because the Medici family were some of the most powerful people in Florence. I think Machiavelli wrote this book dedicated to Lorenzo in hopes that his kind advice would pity his unfortunate position, which he describes in the very last paragraph of the book.

Machiavelli refers to several traits that all humans possess. He claims that people are commonly self-centered, while they can either gain or lose fondness of other people too. He says that people will continue to be satisfied and happy as long as they refrain or stay away from things that cause hurt, misery, or hardship. People can be honorable during times that are promising or successful, but they can just as easily turn selfish during times of hardship. Like I mentioned above in the themes, Machiavelli states that people admire generosity, compassion, and devotion in others, but they often do not have these virtues themselves. He makes it very clear that loyalty can be won and lost, and goodwill is never certain. While a lot of Machiavelli’s opinions and beliefs seem legitimate, most of his opinions are just assumptions that he does not provide any evidence for, therefore they can easily be argued. It is possible to argue that Machiavelli’s political theory has too much confidence in his definition of human nature. Overall, most of Machiavelli’s claims in The Prince are merely his own opinions that could easily be argued by scholars.

In the entirety of both Medea and Oedipus the existence of Gods are shown as dominant throughout. In Modern time, Theorists and dramatists are turning the pages every day to find answers to the questions at hand, are the characters of these plays in control of their own destiny? Or is their fate already inevitable? Ancient Greek people believed that Gods set the destinies for some people as its what they were born to do and there is a level of which people can take charge of small choices in their lives. ‘The belief in free will’ author describes “free will in contrast to determinism, which holds that one’s behavior is the causal consequence of preceding events, such that (s)he could not have acted otherwise..” This suggests that basing one’s life choices on free will is just a theory where you are taking responsibility of your own actions. This links well to Oedipus as every action he makes creates a domino effect to the next. Euripides made a clear point to his audience that the Gods will always have the upper hand in guiding Medea and commanding her what what to do as she followed. This power of the Gods is also shown in Oedipus the King as the prophecy was a main part of the play as it is created before his is born which makes it seem like he has no choice whether it will be fulfilled as he is abandoned as a child and rescued to be brought up to be a Price in Corinth, then goes back to Thebes after hearing his prophecy where he kills his father and sleeps with his mother. This shows he can’t even escape his fate, even when he does have a choice.

It may seem that Oedipus has a choice throughout the story based on his actions. Being able to control your fate is important to any person because everyone has a destiny in the eyes of Sophocles in ancient Greek theatre, as he has faith in the fact that fate has a large impact over the life of a man’s control. In ‘Oedipus the King’ Oedipus kills his Father and marries his mother, which lead to him becoming King of Thebes. However, the ancient Greeks all believed in Gods having power of the prophecies and could see the future of certain individuals. This suggests that the prophecy that was set out for Oedipus would heavily influence him. This controls his fate that he is destined for. This shows at the point of “peripeteia” as he has discovered that he killed his own father. He says, “I stand revealed at last-cursed in my birth, cursed in marriage, cursed in the lives I cut down with these hands”. This shows that his destiny began before he was born so he had no control. Some may argue that he had control as he decided that he’d leave Corinth and defeat the sphinx that was terrorising the city of Thebes while it was kingless. However this simply because he was set out to be the noble man that the audience can look up to. Sophocles’ wanted him to be this character which reflects on Aristotle’s poetry to create this Greek tragedy. Throughout the story Sophocles expresses the “hamartia” of the protagonists character as his tragic flaws; which in this case are Oedipus being too proud to listen to other people, such as Jacosta telling him to give up on finding Lauis’ killer. This also motivates his inability to control his fate.

Medea’s choices throughout her life may seem as if she has full control over her decisions that she makes by using her sorcery powers and intelligence to get where she wants to be with Jason, such as helping him aquire the Golden fleece, then fleeing from her family and murdering her brother during their escape to Lolcus; Jason’s home. Soon after Medea receives the news that her husband has left her for another princess, she questions, (p6) “Was it for this I turned back on my country, my father, my own brother cuts to bits – for this?” This suggests that Medea wasn’t aware of the consequences of her actions that she did for Jason, which shows that there was a higher power that led her to do these evil and conniving acts. Helen P. Foley explains that in ancient greece “Women are and how they should act, and has a repertoire of clichés to draw on in describing them. As a category, women are a ‘tribe’ apparently less differentiated as individuals than men; paradoxically, they are both more embedded in the social system and marginal to its central institutions. Ideally, their speech and action should be severely limited, since they are by nature incapable of full social maturity and independence.” Furthermore, it was the Gods that gave her these powers, which she will obviously use to rebel as woman during this era were deeply opressed as they had no free will for themselves. This made it easy for Euripides to show an Ancient Greek audience what can happen when you give a woman power to do what she wants.

In Sophocles’ Oedipus the King the theme of free will is scattered throughout the play, which is also based on certain flaws of Oedipus’ character. When he finds out that the Laius has been murdered, then by his own choice he decides to search for the killer himself in order to be noble and respected. This later shows that his ignorance plays a big part in securing his own fate. Mariana Penha Ferreira states that for “moralist scholars the general agreement is that the gods are just to punish the hero for some sort of crime”. This suggests that whatever choice Oedipus makes he will still suffer consequences from the Gods. Oedipus then goes on his journey and requests the presence of a blind prophet; Tiresias, so he can question his on Lauis’ death. He then goes on to tell Oedipus “Hear then: this man whom thou hast sought to arrest With threats and warrants this long while, the wretch who murdered Laius that man is here. He passes for an alien in the land but soon shall prove a Theban, native born.” This shows Tiresias’ belief in the prophecy in which Oedipus is the killer of Laius’ to warn him not to continue his search but he ignores this advice, and goes on thinking this is him taking on his own free will, however it’s just the lead to his prophecy coming true. He later figures out that he is actually guilty for the crime from inquiring himself from his own thoughts.

There are many parts in the play that present Medea as a follower to the Gods and to be controlled by their power. This is clearly shown in the killing of her children, as the female chorus are trying to convince her not to when they know they can’t stop her. This leads to Medea having existential thoughts about her sons lives, then the chorus soon after they agree with her for them to be murdered as they have no purpose. Medea states “Overreach yourself, you’ll suffer. The Gods look down and take their toll”.(p5) This suggests that she hasn’t made any decision in her plans and the Gods are the reason that she is reaching her fate. This was also far before she finalised her plotting, which meant she could’ve easily listened to the chorus’ advice and turned back.

The treatment in free will is also present in other characters of Oedipus the King as Oedipus’ biological parents, Laius and Jocasta become involved in the prophecy at the beginning of the play. When they hear of the curse that has been placed on their family by the Gods, they decide to abandon their son and send him away from their own choice. Jocasta explains, “As for the child, it was but three days old, When Laius, it’s ankles pierced and pinned together, gave it to be cast away

by others on the trackless mountain side.” This suggests that Oedipus’ parents tried to divert the prophecy by sending him away from them so he can’t grow up to kill Laius. However, this later fails as a shepherd saves him as a baby, which lead him on to his destiny to follow the prophecy from the oracle.

At the beginning of Euripides’ Medea, it can also be suggested that Medea did have her own free will, which is presented to the audience by the Nurse as she believes that Medea has made her own decisions and is not completely controlled by the support or will of the Gods. When Medea is mourning about her husband abandoning her and is plotting against him, the Nurse states “You hear? She cries to justice. Who is not called in vain, and Zeus who seals all promises. She’ll do such things. What her anger brews will have no easy antidote.” (p6) At this point the chorus thinks that these are only her making the point that’ll she’ll have her revenge, not that her plans are set in stone, as they believe the Gods have just put these thoughts in her head as they explain “she calls on Gods – on Zeus, on justice who brought her to Greece.”(p7) This further suggests that the Gods have lead Medea here so speaking for their help would not make her situation any more improved. However, her plots to murder Creon and Glauke were made by her own choice, as she knows what she needs to do to get revenge on Jason for leaving her and doesn’t seem to care about what the Gods will’s are.

Throughout both plays, Medea and Oedipus the King the treatment of fate is stands out more than free will as Sophocles wanted to alert the Greek audience about the power of Gods and the faith people should have in them. Whilst, Euripides tried to inform the people on what can happen if certain individuals are given a high amount of power and have their own free will with the abilities that come with this power. Even though fate is presented more thoroughly in the two plays, free will can be seen in the background of choices some characters make, which create their flaws so the audience doesn’t completely pin it on the Gods for the endings of the plays.