Category: Free Will

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.

Introduction: The Enduring Debate of Free Will vs. Determinism

The history of philosophy has been dominated by competing arguments around the ideas of Free Will and Determinism. Simply stated, the issue hangs on whether human beings should be thought of as fundamentally free to choose their actions and mould their lives – or whether they should be deemed as being at heart determined by forces beyond their control, be they fate, biology, politics or class. It seems obvious for most of us that we have free will. If we decide to do something and we do that, we could have easily chosen to do something else. Yet, many philosophers believe that this instinct is wrong. One of the major fundamental questions in psychological science and philosophy concerns the presence or absence of free will in the universe, or in any physical system. Are our choices in consciousness really just an illusion or it’s what we really want? Do we really have the ability to control our will or it’s just we do not have any other choices? These questions remains highly controversial and are one of the most famous and major debates in psychology and philosophy and are still arguable. A lot of studies have been conducted to understand this trait. The significance of findings, their meanings, and what conclusions may be drawn from them is a matter of intense debate and will have remarkable implications for understanding the concept of human behavior. Free will is the ability to make a conscious choices at any moment of life, without the interference of any external factors or constraints. When we introduce free will, neuroscience always comes with it in which the topics related to volition and agencies are conduced and analyzed. If free will is really just an illusion fabricated by our brain function and other factors, then things can really turn out to be a way more different than we can ever think of. Supposing, we are not accountable for our own actions but the neurons hitting our brain are, how the jury proceedings or criminal law of a nation can really held a person accountable for something he is not responsible for? With entanglements such as that, the significance of settling this debate is clear. Many researchers and philosophers have already attempted to justify their experiments and have come up with some intellectually satisfying outcomes. In this paper, you will find out some intellectual evidences to understand the human nature concepts and some other external factors responsible for the way we think and how we think. Free will is always influenced by various parameters such as social; factors, our upbringing and the environment we grew up in, which demonstrates that a person can never have his own free will to full extent.

The Illusion of Free Will: Neuroscientific Perspectives

An article in the journal “It’s OK if ‘my brain made me do it’: People’s intuitions about free will and neuro-scientific prediction” explores understanding of the human behavior by making neuro-predictions about the decisions through altering the manipulation levels. According to Nahmias, Shepard, Reuter, neuro-predictions are not the threat to free will as long as it’s not been manipulated by other factors (pg1, 2014). In order to support the argument, an experiment at Georgia State University have been conducted in which two-hundred seventy-eight undergraduates volunteered (Nahmias, Shepard, Reuter, pg3, 2014). A pair of scenarios were created and the ability for perfect prediction by neuroscientist’s was held constant. However, the threat of manipulation was varied in each scenario. A student named Jill volunteered and agreed to wear a Brain scanning cap for a month. Scientist predicted Jill’s decisions even about the voting selection for Governor as well as President based on the data provided by Brain scanner (Nahmias, Shepard, Reuter, pg2, 2014). Other participants were asked to answer a three part questionnaire for each scenario. Nahmias, Shepard and Reuter also specifies that the first block was based on Jill’s Free will and his accountability, followed by the second part that had statements about Jill’s Free will in general and third section includes questions of second part but with the manipulation of existence of technology (pg3, 2014). Later, the results evaluated relatively small difference between the actions that could not be manipulated and that could have been altered but left unchanged. Free will attributes were recorded to reach its peak in the absence of manipulation. However, with escalation in manipulation level, the attributes of Free will started declining while lighting up different approaches responsible to influence human behavior.

External Influences on Behavior: Beyond Individual Control

There are some other factors that possess much control to alter the ways we behave. The circumstances in which an event is occurring can have a huge impact on volitional control (Belopolsky, Awh, pg1, 2015). A lot of studies have been conducted in the past by various researchers to demonstrate this trait. A study similar to the experiment conducted by Theeuwes and Van der Burg (2007), but with some new conditions including the distracting color strength controller in color singleton was introduced to the participants. Participants were given a target colored word cue and the study was divides into two parts – one had homogenously grouped target color distractors while other had different colored arrays (Belopolsky, Awh, pg2, 2015). After several trails, it was found that people choices were affected by the context in which the experiment is conducted (Belopolsky, Awh, pg10, 2015). Some other scholars also have a similar perception about other features affecting our behavior.

The Role of Genetics and Environment in Shaping Free Will

The type of behavior in which we will participate hugely depends upon the genetic factors as well as our surroundings. Human genetic origins alter the behavior attributes of a person, such as- it is much more difficult for a person to speak publicly who is genetically susceptible to shyness than a person without those genes (Brock, Buchanan, pg8, 1999). Sometime, people lose their faith in their ability to overcome their introvert or aggressive behavior adapted due to genetics rather than to acknowledge that it was meant to be a way more difficult for them as compared to others (Brock, Buchanan, pg8, 1999). The concept of the effects of genetics on our mind and actions should not be resembled with the attributes of accountability as human moral responsibilities cannot be mistaken for the sake of genes or environment (Brock, Buchanan, pg17, 1999). External pressures such as social constraints have also been believed to diminish the complete presence of volition in our decisions.

The Unpredictability of Human Actions and the Myth of Free Will

Human actions are non-predictable in reality, one cannot completely rely on the previous data to predict the future. According to Alquist, Ainsworth and Baumeister, people have the tendency to behave in such a manner that they can never think of, due to presence of certain beliefs, in spite of knowing the truth behind that belief (pg1, 2013). In one of the studies demonstrated about the conformity, participants were exposed to three difference circumstances and the results evaluated the strength of human control on our actions. Candidates were exposed to some biased and unbiased Free will statements (Alquist, Ainsworth, Baumeister, pg3, 2013). When people are given anti Free will assertions and asked to justify their answer if they allege the statement, to the surprise, it was recorded that people tend to conform more than the ones exposed to the statements in the favor of volition, even after knowing that they are wrong (Alquist ,Ainsworth, Baumeister, pg3, 2013). This occurred due to the laziness and the need of effort to stand up and justify the opposing answers due to which most people agreed to go along with the group rather than responding in the way they wanted to.

Reevaluating Free Will: The Impact of Unconscious Brain Activity

People often believe that whatever they are doing is their own genuine choice. This belief to proceed with their own decisions is an ordinary thinking that people have about their each other (Bergner, pg2, 2018). However, several conclusions have been made in order to oppose these sorts of counterarguments that indicates the presence of Free will. According to Bergner, various studies have been conducted surveying the decision of hand moving patterns and psychological result of mind in initialization of these movements (pg4, 2018). In one of the studies resembling the presence of Free will, candidates were shown random letters on the screen that kept on changing at fast pace and volunteers were asked to press the button using their index fingers in order to revisualize the letter that was on the screen when they made their choice (Bergner, pg4, 2018). The results recorded illustrated that the patterns of brain activity that the brain had already made its decision even before the candidate was aware of making one (Bergner, pg4, 2018). It depicted that the presence of consciousness actually played no role in our behavior and unconscious human brain were remarked to be the catalyst in this study while directing the research towards the perception of Free will as an illusion.

Conclusion: Free Will as an Illusion Shaped by Multiple Factors

This paper argues that we do not hold the complete accountability of the senses initiated towards the decision making process. Various evidences have been mentioned in this paper that anchors our choices and Free will on opposite ends. Our preferences of the response that we would initiate generally relies upon the stimulus to which we are exposed as well as some other traits. The extent of Free will is not only limited to the choices we make but is way more beyond the fact of living out life with freedom. People are forced to change their perceptions exposing their vulnerability to the manipulative circumstances. Humans thinking abilities are somewhere manifested by our internal as well as external factors. The environment in which an individual grew up, the genes passed on through generations implies to have certain liability of human behavior. Therefore, Free will is just an illusion as we are not the only one to decide our own actions. It seems like we exist and at the same time we don’t.

Free will is the capability of acting out of one’s own judgment. However, the major problem with this is the social, natural, or religious restrictions that inevitably controls humanity. Where freedom is a widespread desire, it has also been proven to portray the worst impulses of those with power. This is confirmed yet again in Anthony Burgess’s dystopian novel A Clockwork Orange. Set in an oppressive state, Alex – a teenager who has a history in crimes – has his self-determination taken by authority figures. Through making Alex the protagonist of the book, Burgess demonstrates the necessity of free will as a core theme through how a loss of will power equates to a robotic society, how the quality of life would inevitably decrease, and through the knowledge that “goodness” is valueless when forced.

One of the key reasons the element of free will is a fundamental feature in mankind is because it differentiates humans from machines. Within the novel, Alex questions an operation called Ludovico’s Technique, which is a psychological behaviour modification that makes a person incapable of performing vile deeds. In response to Alex’s curiosity, the Prison Charlie states that “[g]oodness is something chosen. When a man cannot choose he ceases to be a man” (Burgess 63). As a result of the technique, higher powers strip Alex’s autonomy, making him “a clockwork orange.” This indicates how laws and conditioning can transform a person capable of both good and evil into a mechanical creature. Burgess warns readers that dehumanizing laws that force morals on humans will only make them less human and more programmed.

Anthony Burgess uses A Clockwork Orange to protest against oppressive governments who censor freedom. At the beginning of the novel, the Government ignores crime simply to prevent any threat to his political status. However, the government soon becomes remorseless, determined to maintain power by exploiting all aspects of society. Following the operation, Alex seeks shelter at F. Alexander’s. Unaware of whom he is helping, he pities Alex, expressing that:

I [F. Alexander] think that you [Alex] can help dislodge this overbearing Government. To turn a decent young man into a piece of clockwork should not, surely, be seen as any triumph for any government, save one that boasts of its repressiveness… (Burgess 116)

He believes the government is oppressive and carelessly content with withdrawing individual liberties to achieve what they believe is a better society. However, the problem in this is that law and power in society force morals based solely on the standards they believe are right. Society can not all be forced into a single level of “goodness” if there is no exact concept for it.

Burgess acknowledges several times that good acts performed in the absence of choice are morally valueless and artificially sincere if dictated by fear and not free will. When referring to the treatment Alex will undergo, the Chaplain introduces these same thoughts, commenting that: …[i]t may not be nice to be good, […] It may be horrible to be good. […] What does God want? Does God want goodness or the choice of goodness? Is a man who chooses the bad perhaps in some ways better than a man who has the good imposed upon him? (Burgess 71)

The Prison Chaplain recognizes that Ludovico’s Technique does not make one act out of morality, but simply from physical compulsion. Alex now ceases doing wrong only because he is afraid of physical pain. Moreover, it is equally immoral being totally good as it is being totally vicious. Both must exist alongside each other because without wrong and personal struggle as an option, goodness becomes meaningless. By forcing good morals onto Alex, the Government has eliminated his freedom to choose, which is greater than any sin.

Anthony Burgess’s novel A Clockwork Orange highlights the importance of free will by the arguments that a loss of free will makes an individual mechanical, how the quality of life would become oppressive, and through the knowledge that good acts in the absence of choice are empty. Burgess valued choice over anything and implied that humanity must always have the power to make their own choices, actions, beliefs, and judgements; regardless if it results in immorality. Repression of behaviour causes the destruction of humans as opposed to the rescuing. Therefore, free will is essential to maintain humanity as altering it disrupts the essence of man.

Agent Smith is fictional character and the main antagonist from the sequel “the Matrix”. Smith is contrast energy form of Neo. Smith’s main role is to police defective programs in order to maintain the stability of the system. In the Matrix, Smith states to Morpheus during his interrogation that he despises the Matrix itself, which he labels a “zoo” and plans to escape from it knowing that he is not free anymore, making himself feel that he is more like a prisoner than the people he is tasked to police. He indifferently viewed the entire humanity and later came up with a desire to destruct both interior and exterior existences of the Matrix. but those were suddenly changed after he initially appeared to be destroyed by Neo, the one who is contrasted by Smith. But he returns in the Matrix reloaded with greatly altered abilities and complete liberation as an Exile program in the Matrix itself. He became a free agent by giving his earpiece, which are worn by the agents, to Neo “unplugged”, being no longer part of the system. He began to absorb all the inhabitants of the Matrix including every program functioning inside; he replicates everyone into himself. Thus becoming inevitable.

But why did Mr. Smith reconcile the purpose and free will? according to him, “we’re not here because we’re free. We’re here because we’re not free. There’s no escaping reason. No denying purpose. Because as we both know without purpose, we would not exist. Smith represents determinism because free will is important to the series, it must actually exist. Machines lies and part of the Architect’s plan for controlling free will. in the Matrix, the appearance of determinism is part of the machine’s control. So he doesn’t believe in their own free will. but rather, part of the Matrix is to practice their free will. Smith also shown to be nihilistic, pointing a view that life must have objective, meaning, or purpose in order to exist. His speeches to Neo in The Matrix Revolutions and his revelation that the purpose of all life is ‘to end’ during his final battle with Neo.

Hints of his nihilism were also demonstrated in their meeting in Reloaded, when he implicitly compared the concepts of reason and purpose to an inescapable prison. As a result of being partially overwritten by The One, Smith also begins to exhibit stronger, more virulent human behaviors and emotions such as unpredictability and dry humor, which is a clear departure from his original stern demeanor. He makes the claim that Neo has set him free, indicating that he now has not only the vision but also the ability to break free of the machines’ control and exist as a singular being. He is now allied with no one but himself, rendering him an outlaw to the Matrix, the humans who inhabit it and the rebels of Zion. Even free of Machine control, however, Smith is also compelled to feel that he is still crushed by the weight of purpose. Personally, I believe that all human activity (including mental activity) is determined by prior causes, and that Free Will is an illusion.

It also is possible that there are forces less powerful than determinism that prevent humans from having Free Will. In connection with this, Smith is perplexed as to why Neo fights, after he was beaten up by Mr. Smith, as they both have seen the outcome of the fight. Smith asks Neo why he persists when he knows he will lose: ‘Is it freedom or truth? Perhaps peace? Could it be for love?’, reasons which he believes are ‘temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose, and all of them as artificial as the Matrix itself. Why, Mr. Anderson? Why, why, why do you persist?’ Smith is enraged by Neo’s simple and irrational answer: ‘Because I choose to.’ After Neo won, this had the effect of destroying the Smith inhabiting Neo. With the integral anomoly expressed and destroyed, the systemic anomaly (Smith) was subsequently destroyed as well, with each Smith imploding in a burst of light that illuminated Mega City’s streets, therefore restoring the Matrix from 0% acceptance to 100% acceptance and allowing it to be reset.

Thomas Hardy is among the most well-known proponents of naturalism – the pessimistic belief that human behavior, choices, and ultimately destinies are highly influenced, if not predetermined, by their environment. Naturalism suggests that human customs and societal structure directly emulate those of the natural world, implying that humanity has no control over, and therefore, needs not take responsibility for, its actions. However, Hardy is hardly married to this principle. Naturalism is not the only philosophical basis of his works. In his novel Tess of the D’Urbervilles, author Thomas Hardy contends that humans are not solely victims of fate or nature’s cruelties, but victims of ourselves and our conventions. Our “blighted star” did not destroy Tess; humanity did.

Throughout the novel, Hardy characterizes nature as a force of peace and beauty rather than malice, especially in relation to Tess. She is most at home in nature, often acting as if she is a part of it herself. When Tess is at her happiest, the world around her reflects it, and when nature is at its most scenic, Tess’ mood is consequently elevated. She disappears into nature at several points in the novel, integrating herself almost completely into it. In the aftermath of Tess’ disastrous stay at Tantridge, nature serves as her sanctuary. Tess readily pours herself into fieldwork, “assimilating herself with [her surroundings]” and envelops herself totally in the English countryside (Hardy 88). There she finds refuge from the prying, judgmental eyes of society. Tradition and cultural convention are caustic and ultimately devastating forces in Tess, eventually leading to the “destruction of [the novel’s] heroine” (Shumaker). Nature grants her temporary relief, reviving her natural optimism and innate desire to be good. As Tess travels to Talbothays, Hardy narrates, “ the sense of being among new scenes where there were no insidious eyes upon her […] sent up her spirits wonderfully” (Hardy 103). Tess, craving an escape from the uncompromising, unforgiving culture of 19th century England, is most content in the natural world, free from the constricting bonds of human convention.

Tess’ acute discomfort with her own society stems, in part, from humankind’s rapidly increasing removal from nature. Tess of the D’Urbervilles is set less than a century after the Industrial Revolution, a fact which unmistakably influences the work. Hardy consistently extols the virtues of the pastoral life, demonizing industry and technological advancement. He voices his opinions through various literary devices, including metaphor. In the novel’s second phase, Hardy presents his readers with a particularly gory anecdote in which the wildlife in a wheatfield is cornered by a mechanical reaping machine and ruthlessly beaten to death by its operators (Hardy 87). This passage has two meanings – first and most evidently, it demonstrates humanity’s remorseless, unhesitatingly cruel destruction of the innocence around it, both that of nature and of youth. Throughout the novel, the narration and character dialogue seem to insist that our world is an inherently cold and barbaric place; however, that idea is contradicted consistently by the landscape descriptions widespread throughout phases one, two, and three. This scene implies that our world’s blight is humanity, not the world itself. Secondly, it represents the changing times in 19th century England. In the industrial era, lower-income people often migrated to the cities in hopes of securing a factory job and therefore a steady source of income. However, because of low wages, the high cost of living, and various other factors, people became so severely indebted that they were unable to ever leave. Similarly, as literary scholar Jules Law notes, Hardy tends to “historicize his landscapes and buildings” (Law). The author creates and employs several anachronisms throughout the novel, juxtaposing his changing world with a traditional agricultural one. For example, when Tess and her then-lover Angel bring milk from Talbothays to the nearest train station, she remarks that their cargo will soon reach “‘[s]trange people that [they] have never seen […] [w]ho don’t know anything of [them], [or] where [the milk] comes from,’” some of whom have never even seen a cow (Hardy 187). This scene is a somewhat jarring reminder to the reader that the unpleasant world outside Tess’ safe haven still exists. The farm itself seems entirely unaffected by the rapidly progressing times, creating a stark contrast between the world ruled by man and the world ruled by nature. Hardy contends that, as humanity’s technological prowess grows, our inborn connection to nature begins to dissipate; thus, social law and natural law become increasingly distant. Consequently, our perception of nature has become corrupted, created only through a lense warped by religion, tradition, and cultural convention.

The human perception of nature is inextricably tainted with our own social conventions. In the aftermath of her rape, Tess sees herself and her “unintact” state as something alien and perverted, an ugly red stain on the otherwise pure fabric of nature. She “look[s] upon herself as a figure of guilt intruding into the haunts of [nature’s] innocence” (Hardy 86). She believes herself and her situation to be an affront against the world itself, a violation of not only social law, but natural law. However, as Hardy ironically muses in a separate work, entitled the Mayor of Casterbridge, nature seems to possess a “jaunty readiness to support unorthodox social principles” (Law). Tess, like many in 19th century England, believes social and natural law overlap heavily, however, as the novel proves time and time again, this is largely untrue. Throughout the novel, many characters seem resigned or even apathetic to the terrible situations they find themselves or the people around them in, claiming that it “is nat[ure]” or “what pleases God” (Hardy 82). For example, after Tess escapes her rapist and abuser and returns to Marlott, her parents berate her for not manipulating the situation to benefit herself and her family. Rather than fight against or even simply recognize Alec D’Urberville’s traumatizing violation of their daughter, they deem it an inevitability – the work of “fate”. The Durbeyfields attribute their daughter’s misfortunes to random chance, blatantly ignoring the significant role they and their choices played in bringing Tess to Tantridge and into the hands of a sexual predator. If John Durbeyfeild had simply abstained from drinking the night before his journey to town, Tess would have never been raped, would never have lost her husband, and, ultimately, would never have been hung for murder. Tess’ family failed her; their selfish choices, not fate, tied their own daughter a noose. All living beings have free will, and very rarely do the effects of such stay isolated to their respective creators. In the 19th century, “fate” was used as an excuse not to take responsibility for one’s actions or their ramifications.

Like many other women in the 19th century, Tess is controlled not by herself, but by the authority figures, and specifically the men, in her life. Throughout the novel, Tess’ character is comprised only of “the formulations of others and herself” (Kincaid). She is subject to constant manipulation by the people close to her, eventually resulting in her “fall”. First, Tess is put under immense pressure by her family to improve and maintain their reputation. When Tess is asked to go live with her D’Urberville “kin” in Tantridge, she is initially hesitant, telling her family that she “‘[doesn’t] quite like Mr. [Alec] D’Urberville” (Hardy 47). Her family is quick to ignore and even criticize her reservations, guilting her into going despite them, and she, in her characteristic passivity, acquiesces easily. This pattern repeats itself several times later in the novel, and Tess neglects to stand up for herself on any occasion, demonstrating her passive, almost nonexistent character. Tess’ most prominent character trait seems to be the “curious absence” of definition – her “speech, decision-making, […] and even sense of self” are so submissive as to almost be ambiguous (Lovesey). However, in Victorian Britain, an archetypal patriarchy, passivity and submission are traits admired in women. Hardy’s characterization of Tess, as well as her ultimate demise, illustrates the damaging effects of patriarchy on women and society as a whole. Tess’ yielding nature allows her to be manipulated easily as she participates in the societal convention that ultimately destroys her.

In conclusion, Tess of the D’Urbervilles is an irony-laced social criticism of Victorian society, some of which still holds true to this day. Tess’ innocence is remorselessly stripped away by those around her and the inflexible, almost vindictive judgement of Victorian England dooms her to a life of hardship and suffering. Fate allows people to blame their shortcomings on an external source, therefore avoiding responsibility. Humanity, not fate, is the driving force behind our destinies.

Oedipus the King, assembled by Sophocles, indicates an underlying association between fate and free will. In today’s society, we let our lives be led by a distinct force that we believe in. Yet, a widespread controversy that still rages today is whether we, as a species, have free will or if some divine source, some call it fate, governs our destiny. Whether it be an elevated power deciding your life for you or the alternatives that people make. Fate compromises of being affected by a greater power to achieve your fate. Whereas free will is distinguished as having a personal choice for your behavior. Oedipus is preordained to obtain a prophecy. Even though he was a victim of fate, he was not influenced by it. His past prosecutions were deduced by fate, but what happened in Thebes, was of his own free will.

Oedipus is a supplicant of knowledge and truth. He attempts to discover Laius’s murder and his own individuality, despite various warnings that he should leave the truth alone. His quest for understanding and validity, however, results in harm as Oedipus finds his destiny, which he was better off not knowing.

Influence leads to everyone’s decisions; the things a person says will take part in our future. For Oedipus, one of these attributes was the desire for knowledge and truth about his own existence. This driving force in the play led to the truth of his origin. This ties in with his own aspect of free will. His free will is based on his drive for knowledge. The gods who control fate manipulate the thinking and concepts in human free will. Ultimately fate is what overcomes all. It may not seem like it, but free will was given to mankind by the gods or God. So in turn the gods decide the fate of everybody when they created man. It was already decided and can not be changed. One can still argue the position that free will is more dominant, but if you relate to creation and how the gods made man, fate overcomes.

Overall, destiny is the divine power that regulates free will and discerns one’s life. Oedipus character affects his hardships through his infamy by continuously withholding his own fate, as his temper took an important stance on him and the rational choices he made. The main cause of Oedipus’s downfall is his unwillingness to accept his own fate.

They all tie in together because it’s visible how their environment shapes the way they think and act. In our society, we choose to be around certain people that may or may not be an influence in positive ways. This leads to either positive or negative influences. In the Bible this topic is seen as well, “Walk with the wise and become wise, for a companion of fools suffers harm.” Influence is what we’re driven by; we are under the influence to fit in and to be a part of something. Whether it is an influence to buy things or crucial decisions we must make. In the end, we will all have control over the decisions we make and we also have control over the people we choose to be influenced by.

It has been believed that the choices we make only elude fate and fate is only a manipulator that helps choose your path. In Shakespeare’s tragic play, Macbeth (1609), the main character falls from being a nobleman by the drive of his free will to act upon the fateful words of the witches’; Macbeth in no cause is under a spell, it was his own decisions which unknowingly leads him to his downfall. Macbeth could have let fate happen on its own, but instead, he decides to test fate by taking actions that lead to serious consequences for himself and others in the play.

Macbeth, the future king, meets with the three witches. The witches say a prophecy stating he will be the ‘king of the future’. “All hail, Macbeth, thou shalt be king hereafter!” (I, iii, 50-55). This was the time when the witches had hailed Macbeth, hinting him of his deepest desire, you see the witches did not tell him how to get it, it was his free will to take action upon it. Firstly, when Macbeth says, “So foul and fair a day I have not seen” (I, iii, 38), meaning how it’s foul that the witches are arising a storm, but fair because he gained victory on the battlefield. His words are a paradox and they echo the witch’s words in the starting, “Fair is foul, and foul is fair” (I, i, 12). These lines are similar and have interrelated ideas, representing the unity between Macbeth and the forces of darkness. Macbeth’s first words in the play can be taken as; things that seem fair, like becoming king, can be foul, and which leads him to his downfall. Secondly, is how Lady Macbeth having a huge influence on Macbeth’s decisions and choices he had made throughout the play. When Lady Macbeth got the letter stating he is “Thane of Cawdor”, she says to herself, “Which fate and metaphysical aid doth seem to have the crown withal” (I, v, 29-30), stating how fate doesn’t make things happen, our actions can make Macbeth king. But she thinks to herself Macbeth is “too full o’th’ milk of human kindness” (I, v, 16) using the metaphor “milk”, to resemble he’s too kind and lacks cruelty to become a king. Finally, she takes action to guide Macbeth to strive for the crown by “pour[ing] [her] spirits in thine ear and chastise with the valor of [her] tongue” (I, v, 25-26), thus describing her plan to convince Macbeth for the crown. Therefore, the witches have not only put Macbeth on tenterhooks but as well as Lady Macbeth, which in return makes her the biggest influence in his downfall.

Despite having external influences to convince him for becoming king, the strongest argument for his free will is his ambition to be king himself, but he has 3 major obstacles that challenge his thoughts and actions to overcome them. Firstly, is how Macbeth believes that “if chance will have me, king, why, chance may crown me without my stir”, showing how in the starting he trusted his gut to believe in fate, but the turning point was when Duncan announced, “Our eldest, Malcolm, whom we name hereafter the Prince of Cumberland”(I, iv, 39-40), this is the first sign of jealously that arises leading him to plan his initial step to his downfall by saying “[Don’t let] The eye wink at the hand, yet let that be Which the eye fears, when it is done, to see” (I, iv, 54-55). His ambition was put into action by Lady Macbeth offending his manliness by accusing Macbeth of being “green and pale” (I, vii, 38), she mentions green in terms of “sickness”, making Macbeth feel small and weak. This lead by Lady Macbeth makes Macbeth murder Duncan, turning him into a tyrant. Secondly, is how he still isn’t at peace from one murder, because he knows Banquo got granted a prophecy saying, “Thou shalt get kings, though thou be none”(I, iii, 68-69), indicating he still has to overcome Banquo and Fleance, who is a threat to his future. Macbeth has become more independent and tells his wife to “be innocent of the knowledge” (III, ii, 47), signifying how he is going to carry out this murder on his own without the support of Lady Macbeth. He says how she can “applaud the deed” (III, ii, 48) after it is accomplished. This resembles how he has become a “bloody tyrant” due to his ambitious nature of achieving what he wants with his free will. Finally, is how Macbeth was warned by the witches to “Beware [of] Macduff. Beware of the thane of Fife” (IV, i, 71) when he went the second time to meet them. This is the last threat to eliminate according to the witch’s prophecies, and due to that he does not care how many kills he has done, but this last kill is still required to live threat-free. Macbeth openly challenges fate by trying to kill Macduff but kills his whole family instead. This shows us Macbeth believes he is invincible and has become overconfident. At the end of the play, Macbeth’s ambition had driven him so insane, that he had “almost forgot the taste of fears” (V, v, 9) due to the number of supernatural things he had committed.

It must not be forgotten that Macbeth, a person whose ambition, his life’s leading force, is his greatest weakness which causes him to fall from a successful position to death eventually. He had allowed power to destroy himself, making him appear very gullible. Just how when Macbeth said, “My thought, whose murder yet is but fantastical”, resembling his pitiable feelings towards his driven ambition that turned him into an atrocious human being he is now. This Shakespearean play shows the downfalls of being easily influenced or manipulated by someone or something.