The debates on the topic of the existence of free will have been held by people for centuries. Yet, nowadays, there is still a lack of unity among philosophers, who usually tend to support one of three main ideas, hard determinism, soft determinism, and libertarianism. The first one constitutes a belief that there is no free will in nature and that all of the actions are already predetermined. In other words, there is always only one possible scenario for the future which will occur in reality. The second approach, soft determinism, attempts to reconcile the ideas of determinism and free will, which at first glance seem completely different. According to this perspective, a person can have multiple options for actions, but all of them are predetermined by the past (Huemer, 2016). Moreover, despite the fact that the person can do any of the actions, the past events eventually influence his decision to choose only one of the options.
Finally, the libertarian view on free will implies that the latter exists and it excludes the possibility of determinism. I think that this approach is most relevant and ultimately the true one because it clearly articulates the idea that reality can change depending on a particular choice made by people. It postulates that every moment when a person has to make a choice, they become aware of their freedom since they realize that they control the situation at hand. Libertarianism disproves the view of hard determinism since the latter does not have any evidence of the fact that all events are predetermined and simply rests on the idea that free will is an illusion. Thus, it makes it possible to adhere to libertarianism since it offers a sense of freedom of choice as its evidence. Similarly, soft determinism contradicts libertarianism because it assumes that actions can be both free and caused, which is incompatible with the idea of the sense of freedom of choice.
Reference
Huemer, M. (2016). Free will and determinism in the world of minority report. In S. Schneider (Ed.), Science fiction and philosophy: From time travel to superintelligence (2nd ed.) (pp. 104–113). John Wiley & Sons.
As Augustine personally encountered the problem of being too imperfect for Christianity and Christian standards, he founded his concept of original sin within Christianity (Catholic Online, 2019). According to Augustine, God gifted Adam and Eve free will to accept his love and live in Paradise or to reject it (Philosophy Vibe, 2018). When Adam and Eve rejected the love of God, he sent them to Earth and forced their descendants to possess God’s rejection due to Original Sin. Applying Augustine’s idea of free will to the concept of an all-knowing God, one could think that after God deprived Adam and Eve of free will, the future choices we make are made by God himself. However, Augustine stated multiple times that God does not give the privilege of wealth and that it is not God’s decision to make someone poor or to make someone fail (The School of Life, 2015). Augustine explains the free will we express now as God’s gift of a second chance. People are free to choose a righteous way to live and go to heaven afterward or use their free will as they want.
In terms of free will be the second chance for people to eventually come back to God, the idea of all-knowing God could be reconciled with human free will. However, it is unknown whether Augustine’s understanding of free will was impacted by his subjective goals, as he lived a ‘sinful life’ himself (Catholic Online, 2019). In my opinion, the overall idea of an all-knowing God implies an absence of free will. I think that God is only there to guide people and not interfere directly with their actions. I believe in the idea of loving God, but the all-knowing aspect contradicts the concept of redemption of original sin, in my opinion. I think that the concept of reincarnation that I believe in fits the idea of the journey of returning to God.
References
Catholic Online. (2019). St. Augustine of Hippo HD. [Video]. YouTube.
Philosophy Vibe. (2018). The Augustinian theodicy (Extract from “The problem of evil”). [Video]. YouTube.
The School of Life. (2015). Philosophy – Augustine. [Video]. YouTube.
For centuries, ethics and moral philosophy scholars have been pondering the question of the extent people should be held accountable when acting in a particular manner. In one of the last learning modules, the discussion was focused on determinism and the free will of a human being. On one side of the scale, there is an existential context that implies that people are subject to absolute freedom of will, holding them accountable for every action and its complication for the self and society. On the other side, however, there is the premise of determinism that implies people’s inability to take responsibility for any action due to the actions being a prerequisite of an antecedent action or experience (Blount et al., 2018). While every option seems rather extreme in the modern context, the primary question of this paper is to look into the problematics of applying determinism to today’s socio-cultural landscape.
One of the major arguments against free will and people’s ability to make decisions is the existence of various factors, both social and historical, that consciously or subconsciously weigh in when making a decision, Present in the form of impulses, people become immediately affected by their previous experiences to act in a manner implied by society rather than created by a human. Such an argument raises a series of questions, primarily concerning the strategies to make use of the determinist theory.
Essentially, suppose determinism implies that people’s actions are curated by past known and unknown experiences. In that case, one can assume that a certain socio-cultural background and similar experiences may result in a similar decision-making process. Thus, if to take a group of people from the same social and demographic context and place them in the same system of socio-cultural environment, their decision-making, with time, will be based on the same beliefs and views. Hence, the primary hypothesis here will be that people, while incapable of pursuing free will, can be trained to be exposed to a favorable environment leading to the most beneficial decisions and actions for them and society.
However, the complexity of the modern world and possible contributing factors make it extremely challenging to outline antecedent experiences and memories that would benefit society as a whole. As a result, neither a human being nor the environment could be held accountable for the action, as it is virtually impossible to trace back the cause of a certain action. The complete lack of responsibility thereof will eventually result in chaos, and the end of the world humans know it nowadays.
The criticism of free will, when applied to personal experiences, is especially harmful to the notion of interpersonal relationships. For example, when two people are communicating, any action that does not appeal to another person may result in triggering an impulse and provoking an immediate response such as yelling or using physical aggression. In this case, the person would not be responsible for the action because it was predetermined by something beyond the person’s control. If in the same scenario, the person would choose to calmly ignore the behavior or make a polite comment, the responsibility would not concern the person as well. Indeed, according to the researchers opposing free will, deliberation, the act of thorough analysis of the options, is still eventually a result of determinism. In such a case, both morally wrong and morally right responses to the situation would have equally no correlation to the human character and, thus, would be regarded as equally predetermined responses to the situation. The rhetorical question here would be whether people should ever resort to ethics and morality is those actions would never be perceived as the manifestation of their moral character.
On the other hand, however, it would be unreasonable to assume that the phenomenon of free will is entirely applicable in today’s social and moral contexts as well. In fact, when people exercise their free will, it does not mean that their choice does not depend on external factors per se. What it does imply, however, is the fact that human beings, while faced with a variety of choices, are prone to follow socially and biologically predetermined impulses or use the power of free will.
For example, in the reading material, students were working with an example of a girl choosing between three ice cream flavors. The doctrine of determinism implies that three options are nothing but an illusion of choice, and picking the strawberry flavor is nothing but a remaining option because the first two are unavailable. According to this philosophical dogma, people find themselves in a system of predetermined factors that motivate the person to subconsciously choose a particular option. However, this system does not eliminate the person’s ability to perceive the environment differently and opt for a different outcome. Hence, in a world as complex as it is today, people, although motivated and challenged by the antecedent, are still capable of exercising deliberation and free will and taking moral responsibility for every action.
Reference
Blount, Z. D., Lenski, R. E., & Losos, J. B. (2018). Contingency and determinism in evolution: Replaying life’s tape. Science, 362(6415).
God granted man free will, including so that man could freely and consciously become like Him, spiritually approach Him as his Creator, the Source of all good things, so that he could, with the assistance of Divine grace, realize his creative powers. Freedom of will, which is inherent to us in essence, when used correctly, helps us to acquire and develop virtues and voluntarily ascend the ladder of spiritual perfections. One can speak about the freedom of God based on the traditional principles of apophatic (denial of boundaries) and cataphatic (positive affirmations) theology. This paper examines the sovereignty of God, the main ideas regarding free will, as well as various interpretations of this concept, discusses its relationship with Divine authority. This study will concentrate on God’s will and how man’s decisions and choices might impact the outcomes of God’s divine purpose for man’s lives.
God
To that extent, the central position of classical theism can be considered the statement that God is an absolutely independent substance that does not need anything else for its existence. There are no material or metaphysical parts in God (for example, the difference between essence and existence) because if God consisted of any parts, He would be dependent on them1. By virtue of its absolute simplicity, God is immaterial, has no extension, does not possess contingent non-relational properties, and is not subject to any changes2. In addition, it follows from divine independence that God is eternal, exists necessarily, and is omnipresent. God is a perfect Mind that presupposes perfect wisdom, rationality, and knowledge3. He also has a perfect will, implying omnipotence. Thus, some of the divine attributes (ontological independence, simplicity, necessity, immutability, immateriality, non-tension, omnipresence) characterize God as the first-being, while others (omniscience, omnipotence) characterize Him personally.
At the same time, in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, the idea of Divine predestination is often mentioned in connection with the biblical understanding of history. Biblical revelation, among other things, differs from non-biblical religions in the belief that God does not remain indifferent to the events of history, as well as in the fact that human history in the face of God has meaning and purpose4. God’s intervention in history means for most biblical authors that the will of God ultimately determines the course of events, and human freedom is manifested in the fact that he either accepts this will of God or opposes it5. Historical predestination means that God paradoxically sees as accomplished even those historical events that have yet to happen (Isaiah 14:24-32)6. Through the prophets, God, in particular, announces the future to people so that they can choose for themselves, either following the ways of God or rejecting them and knowing about their choices’ consequences7. The primary function of prophecies of this kind is a call to choose life and remain faithful to God and a call to repentance.
The Justification for Man’s Freedom
Freedom is the ability of a person to become creative within the limits of those possibilities that God determines. From the point of view of its metaphysical content, freedom is an invaluable gift of God’s goodness, wisdom, and love given to man in his possession8. God gives man freedom as his property, as a kind of source, owning which a person is able to reveal himself, manifest, and realize creatively9. Although everything in the world is subject to the law of necessity, man, due to freedom, is not completely subject to it. He is the culprit of his formation because he has freedom.
The task of becoming a person presupposes his freedom. Like any gift received by a person from God, freedom is open for improvement. In comparison with the absolute freedom of God, human freedom is incomplete and imperfect10. God gave man the gift of freedom as a kind of pledge, using which a person could bring his freedom to that moral completeness and perfection in which the absolute freedom of God would be reflected the greatest extent11. From the point of view of the task facing a man of achieving Godlikeness, it is necessary to establish what is primarily capable of determining the completeness and perfection of his freedom.
In solving this question, it is essential to keep in mind the duality of human nature and human existence, the involvement of a person in two worlds – the material and the spiritual. This duality is the existential root of human freedom, the riddle of human self-determination in terms of achieving and realizing the value of his being12. The theistic tradition considers the duality of human nature and human existence as the most striking and unique characteristic of man, testifying to the universality of his purpose in the general structure of the world.
Issues and The Potential Remedies
There are various attempts to reconcile human freedom and God’s providence. Sometimes people deny one thing for the other. One current of thought (which has reached its logical conclusion in extreme Calvinism) emphasizes God’s sovereignty, reaching the denial of human freedom13. From the creation of the world, God has predetermined who will be called by His irresistible grace and who will find salvation and who will be deprived of grace and perish in their sins14. When critics of such a position draw attention to the fact that those convicted in such a case were deprived of any opportunity to be saved from the very beginning, they are told that God is not obliged to save anyone at all.
If, by his sovereign will, out of ten captured villains, murderers, and rebels, He decides to pardon two for some incomprehensible reasons of his own, and leave the remaining eight to die, then those left have no reason to complain of injustice. They will suffer just punishment for their crimes, while two will receive the mercy they did not deserve. Sinners thus perish because they reject the possibility of salvation persistently offered to them15. Thus, although angels and humans act of their own free will and are themselves the authors of their decisions, they cannot do anything that would not be known to God and would not be included in His plan.
The Old Testament expresses people’s deep confidence that everything that happens in the world happens according to the will of the Creator. Thus, the prophets Amos and Isaiah emphasize that both good and evil are from God (Amos 3:6) and “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things” (Isaiah 45:7)16. The idea of conducting and historical predestination for the Old Testament authors is a necessary logical consequence of monotheism17. Pagans, as a rule, see the cause of evil in the action of evil deities or spirits.
Rejecting all other deities, the Israeli sages and prophets inevitably attribute everything that happens to the One. Therefore, it is especially important that God Himself speaks about the origin of evil through some prophets. The most striking example here can be the words in Jeremiah (6:19), where destruction is called the fruit of people’s thoughts18. In addition, the Bible says more than once that the realization of the will of the Almighty occurs through the conscious or unconscious actions of people (Isaiah 41:2-4)19. In particular, the book of the Prophet Jonah, which is not a prophetic book by genre, but a philosophical parable, is devoted to understanding the phenomenon of historical predestination.
Its primary meaning is that repentance and conversion of people to God can change the course of history, which outside of this conversion turns out to be predetermined. It is important to remember that the concept of historical predestination does not contain the fullness of this phenomenon20. In this regard, the paradoxical nature of predestination, as well as the God-human nature of history, as a rule, are expressed either in the form of a prediction of irrevocable events (this often happens post factum) or in the form of a prophecy that God determines the course of events depending on a person’s position.
Statements of both the first and second kind in the Bible are very numerous, so it is not possible to give them in any way ultimately. In the New Testament, to understand the phenomenon of historical predestination, it is essential to pay attention to the words of the Lord Jesus Christ about the coming end of the world. Speaking with the disciples on the Mount of Olives (Luke 21:6-36, Matthew 24:1-44, Mark 13:1-37), Christ speaks of the end of the world as an irrevocable fact that is about to happen21. At the same time, addressing the disciples, He calls them: “And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter” (Mark 13:18). Consequently, the event is perceived both as predetermined and, at the same time, as not predetermined, at least in detail.
Freedom of will, in its highest and positive definition, refers only to God and can be regarded as an absolute, unlimited fulfillment of His always good desires. As for intelligent created beings, freedom of will in its positive meaning can be attributed to them only to the extent that they themselves are the likeness of God. Creating the visible and invisible world, God endowed only disembodied spirits and the human race with mind and free will, which distinguished these freely intelligent beings from His entire creation22. After the fall of the first people, the nature of the whole world was distorted, and first of all, the nature of its freely intelligent beings23. The freedom of the spirit, which a person who builds his life according to the commandments of God is called and can achieve, is freedom from sin.
In addition to the above, the word “freedom” concerning the created world is also used in another sense, namely, as an opportunity for a creature to go beyond the limits of the area indicated to it by God. This so-called negative definition of freedom as the absence of dependence on any conditions means, in essence, the possibility of a creature violating the Will of God. Moreover, God also gave such “freedom” to His creation, allowing him not only to develop but also to fall24. The reason here is in man himself that he, being a created being, is finite, limited, and dependent on external conditions.
Any extension of the concept of freedom, which allows the possibility to ignore these restrictions, necessarily puts a person before a choice: to be within the “boundary” outlined by God through these restrictions or to go outside. By giving a person the opportunity for free research and free creativity, God corrects the cognitive process of a person, directs him in the right direction, and ultimately gives him the opportunity to know only to the extent that he, a limited being, can accommodate25. A desire presupposes a goal, a direction towards it. Therefore, the will of a created being can be called a vector characteristic. The freedom of will that the Creator granted to the creature consists in the opportunity given to it to orient this vector independently without coercion.
Open Theism and Passive Knowledge
Open theism is an attempt to explain God’s foresight regarding the free human will. Open theism asserts that God gave people free will, and in order for it to remain free, God cannot know in advance the free choice of people. Open theism is based on the words of the Bible, which say that God changes His plans, is surprised, or receives new knowledge (Genesis 6:6; Exodus 32:14; Jonah 3:10)26. Nevertheless, in the light of many other verses of the Bible, which speak of God’s knowledge of the future, these verses should be considered as a description of Himself in a form more accessible to our understanding27. God knows what we will do and what decisions we will make, but sometimes He changes His plans in response to our actions. The fact that God is surprised and disappointed by humanity’s depravity does not mean He did not expect this from us.
Free will is a God-given ability without which a person could not consciously and willingly strive for good and therefore could not become virtuous. God is a supremely free Being because He acts independently of necessity or compulsion. He chooses what He wants and carries out the chosen as He wants28. At the same time, His will has perfect holiness; God Himself creates only the highest good, which excludes all evil, as light excludes darkness. Created in the Image of God, man also has the gift of free will. Becoming like God, man is called to do one good and grow in unceasing union with God as the Prototype and Source of Good.
His freedom must continually increase through such a union, for God Himself is completely free. The fall came from the abuse of the freedom of intelligent creatures, which God created good, and having granted them, no longer wants to violate. After the fall, a man stood on the lowest degree of freedom – the choice between good and evil29. By choosing the good, a person struggles with sin and unites with God, growing in freedom. By choosing evil, a person is enslaved to sin – his vicious passions, liberation from which requires a considerable feat with the assistance of Divine grace.
Man’s communion with God is a mystery that takes place in the depths of the human personality. In the mystery of this communion, the union of human freedom with the will of God takes place. By His goodness, God does not restrict a person’s moral freedom in any way, giving him the right to ask for the Divine will be accomplished30. However, this descent of God’s goodness to man does not at all mean the dependence of the Divine will on human arbitrariness. Even when a person, conscious of his freedom, goes against the will of God, he is at the mercy of God’s triumphant omnipotence31. The will of God is unchangeable: its violation by man does not cancel the Divine plan for man. Where it is violated, it affects the individual’s inner state with the consequences of its violation32. It is experienced by the individual as a consciousness of guilt, and with renewed vigor demands that a person, through overcoming his self, enter the God-ordained path of truth and moral goodness.
The will of God is what God requires of people. However, at the same time, the will of God is not only a demand that stands above a person or before a person but also a mysterious inner influence by which God helps a person to do what he must do33. When a person fulfills the requirement of God’s will, he satisfies it not only by his own willpower but also by that mysterious power or action of God, which is called grace.
It follows from this that the will of God is not only an absolute moral requirement but also a good gift achieved in unity, harmony, and interaction of the human will with the will of God. When God reveals His good will, a person should not “confer with flesh and blood” (Galatians 1:16)34 but should follow what is required of him by the Divine calling. The more the spiritual growth of the personality takes place, the more resolute and more profound its rejection of all desires and claims of the perverted will of the man becomes35. The more it is devoted to the will of God at all responsible and significant moments of life, the more it is in possession of Divine grace it ascends into a state of ideal freedom, perfection, and holiness.
Conclusion
The freedom of the individual as one of the main manifestations of the image of God in man remains inviolable and indestructible. Having created man, God gave him ownership of this source, the possession of which means the free acceptance or rejection of God’s mercy and love. The providence of God in the fate of every person is a kind of dialogue of wisdom, goodness, and omnipotence of God with a person’s freedom. The initiative in this dialogue belongs to God, but with the constant observance of human freedom. In eternity, God only determines all the possibilities of what can happen in the world, but the moral freedom of man creatively realizes these possibilities, and it, like all creativity, contains something new. However, this “new” is new only to man, not to God, and it is unique only in reality, not in possibility.
Bibliography
De Florio, Ciro, and Aldo Frigerio. Divine Omniscience and Human Free Will: A Logical and Metaphysical Analysis. 1st ed. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature, 2020.
Mann, William E. “6. God’s Freedom, Human Freedom, and God’s Responsibility for Sin.” In Divine and Human Action, edited by Thomas V. Morris, 182–210. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2019.
Matthews Grant, W. Free Will and God’s Universal Causality: The dual Sources Account. London, England: Bloomsbury Academic, 2020.
Thai, Lee. Boundaries of Freedom: The Quantum Proposal of Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2019.
Ware, Bruce A. God’s Lesser Glory: A Critique of Open Theism. Nottingham, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2018.
Footnotes
Matthews Grant, W. Free will and God’s universal causality: The dual sources account. London, England: Bloomsbury Academic, 2020.
Thai, Lee Pham, and Jerry Pillay. “Can God create humans with free will who never commit evil?” Theological Studies 76, no. 1 (2020). Web.
Laing, John D. Middle knowledge: Human freedom in divine sovereignty. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2018.
Matthews Grant, W. Free will and God’s universal causality: The dual sources account. London, England: Bloomsbury Academic, 2020.
Thai, Lee Pham, and Jerry Pillay. “Can God create humans with free will who never commit evil?” Theological Studies 76, no. 1 (2020). Web.
“King James Bible.” Kingjamesbibleonline.org. Web.
Thai, Lee. Boundaries of freedom: The quantum proposal of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2019
Matthews Grant, W. Free will and God’s universal causality: The dual sources account. London, England: Bloomsbury Academic, 2020.
Ekstrom, Laura Waddell. Free will: A philosophical study. Routledge, 2018.
Lubin, Dean. “Is human freedom compatible with divine foreknowledge?” Open Journal of Philosophy 11, no. 04 (2021): 528–551. Web.
Mann, William E. “6. God’s freedom, human freedom, and God’s responsibility for sin.” In Divine and human action, edited by Thomas V. Morris, 182–210. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2019.
Mann, William E. “6. God’s freedom, human freedom, and God’s responsibility for sin.” In Divine and human action, edited by Thomas V. Morris, 182–210. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2019.
Thai, Lee. Boundaries of freedom: The quantum proposal of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2019.
Matthews Grant, W. Free will and God’s universal causality: The dual sources account. London, England: Bloomsbury Academic, 2020.
Lubin, Dean. “Is human freedom compatible with divine foreknowledge?” Open Journal of Philosophy 11, no. 04 (2021): 528–551. Web.
“King James Bible.” Kingjamesbibleonline.org. Web.
De Florio, Ciro, and Aldo Frigerio. Divine omniscience and human free will: A logical and metaphysical analysis. 1st ed. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature, 2020.
“King James Bible.” Kingjamesbibleonline.org. Web.
“King James Bible.” Kingjamesbibleonline.org. Web.
Kováčik, Matej. “Freedom to choose between good and evil: Theological anthropology in discussion with philosophy.” European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 12, no. 4 (2020): 95–115. Web.
“King James Bible.” Kingjamesbibleonline.org. Web.
De Florio, Ciro, and Aldo Frigerio. Divine omniscience and human free will: A logical and metaphysical analysis. 1st ed. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature, 2020.
Thai, Lee. Boundaries of freedom: The quantum proposal of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2019
Ware, Bruce A. God’s lesser glory: A critique of open theism. Nottingham, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2018.
De Florio, Ciro, and Aldo Frigerio. Divine omniscience and human free will: A logical and metaphysical analysis. 1st ed. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature, 2020.
“King James Bible.” Kingjamesbibleonline.org. Web.
Ekstrom, Laura Waddell. Free will: A philosophical study. Routledge, 2018.
DeVito, Michael, and Tyler Dalton McNabb. “Divine foreknowledge and human free will: Embracing the paradox.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 90, no. 2 (2021): 93–107. Web.
Ekstrom, Laura Waddell. Free will: A philosophical study. Routledge, 2018.
Matthews Grant, W. Free will and God’s universal causality: The dual sources account. London, England: Bloomsbury Academic, 2020.
Ekstrom, Laura Waddell. Free will: A philosophical study. Routledge, 2018.
DeVito, Michael, and Tyler Dalton McNabb. “Divine foreknowledge and human free will: Embracing the paradox.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 90, no. 2 (2021): 93–107. Web.
Salamon, Janusz. “The sovereignty of humanity and social responsibility for evil prevention.” Religions 12, no. 6 (2021): 418. Web.
“King James Bible.” Kingjamesbibleonline.org. Web.
Ware, Bruce A. God’s lesser glory: A critique of open theism. Nottingham, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 2018.
Paradise Lost (1667) of John Milton portraits a highly creative principle of predestination that was constructed in the 17th century showing both the free will and the universality of electing elegance, and the divinely decisive function of human freedom in salvation. Milton fundamentally undermines the conventional thought of double predestination, by denying the continuation of any divine ruling of reprobation, and by affirming instead that “reprobation is a temporal and provisional act of the human will, by which some human beings – in spite of their election – freely choose and actualize their own condemnation.”
Free Will of Adam and Eve
Milton portraits a view that Man has the free will to either choose or reject obedience to God and by doing so, Man is made responsible for his decisions to serve either Satan or God. Reason and hu0man instinct help humans attempt to solve their problems. The prudence of Adam is prepared to control the strength of woman charm of Eve. The serpent’s way to deceive Eve is then shown as the pavement that a human will use against another, eve is doing so to be the disciple of Satan, Satan using to lead her beloved for tearful termination, and where Satan drew to Eve’s aspiration for dignity, Eve appeals for the physical need of Adam. And once instinctively Adam has been created. He wanted Eve would also become partitioned.
Milton’s God makes the very first inhabitants of Heaven- Adam and Eve have their own will while taking a taste of every fruit that grows in the Heaven “with glad heart” and asks “fear here no dearth”. But a warning, the predestination remark, eating the fruits of “the tree whose operation brings/ Knowledge of good and ill” will bring the end of the “happy state” and expels from Heaven into “a world/ Of woe and sorrow”, clarifies God’s concrete plan of predestination waiting afterward for Adam and Eve. And also exposes the free will given by God to them.
Predestination
Milton’s Almighty God observes Satan and is aware of his designs on the earth. He tells His Son about the errand on which Satan is set and of its destined success and tells also that Man will be saved if he can find a redeemer. Through this description of Book, III Milton projects God as a figure, who predestines; moreover, implies that the free will of Adam and Eve is not of their own choice rather a part of God’s predestination: as Satan is very closely related with the Adam and Eve made courses of actions afterward, so all of their actions can be undertaken as God’s predestination.
We have another picture of Eden and its first great inhabitants in Book V, Adam and Eve, giving us a picturesque description of the First Man and Woman, incidentally dwelling upon the functions and the interrelationship between man and woman. Milton also describes the life led by Adam and Eve, their work, their worship, etc. The most important thing regarding God’s predestination is then shown when the almighty sends the angel Raphel to warn man of impending danger, so that Man if he falls, may knowingly add by his own fault. Raphel is received and entertained by Adam to whom he narrates the story of the rebellion in Heaven and all its dire results.
The story of the war in Heaven is continued in Book VI and the narrative describes the punishment meted out to Satan and his followers. Raphel again warns Adam against temptation by such a rebellious spirit.
However, Milton makes God place the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden. This placement suggests that it was preplanned of God that mankind up for down with a view to making dependent of mankind to him. For the purpose of making Man dependent upon Him, as it is assumed that God did such arrangement for the fall for His own pleasure which should be considered more seriously, again, because of the possibility to be reduced to mere actors upon God’s stage. Though Milton’s Paradise Lost does not reduce the human condition to a “deterministic state” for Milton’s God tells us that the tree of “Knowledge of good and ill, which I have set’ is for “The pledge of thy obedience and they faith.” (Milton, Book VIII). It is in Eden where Adam and Eve go forth unto their labors and Eve proposes to go a different way from Adam, each Labouring apart. Adam tries to dissuade her but resists her idea and Adam yields. It, therefore, comes to pass that Satan in the form of a serpent finds Eve alone and induces her to eat the fruit of the Forbidden Tree. She falls prey to the temptation and induces Adam to eat the fruit. The fall and the dire consequences of it and the immediate sense of shame and remorse are all very vividly described.
The Son of God as the representative of God Almighty comes down to earth and pronounces doom on Adam and Eve and the Serpent. Adam and Eve are to be cast out of Eden and Satan are to be permanently converted into a reptile. All these kind of punishments provokes the image in the readers’ mind that God has done what he warned to Adam and Eve. The Almighty, however, foretells Sin and Death that their bold ascend from Hell to the earth is an overthrow, the redemption of man through the meditation of a Saviour. This again foretells us the supreme power that God has performed in the case of Adam and Eve by descending them from Eden to earth will surely be exercised as to his predestination.
The predestination is vibrantly spoken when the Father advances to explain in detail his predestined plan:
“Some I have chosen of peculiar grace
Elect above the rest; so is my will:
The rest shall hear me call, and oft be warnd
Thir sinful state, and to appease betimes
Th’ incensed Deitie, while offerd Grace
Invites; for I will cleer thir senses dark,
What may suffice, and soft’n stonie hearts
To pray, repent, and bring obedience due.
To prayer, repentance, and obedience due,
Though but endevord with sincere intent,
Mine eare shall not be slow, mine eye not shut.
And I will place within them as a guide
My Umpire Conscience, whom if they will hear,
Light after light well us’d they shall attain,
And to the end persisting, safe arrive.”
(Milton, Book III, 183–197).
The description of predestination in Paradise Lost always accentuates the decisive role of human free will, even to the extent of depicting creaturely free will itself as the eventual aim of God’s congenial decree. Satan’s strategy is clear to God that Satan is willing to visit the earth and to attempt the destruction of Adam and Eve, God tells his Son:
“Man will heark’n to his glozing lyes,
And easily transgress the sole Command,
Sole pledge of his obedience: So will fall
Hee and his faithless Progenie.” (Milton, Book III, 193–196)
When the fall is foreseen, the Father immediately announces his congenial attitude intending to restore humanity: ‘Man … shall find Grace’ (3.131). And dazzling the wish and nature of the father, son shining is the noticeable evidence of the elegance of God.
“Beyond compare the Son of God was seen
Most glorious, in him all his Father shon
Substantially exprest, and in his face
Divine compassion visibly appeerd,
Love without end, and without measure Grace” (Milton, Book III, 138–142)
The Son himself pleads and then the entire scene becomes a depiction of the ‘Eternal purpose’ which God has selected:
O Son, in whom my Soul hath chief delight,
Son of my bosom, Son who art alone
My Word, my wisdom, and effectual might,
All hast thou spok’n as my thoughts are, all
As my Eternal purpose hath decreed” (Milton, Book III, 168–172).
Conclusive Remark
Before possessing any need of salvation, before humans were fallen, God has already destined their salvation. God has divinely proposed to turn towards humanity, his ‘creature late so lov’d’ (3.151), in grace. Thus the epic is a means of predestination of God and plays an act of God’s grace. Moreover, it is a portrayal in which human beings have been given free will either to accept God’s obedience or reject it under the plans set by God.
The story ‘Daisy Miller’ is a narrative that tells the story of a young American girl whose zeal to explore compromises her reputation. This narrative gives a short description of the story and captures key events that make Daisy, a socially unaccepted girl in a society that esteem traditional morality. The second part of the article points out two central themes namely; traditional morality and free will that revolve around the story ‘Daisy Miller’. It also gives an in-depth analysis of how the main characters represent the aforementioned themes.
Winterborne meets Daisy, a beautiful young American girl, in the Swiss holiday resort. Apparently, Daisy has no misgiving holding conversations with strangers. He perceives her as “a pretty American flirt” (Henry 15).In the height of Winterborne’s talk with her, she mentions her intentions to hang out at a castle across the water; he expresses his interest in having the adventurous walk with her. After a couple of days, Daisy finds it appropriate to introduce Winterborne to her mother regardless of his doubts as to whether her mother would be comfortable with the whole idea. Later on that evening, Daisy suggests to Winterborne about her wish to ride on the lake and willingly overlooks the appropriateness of the time. Somewhere at the back of his mind, Winterborne is mystified by Daisy’s thoughts and actions. Despite the fact that he has serious concerns about Daisy’s tarnishing reputation he gets carried away by her spontaneity and levity. He reassures his innate being that Daisy could be acting out of innocence.
Deep down, Winterborne is dying to introduce Daisy to her aunt Mrs. Castello but she turns down the request with justifiable allegations she had heard about her. According to Mrs. Castello, the young American girl was flaunting and vulgar. In the course of their get together at the castle, Daisy gets to know that Winterborne would soon leave. After infuriating him about being under the possible tempt of some woman, she makes him pledge to visit her in Rome. Several months pass by, and Winterborne goes to Rome upon which he finds out that Daisy Miller is a household story. The natives of Rome allege that she’s fond of meeting strange men in discreet venues. As a coincidence Daisy meets Winterborne and teases him at the house of a mutual companion, Mrs. Walker. Daisy talks of her intentions to visit Mr. Giovanelli and pays little attention to Mrs. Walker advisory against being seen with men. When Winterborne tries to caution her against visiting Mr. Giovanelli, she says, “I have never allowed a gentleman to dictate to me or interfere with anything I do” (Henry 49). She resolves this by requesting Winterborne to accompany him.
In a matter of minutes, Mrs. Walker pulls over her carriage and pleads with her to leave the company of Winterborne and Mr. Giovanelli. She reproves her about what people would say when they see her in the group of men. However, Daisy firmly stands up for herself to defend against the public opinion about her; she firmly maintains that if her actions are improper, then she’s improper and begs them to forget about her. Mrs. Walker tells her that she would be a topic of discussion, but she says “Talked about? What do you mean? … I don’t think I want to know what you mean. I don’t think I should like it” (Henry 55). At the festivity of Mrs. Walker, Daisy infuriates her hostess by getting in late accompanied by her Italian ally. After the social affair, Mrs. Walker disregards her and informs Winterborne that Daisy is not welcome in her house.
For a lengthy period, Winterborne continues to hear bizarre allegations against Daisy, but he firmly maintains that she is an innocent girl, incautious though. Nevertheless, the trust of Winterborne in Daisy boils in one late evening when he transverses the coliseum. He unexpectedly sees an Italian friend with Daisy and realizes that she was not young and innocent as he had thought. He sways Daisy to exit and later inquires the Italian’s purpose of taking her out that late. After some days, Daisy suffers from Roman fever and passes away. At her burial, Mr. Giovanelli says, “…she did what she liked” (Henry 80). During the period that Daisy is ill, she tries to pass a message that Winterborne gets to comprehend after her demise. He acknowledges Daisy innocence and gets enlightened of her strong personality.
The story majorly focalizes on the decisions that individual characters make under societal pressure. There is a constant interplay between traditional morality and free will with most characters disregarding unaccustomed habits. Winterborne goes against society’s expectations by approaching Daisy; the moral code of the community they live in renders such as impolite. Winterborne seems to prey on Daisy’s naïve looks because she enjoys the attention. He goes ahead to commit the socially insufferable by accompanying Daisy to the castle before knowing her well. In Winterborne’s society, there are no repercussions for his misconduct and his life would continue as usual.
However, Daisy puts her reputation on the balance and end up being in bad terms with Mrs. Castello. At a later time, Daisy loses Mrs. Walker’s companionship because she would risk tarnishing her name. Mrs. Walker and Mrs. Castello embody the traditional feature that objects Daisy’s demeanor. According to them, women are to evade characters that reflect an interest in a person they have no desire for a wedding. Daisy’s involvement with Mr. Giovanelli puts her in a questionable social position given that she behaves in a similar way with other men. The community, therefore, assumes that she may be having an affair and gets ridiculed by the servants and cab-driver at the restaurant. Moreover, Winterborne does share the same opinion at some point, despite their close friendship.
Daisy, on the contrary, believes in making her choices and barely cares about what anyone says. She is independent, straightforward, outspoken, and freedom-loving, contrary to the general expectations of the community in Geneva, Switzerland. According to her, the decision of taking Mr. Giovanelli to the Coliseum is hers to make and should have no consequences on her life. The community, however, perceives her actions unpardonable and believes she visited the Coliseum with the intent of behaving inappropriately. People put false allegations against her and make blind judgments about her behavior without considering the truth of the matter. Daisy is simply rebellious to the rigid British customs and strives to maintain her liberty.
It is unequivocal a woman looking for a suitor would paint a negative picture of herself when she expresses interest in a young man; thus, the freedom of choice becomes grievous quality. Mr. Giovaneli or Winterborne could choose to visit the Coliseum, but Daisy stands to the danger of being socially ostracized. The consequences of men’s conduct in such a society are debatable and paint the picture of the world where men do not account for their actions. The story depicts that women ought to be the source and custodian of morality while men are not to measure up to the said standards. In conclusion, this is a typical of double standards on the gender morality in some present day societies.
Works Cited
Henry, James. Daisy Miller. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985. Print.