Peter Van Inwagen Analysis

Mirsada Islamovic
11/2/14
PHI 2010
Freedom of the Will
For many years philosophers have discussed and argued on the subject of free will; whether or not we have free will to determine our course in life or whether our actions are being determined by forces outside of our control. A precise arguer would have to be Peter van Inwagen who although says we do have free will, he goes into depth about its relationship to determinism. I would have to agree with his choice that we can deny the claim that all our choices are determined and hold that we do have control over our choices even if we are still left with a mystery in the end. Peter van Inwagen is concerned with the idea that free will is or isn’t compatible with determinism. He goes into

To deny the no choice principle wouldn’t make any sense because of how correct it is. This principle states that “suppose that p and that no one has (or ever had) any choice about whether p. And suppose also that the following conditional (if-then) statement is true and that none has (or ever had) any choice about whether it is true: if p, then q. it follows from these two supposition that q and that none has (or ever had) any choice about whether q (389).” Now, we can replace p and q with any sentence for example, suppose that World War 2 happened before I was born and no one has (or ever had) any choice about whether World War 2 happened before I was born. And suppose also that the following conditional statement is true and no one has (or ever had) any choice about whether it is true: if World War 2 happened before I was born, then I have never experienced World War 2. It follows from these two beliefs that I have never experienced World War 2 and that no one has (or ever had) any choice about whether I have ever experienced World War 2. How can we then have a choice about something unavoidable, in which we have no choice? It seems as

To say we lack free will would almost make no sense because that is like saying we don’t have the power to achieve one outcome over another which would then mean that there is no point in trying to deliberate and prove a point because you wouldn’t have any options to choose from. And to deny the no choice principle would seem even more senseless because again how can you have a choice about something unavoidable in which you have no choice? It is an undeniably true principle. The purpose of this was to truly recognize each and every outcome and come up with the best choice and form my own ideas. It isn’t easy to wrap your head around free will and determinism and compatibilism, and be able to confidently say that one is true over the other, it’s more about choosing which mystery appeals best in this case. And for me the best way would be the way Inwagen would agree with and that would be stating that determinism isn’t true but we do have control over our