Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on Moll Flanders
Analysis of Moll Flanders
Essays on Moll Flanders
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Freedom and Fate in Moll Flanders
Are people who believe in freewill simply ignorant of the reasons of their actions? In the context of Defoe's Moll Flanders, this question may result in considerable debate. Was Flanders free or was she predetermined to live a wicked and improper life mired in years of penitence? Did the whorish behavior of Moll's mother predetermine Moll's actions? Certainly there is no question that Flanders was a criminal - she was a whore, a thief, and she practiced incest.
In regards to Flanders having sex with her own brother it would be difficult to argue that this was a predetermined event considering she truly did not know her husband was of her own flesh and blood. If, indeed, she was aware of the relation and then chose to proceed then one could discus it further in the context of freewill. As for being a whore there is no question that Flanders, especially later in her life, involved herself with such happenings, but for me it was the thievery that seemed to capture the essence of Flanders continual undoing and constant need for penitence. There is no better part of Defoe's work to capture the feelings of utter despondency then when Moll is going to steal for the first time from the apothecary's shop. Defoe prefaces the scene with a few paragraphs where Moll explains her absolute "desolate state". The crime is then set in what James Sutherland explains, "...Moll's first theft he sets the scene with such careful attention to detail that he fixes it in our minds, and gives to it that air of authenticity which, for Defoe, is almost justification of fiction". This is where Defoe's journalistic stylings shine. The reader is indeed in the apothecary and sees Moll's gaffe unfolding before him.
We are free to judge whether or not we would take the bundle that so often becomes Moll's pursuit in the future. It is at that instant that we can decide whether Moll was free to do so or controlled by something unavoidable, such as fate. If Moll was acting on freewill it is arguable that she would not repeat the same crime in the future, in fact she would most likely avoid any such acts that resulted in the terrible feelings she experienced during and after the first offense. For she says herself, "It is impossible to express the horror of my soul all the while I did it".
What motivates members of Congress to act the way they do? Mayhew would argue in Congress: The Electoral Connection that members of Congress are ‘’single-minded re-election seekers’’ and that re-election is their one and only goal. Whilst the assumption that all members of Congress are ‘‘single-minded re-election seekers’’ does go some distance in analysing the motives behind members of Congress, the reading fails to take into account the other key goals of members of Congress. Other goals include good policy and future career positions. It is important to remember that the achievement of both re-election and other goals are not exclusive, members of Congress often are motivated by more than one goal.
In Roderick Chisholm’s essay Human Freedom and the Self he makes the reader aware of an interesting paradox which is not normally associated with the theory of free will. Chisholm outlines the metaphysical problem of human freedom as the fact that we claim human beings to be the responsible agents in their lives yet this directly opposes both the deterministic (that every action was caused by a previous action) and the indeterministic (that every act is not caused by anything in particular) view of human action. To hold the theory that humans are the responsible agents in regards to their actions is to discredit hundreds of years of philosophical intuition and insight.
Human beings always believe that what they want to do is ‘up to them,' and on this account, they take the assumption that they have free will. Perhaps that is the case, but people should investigate the situation and find a real case. Most of the intuitions may be correct, but still many of them can be incorrect. There are those who are sceptical and believe that free will is a false illusion and that it only exists in the back of people’s minds, but society should be able to distinguish feelings from beliefs in order to arrive at reality and truth.
When congress reconvened in December of 1865, they refused to accept the delegations from southern states. The radical republicans in congress designed a serious of acts known as the reconstruction acts to implement their program in the south. These acts included the Freedman’s Bureau that helped the free slaves adjust to a free society. Also, the Civil Rights Act, which guaranteed blacks both the right to vote and the right to hold property. President Johnson vetoed all the reconstruction acts of congress and congress under the domination of the radical republicans overrode his vetoes. This gridlock between the presidential power and congressional power set the stage for an impeachment in 1868.
...ilities of Congress is that minorities and factions exist: dissent takes place, not disagreements. Verbal brawls take place rather than actual argumentation, and that is what kills democracy. That is why things never get done.
Before we can discuss the issue between Baron d'Holbach and William James we have to know the definitions of the items the issue is about. Free will according to the Encarta encyclopedia is "The power or ability of the human mind to choose a course of action or make a decision without being subject to restraints imposed by antecedent causes, by necessity, or by divine predetermination. A completely freewill act is a cause and not an effect; it is beyond causal sequence or the law of causality." So according to this statement freewill is the ability for humans to make decisions without influences or outside restrictions.
The prime deer habitat consists of deciduous trees, primarily cottonwood, ash, willow, elm and box elder. However preferred, the woodland cover is not essential to the deer’s survival.
Philosophers have developed many different theories to explain the existence and behavior of “free will.” This classical debate has created two main family trees of theories, with multiple layers and overlapping. It all begins with Determinist and Indeterminist theories. Simply put, determinists believe that our choices are determined by circumstance, and that the freedom to make our own decisions does not exist. Indeterminists, for example Libertarians, believe that we are free to make our own choices; these choices are not determined by other factors, like prior events. In class, we began the discussion of free will, and the competing arguments of Determinists and Indeterminists, with the works of Roderick Chisholm, a libertarian who made
Another thought that exemplifies the significance that free will holds, is seen in elements of Sophocles' classic, which revealed that Oedipus had more knowledge over the details of his dilemma than he let himself become conscious of. The last idea will reveal how the onset of fear will push people down a treacherous path of risk and pain, which is also seen in the play through multiple characters. Free will is an attribute that all people possess. It could work as a tool to get individuals through the scary twists their lives may entail. It could also work against them in many ways, which depends on the level of human weakness and ignorance. But, the most important assertion that can be made after considering the argument of, "fate vs. free will," is that...
Public opinion is like this because many U.S. citizens believe that Congress is not taking the right action to help and benefit the people. Citizens believe that Congress is doing what is best for them and not for this generation and the next of U.S. citizens. A way that Congress could approve its public opinion is that Congress could ask the opinion of citizens and keep it mind. Doing so it would make the people feel like their voice is being heard. Telling the people about what a Bill entails would as well help raise the public opinion of Congress. This is going to be a bill that could affect them; citizens have the right to know what is going on within their own government.
Like I said before freewill is a topic that philosophers have argued about over the years. Most times when the question ‘do you have freewill?’ is asked, a lot of individuals usually say they are free even without thinking twice. Although there are a lot of philosopher that believe we all have freewill and there are also other philosopher who have spoken up and tried to prove their point that humans have no freewill. Philosopher that argue that humans have no freewill are called the determinists. The determinists argue
When we mention the word ‘privacy’, we mean that there is something very personal about ourselves. Something that we think others are not supposed to know, or, we do not want them to. Nevertheless, why is it so? Why are people so reluctant to let others know about them entirely? This is because either they are afraid of people doing them harm or they are scared that people may treat them differently after their secrets are known. Without privacy, the democratic system that we know would not exist. Privacy is one of the fundamental values on which our country was established. Moreover, with the internet gaining such popularity, privacy has become a thing of the past. People have come to accept that strangers can view personal information about them on social networking sites such as Facebook, and companies and the government are constantly viewing a person’s activity online for a variety of reasons. From sending email, applying for a job, or even using the telephone, Americans right to privacy is in danger. Personal and professional information is being stored, link, transferred, shared, and even sold. Various websites, the government and its agencies, and hospitals are infringing our privacy without our permission or knowledge.
What does it mean to have free will? From my perspective it is the ability to make your own decisions when confronted with problems in order to have an outcome you desire. According to dictionary.com it is “the doctrine that the conduct of human being expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.” Even with humans being capable of choosing their own destiny, is it possible to over come fate no matter how hard you try? There is a theory of life that is summarized as everything happens for a reason because that is your destiny. My confusion is, can free will come into play and change your destiny? Can you actually have the free will to change the outcome of what fate has in store for you. Free will and fate are continuously demonstrated in Oedipus the King the play, how ever only one brought Oedipus towards downfall and ultimately to his death. An analysis of Oedipus reveals that no matter how we try to avoid our fate, it will happen.
Free will tends to be a topic where even the most non-philosophical person will have an extreme opinion on it and understandably so. The issue of free will has an immense consequence that affects even the most basic day-to-day activities in our lives. Specifically, free will is entirely intertwined with the idea of responsibility. Two contrasting views of free will are determinism and indeterminism, both of which threaten the idea of human responsibility in their own way. Similarly to most everyone else, I experience my own decisions as choices between genuine possibilities and this undoubtedly has an effect on how I could choose to commit to an answer on whether or not we have free will.
A reason why some think that free will is not possible is because many believe that the only way we know about nature is from observations that we collect. Since observation can not give us a justification of free will, it is easy to think that there isn’t any such thing. Free will may not be something that we can see directly, but what best explains what we do see in human life. This may include, for example, the mistakes that human beings make in contrast to the few mistakes that other animals make. We also notice that human beings do all kinds of odd things that cannot be accounted for. We can examine a person’s background and find that some people with bad childhoods turn out to be decent, and vise versa. ...