Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Feminism in american literature
Gender in literature
Feminism in american literature
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Freedom and Causality
The idea of freedom is one that is crucial to the world as we know it today. The burning question of whether we are really free to become whatever we desire or subjected to a cause which determines our future is popularly debated upon. The German philosopher, Paul Rée, in his works, “The Illusion of Free Will”, states that every act of will is preceded by sufficient cause. This cause, be it genetics or worldly experiences, determines one’s actions, and free will is therefore an impossibility. Simone de Beauvoir, the French existentialist, in her works, “The Ethics of Ambiguity”, argues that it is not causality that governs will, but rather free will that shape one’s actions and the future. Her existentialist claims state
…show more content…
Whilst both these thinkers provide strong arguments for freedom and causality, I will be arguing that de Beauvoir’s views on free will is the most suitable for human action. Rée’s opinions, though not incorrect, are not sufficiently justified and lack the depth that De Beauvoir’s views hold.
Paul Rée’s works refute the argument of free will with propositions backed by the principle of causality. The premises of his argument lie on the concept that every action occurs because of a prior cause. This action is the result of a chain of events, within parameters
…show more content…
This is because I am a free being, who can attain higher levels of freedom within oneself and reality. Her view is a more liberal view, contrary to Rée’s restrictive view. Ultimate freedom may never be attained in reality, but we can always work towards this freedom. Feminists, activists and fighters for liberation may prefer Simone de Beauvoir’s views for its transparency and simplicity. In some way, we are all fighters in the quest for freedom from a world that we did not create. Her arguments hold a better account for human action, and hold a scope for human beings to grasp the best form of themselves, which is a decent way to comprehend
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.
The issue of free will has been a contentious one for a long time now between philosophers. Many have debated over the issue and ended up taking different stances. In this essay paper, I will argue the viewpoints of two great individuals in the field of philosophy; Pereboom and J. Coates whereby it is understood that they took completely different positions regarding this combative matter. An inquiry into the works of the two will enable us to answer these two imperative questions: Does denial of unregulated factors hinder the value and meaning of life? Also, is their need to defend free will rationally?
Singer presents that one’s attitude to the unavoidable creates free will. The conscious choice to not be influenced by the inexplicable of life and maintain a positive outlook give one the necessary choice for free will to exist. Free will, he argues, is largely a matter of attitude. Though Gimpel’s outlook does depend on a strong faith, with it, most of the things that are outside of Gimpel’s control become insignificant. He cannot control his wife’s infidelity but with his outlook, such things don’t matter. At every step, one is able to make the choice to either let the external forces influence your behavior and feeling or consciously know that such forces are just a part of life and continue with your
3. Discuss the issue between Baron d'Holbach and William James on free will and determinism?
In this essay I shall argue that Paul Rée is correct in saying that free will is just an illusion. Throughout the reading entitled “The Illusion of Free Will,” Rée makes numerous great points about how we believe we have free will but we really do not. He discusses how one’s childhood upbringing determines his actions for the rest of his life, which, as a result, diminishes his freedom of will. He brings about the major issues with the common thought that since you could have acted in a different way than you actually did, you have free will. Another main argument was the proof of the reality of the law of causality, which can also be referred to as determinism.
In this essay, Walter T. Stace writes about how the existence of free will is not a real problem, that a lot of people may not believe in free will because they do not have the correct definition of it, but if they
The power of acting without necessity and acting on one’s own discretion, free will still enamors debates today, as it did in the past with philosophers Nietzsche, Descartes, and Hume. There are two strong opposing views on the topic, one being determinism and the other “free will”. Determinism, or the belief a person lacks free will and all events, including human actions, are determined by forces outside the will of an individual, contrasts the entire premise of free will. Rene Descartes formulates his philosophical work through deductive reasoning and follows his work with his system of reasoning. David Hume analyzes philosophical questions with inductive reasoning and skepticism in a strong systematic order.
For centuries philosophers have debated over the presence of free will. As a result of these often-heated arguments, many factions have evolved, the two most prominent being the schools of Libertarianism and of Determinism. Within these two schools of thought lies another debate, that of compatibilism, or whether or not the two believes can co-exist. In his essay, Has the Self “Free Will”?, C.A. Campbell, a staunch non-compatiblist and libertarian, attempts to explain the Libertarian argument.
All in all, each view of the philosophy of free will and determinism has many propositions, objects and counter-objections. In this essay, I have shown the best propositions for Libertarianism, as well as one opposition for which I gave a counter-objection. Additionally, I have explained the Compatabalistic and Hard Deterministic views to which I gave objections. In the end, whether it is determinism or indeterminism, both are loaded with difficulties; however, I have provided the best explanation to free will and determinism and to an agent being morally responsible.
The problem of free will and determinism is a mystery about what human beings are able to do. The best way to describe it is to think of the alternatives taken into consideration when someone is deciding what to do, as being parts of various “alternative features” (Van-Inwagen). Robert Kane argues for a new version of libertarianism with an indeterminist element. He believes that deeper freedom is not an illusion. Derk Pereboom takes an agnostic approach about causal determinism and sees himself as a hard incompatibilist. I will argue against Kane and for Pereboom, because I believe that Kane struggles to present an argument that is compatible with the latest scientific views of the world.
Ambiguity can be defined as a lack of precise meaning or interpretation, so how can we describe human existence as “ambiguous”? Surely, there must be some essence, or characteristic thing, that we can use to solidify the meaning of our existence. However, it becomes difficult to pin down exactly what every human existence has in common. Dreams of fame and fortune motivate and consume the lives of some people, others dedicate their lives to help people less fortunate, and still there are those that sit on a couch all day watching TV as their years monotonously pass by. In The Ethics of Ambiguity, Simone de Beauvoir develops an existentialist view that explains the details of an ambiguous existence and how those who exist should act in this world. De Beauvoir relies on an individual’s freedom to argue that existence is ambiguous and that each individual should act with the intention of securing this freedom in herself and others. I find Simone de Beauvoir’s analysis on an ambiguous existence to be logical, as I tend to think and act in ways that may constitute my being an existentialist.
“We are left alone, without excuse. This is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free” (Sartre 32). Radical freedom and responsibility is the central notion of Jean-Paul Sartre’s philosophy. However, Sartre himself raises objections about his philosophy, but he overcomes these obvious objections. In this paper I will argue that man creates their own essence through their choices and that our values and choices are important because they allow man to be free and create their own existence. I will first do this by explaining Jean-Paul Sartre’s quote, then by thoroughly stating Sartre’s theory, and then by opposing objections raised against Sartre’s theory.
For ages, Philosophers have struggled with the dispute of whether human actions are performed “at liberty” or not. “It is “the most contentious question, of metaphysics, the most contentious science” (Hume 528). In Section VIII of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume turns his attention in regards to necessary connection towards the topics “Of Liberty and Necessity.” Although the two subjects may be one of the most arguable questions in philosophy, Hume suggests that the difficulties and controversies surrounding liberty (i.e. free will) and necessity (i.e. causal determinism) are simply a matter of the disputants not having properly defined their terms. He asserts that all people, “both learned and ignorant, have always been of the same opinion with regard to this subject and that a few intelligible definitions would immediately have put an end to the whole controversy” (Hume 522). Hume’s overall strategy in section VIII is to adhere by his own claim and carefully define “liberty” and ‘necessity” and challenge the contemporary associations of the terms by proving them to be compatible.
Simone de Beauvoir was an existential philosopher primarily focused on issues concerning the oppression and embodiment of women. Although she did not consider herself a philosopher, Beauvoir had significantly influenced both feminist existentialism and feminist theory; her place in philosophical thought can be considered in relation to major concepts such as existentialism, phenomenology, social philosophy, and feminist theory.
Freedom, or the concept of free will seems to be an elusive theory, yet many of us believe in it implicitly. On the opposite end of the spectrum of philosophical theories regarding freedom is determinism, which poses a direct threat to human free will. If outside forces of which I have no control over influence everything I do throughout my life, I cannot say I am a free agent and the author of my own actions. Since I have neither the power to change the laws of nature, nor to change the past, I am unable to attribute freedom of choice to myself. However, understanding the meaning of free will is necessary in order to decide whether or not it exists (Orloff, 2002).