Freewill Through the Eyes of Stace
I can most relate with Stace’s views on freewill. I feel that the freewill argument is more about definition and the word’s true meaning. I also agree with his statement of, “if there is no free will there can be no morality.” Stace believes that is doing what we want to do and not being constrained from doing so. Morality is a good argument of why we do what we do. Then there is the idea that we have choices and choices are made by the individual and not by outside influences.
Stace’s main argument in stated in, “The dispute is merely verbal, and is due to nothing but a confusion about the meaning of words. It is now what is fashionably called a semantic problem.” Words are all we really have to explain our thoughts. We can add to words by using body language and pictures, but even these are still explained in words. Words are given meaning, according to Stace, by, “Common usage is the criterion for deciding whether a definition is correct or not.” This means that words should be used, as everyone knows them. The exception to this is slang. So to a point it is philosophers changing the words of freewill and creating their own slang definition and like Stace says, “the mistake which the deniers of freewill have made is rather subtle and difficult to detect.” Stace feels that the wrong definition of freewill is the ability to do something else.
On the topic of morality and Stace’s ...
In “1984,” Orwell uses Winston to portray a single individual’s attempt to take action against a powerful government, culminating in his failure and subjugation. His individual efforts failed tremendously due to the overarching power of the Party to control every aspect of social life in Oceania. Orwell uses Winston’s deeply seated hatred of the Party to portray his views on power and social change. Winston’s actions show that even in the direst of situations ...
...on, freedom of the will is needed to clarify that just because one’s actions are capable of being predicated, it does not follow that I am constrained to do one action or the other. If I am constrained though, my will is absent from the situation, for I really don’t want to give someone my money with a pistol to my head, and it follows my action is constrained and decided by external compulsion, rather than internal activity, or stated otherwise, that internal activity being free will, and thus free will is reconciled with determinism.
President Barack Obama has been a well-known political figure for just over 8 years; he has served two terms as the President of the United States. There has been controversy surrounding the first African American president, after his first term Obama failed to prove to America that he would fix all the things he promised to fix upon election. With his second term he has set in place his views and goals for the country. Obama’s views have been trying to benefit the overall population of American, from the poor all the way to the rich with a few subclasses in-between. During the Inauguration of his second term, won against Mitt Romney. His opponent stood for many things that were conflicting to Obamas platform, while Obama stood for rehabilitating the poor after the recession, Romney wanted to focus on tax breaks for the rich. Throughout the speech given by President Barack Obama, he outlines necessary changes in the system to benefit the people and the need for people to come together as one to have an effective country.
From his extremely vivid imagery at the beginning to his conclusion that America plans to seek a solution with Russia and other nations, the president’s flow from using pathos to logos to ethos made his speech very effective and compelling. His argument was backed up and supported all through out his speech, which helped his audience believe that what he was saying is true and important. However, his speech would have been nothing without the implication and opinion that America is the strongest nation in the world. Although this point is debatable, it is our duty to help other nations. We definitely do an excellent job at helping other nations and always having their best interests at heart. I believe this was the main goal for Obama’s speech; a plan to protect the United States. The use of logos, ethos and pathos just helped his speech to be more persuasive and
As the President was ending his speech, he gives recognition to those American that are often overlooked. Due to, not having a political title or a high social class position. Throughout these recognitions, the president said “I see it”, which allows viewers to feel a sense of appreciation. By him addressing all walks of life, Americans were able to identify with the various situations and feel worthy and important. For example, Obama said “I see it in the American who served his time, and made mistakes as a child, but now is dreaming of starting over and I see it in the business owner who gives him that second chance.” This was impactful because there are millions of Americans that can relate to this story. So when they hear the president recognizing them despite one’s shortcomings is heartwarming. Furthermore, this emotional appeal leaves viewers with a good feeling about Obama, because they feel he understands them and has their best interest at heart. Therefore, Obama succeeded at being the voice of the people and touching their heart with his empathy and positive
Obama, Barack H. "The 2013 State of the Union Address." The White House. N.p., 13 Feb.
"Inaugural Address by President Barack Obama." The White House. The White House, n.d. Web. 22 Apr. 2014. .
...y in both speeches. In the Inaugural Address, the speech was filled significantly with ethos and pathos because the audience was the general public. However, in the state of union speech, he used mostly ethos and logos to address the congress members in particular. Nevertheless, President Obama was able to deliver both speeches using the precise style and language for each occasion. Also, he supported his claims with logic and evidences. By doing so, he was able to accomplish his political agenda and in the same time he won the hearts and confidence of the American citizens.
The fear he brings on by talking about Ebola spreading, the grief brought on by talking of the many murders and awful acts by ISIL terrorists, to the hope he projects be calling for the nations to come together to drive his argument. While some arguments use emotion to deceive readers and keep them from paying attention to the argument, but Obama’s speech does just the opposite. The emotions that are felt bring you closer to his argument and facilitate understanding of what he is saying. Since unfortunately not a great deal of people pay attention to politics, they are not knowledgeable on the issues that have taken place. With the use of emotion, Obama is able to help those understand without them having to know the situation entirely. For example, regarding the ISIL terrorists, Obama states the, “mother, sisters, and daughters have been subjected to rape as a weapon of war. Innocent children have been gunned down.” Now while one may not know the ins and out of all the acts of ISIL, this makes people understand that they are bad and need to be
The power of acting without necessity and acting on one’s own discretions, 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 skeptism with a strong systematic order. Neither a systematic philosopher nor a rigid thinker, Nietzsche offers his own nihilistic spin on the topic of free will. The three different approaches of free will by Nietzsche, Hume, and Descartes all obtain their strong suits as well as their pitfalls. Nietzsche insists free will is created by theologians and therefore denies its existence, while Descartes embraces free will, and Hume individualizes the meaning of free will.
Imagine starting your day and not having a clue of what to do, but you begin to list the different options and routes you can take to eventually get from point A to point B. In choosing from that list, there coins the term “free will”. Free will is our ability to make decisions not caused by external factors or any other impediments that can stop us to do so. Being part of the human species, we would like to believe that we have “freedom from causation” because it is part of our human nature to believe that we are independent entities and our thoughts are produced from inside of us, on our own. At the other end of the spectrum, there is determinism. Determinism explains that all of our actions are already determined by certain external causes
George Orwell creates a dark, depressing and pessimistic world where the government has full control over the masses in the novel 1984. The protagonist, Winston, is low-level Party member who has grown to resent the society that he lives in. Orwell portrays him as a individual that begins to lose his sanity due to the constrictions of society. There are only two possible outcomes, either he becomes more effectively assimilated or he brings about the change he desires. Winston starts a journey towards his own self-destruction. His first defiant act is the diary where he writes “DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER.” But he goes further by having an affair with Julia, another party member, renting a room over Mr. Carrington’s antique shop where Winston conducts this affair with Julia, and by following O’Brien who claims to have connections with the Brotherhood, the anti-Party movement led my Emmanuel Goldstein. Winston and Julia are both eventually arrested by the Thought Police when Mr. Carrington turns out to be a undercover officer. They both eventually betray each other when O’Brien conducts torture upon them at the Ministry of Love. Orwell conveys the limitations of the individual when it comes to doing something monumental like overthrowing the established hierarchy which is seen through the futility of Winston Smith’s actions that end with his failure instead of the end of Big Brother. Winston’s goal of liberating himself turns out to be hopeless when the people he trusted end up betraying him and how he was arbitrarily manipulated. It can be perceived that Winston was in fact concerned more about his own sanity and physical well-being because he gives into Big Brother after he is tortured and becomes content to live in the society he hated so much. Winston witnesses the weakness within the prole community because of their inability to understand the Party’s workings but he himself embodies weakness by sabotaging himself by associating with all the wrong people and by simply falling into the arms of Big Brother. Orwell created a world where there is no use but to assimilate from Winston’s perspective making his struggle utterly hopeless.
Free will is generally has two similar key points that revolve around it: moral responsibility and freedom of action. Free action is generally when an agent is exercising their free will. For example, let’s say a man named mark was deciding
*referred to in order to determine such cases as the validity of a contract or whether or not someone was guilty of murder
George Orwell uses Winston to represent truth in a deceptive world in his novel 1984. In Oceania, Big Brother is the omnipotent and all powerful leader. Everything the government dictates is unquestionably true, regardless of prior knowledge. Even thinking of ideas that go against Big Brother’s regime, or thoughtcrime, is punishable by death. Winston serves as the dystopian hero, longing for freedom and change. Orwell uses Winston to emphasize the importance of individual freedoms, as they give us the ability to fulfillingly lead our respective lives.