Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Political philosophy
Political philosophy
The branch of philosophy called "epistemology
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Political philosophy
The term philosophy means love of wisdom, it is derived from the Greek Philia (love) and Sophia (wisdom). Philosophy is a way of thinking and an attempt to explore profound questions relating to our existence, such as, how can we build a good society?, what do we mean by good? , what is the meaning of life? and what is genuine happiness? Philosophers focus on many issues, among them; Epistemology, Metaphysics, Logic, Aesthetics, Ethics, and Political Philosophy. Epistemology is the study of knowledge. It is concerned with how knowledge is acquired, what obstacles are faced in the pursuit of knowledge and the limits on what can be known. It differentiates between rational and empirical knowledge. Metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality, it focuses on fundamental existential questions about being and meaning. Logic is the study of reason;deductive and inductive, valid arguments, premises and conclusions. Aesthetics is the study of the nature of beauty. It focuses on art, perception and enjoyment. Ethics is concerned with how people ought to conduct themselves and whether questions of defining right and wrong can ever be answered. Political philosophy is the study of the State in relation to those they govern. It questions the rights and responsibilities of the individual and issues of law and justice. The very nature of Philosophy means that it's scope for enquiry is endless. One of the most widely debated philosophical questions is that of the existence of free will. There are three main positions. Determinism - free will is impossible and Libertarianism-free will is possible and Compatabilism seeks to reconcile the conflict by proposing that the diametrically opposed positions are compatible with one another. The deba... ... middle of paper ... ...eld accountable for their behaviour or considered blameless depending on the circumstance. A problem with the idea of acting on our desires is that we are sometimes coerced into having these desires. For instance, a person being subject to peer pressure and subliminal advertising may start smoking. The initial act of lighting their first cigarette was not a free choice although the person will probably peceive it to be. The addictive nature of the nicotine contained in the cigarette creates a cycle that is difficult to escape. This individual would consider themselves to be free to act on the desire to smoke throughout their life yet they are enslaved by a substance and by their own mind. Many would argue that as compatabilists have conveniantly overlooked the issue of internal states being determined that they are simply determinists who have redefined free will.
In “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person”, Harry Frankfurt illustrates the concepts of freedom of will and freedom of action, but more importantly, Frankfurt has refined the compatibilism theory. Compatibilism allows the freedom of will to exist in the deterministic world. According to determinism theory, the future state of worlds is determined by some events in the distant past (E) and the laws of nature (L). More specifically, E refers to the history, such as experiences or states whereas L refers to scientific or physical law like gravity. For example, an alcoholic’s action is determined that he will not stop drinking. Here E is that he had been drinking in the past, and L is the physiological addiction effect caused by alcohol. As we can control neither E nor L, then it follows that we can never act free. The thesis of compatibilist, however, states that we may have free will, even if all of our actions are determined by forces beyond our controls.
...ink a can of soda. This statement shows that you had the desire to drink the soda with no outside source forcing you to drink that soda. Now to criticize, what if there was a computer chip that was implanted in your brain, that every time you feel thirsty, that you must fulfill this desire by grabbing the can of soda in the refrigerator. Are you still fulfilling your desire, or is an outside force forcing you to drink the can of soda? Currently, you do not know that there is a computer chip implanted inside your brain, but you still fulfill the desire of thirst by drinking a can of soda without anyone preventing you from doing so. As long as you have the desire to drink the can of soda to quench your thirst, you are fulfilling the compatibilist idea of free will.
The most inclusive perspective on free will, compatibilism, combines ideas of determinism and free will, claiming that although we do have the freedom of will and choice, our past experiences define our judgement and therefore our will. (McKenna) Determinists who disagree with the first part, free will, in compatibilism, agree with the later statement, that experiences playing a defining role in our will. In his book, “Between Chance and Choice: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Determinism” author Robert Bishop states the principle of deter...
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.
Soft determinism attempts to make the disagreeing data of determinism and freedom compatible. The theory of soft determinism rests on three fundamental claims: (1) the deterministic concept that human behaviour is causally determined; (2) that there is freedom in voluntary behaviour, so long as there is no physical impediment or constraint upon the action; and (3) that the cause of the voluntary behaviour (which is possible in the absence of impediments or constraints) is an internal state of the agent of the action. According to soft determinism, therefore, we are responsible for our actions on o...
All in all, each view about 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 it 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.
Free will is the ability for a person to make their own decisions without the constraints of necessity and fate, in other words, their actions are not determined. Determinism is the view that the initial conditions of the universe and all possible worlds are the same, including the laws of nature, causing all events to play out the same. Events are determined by the initial conditions. Two prominent positions advocated concerning the relation between free will and determinism are compatibilism and incompatibilism. In this essay I shall argue that compatibilism is true. Firstly, I shall explain what compatibilism is and consider possible objections and responses to the theory. I shall then examine incompatibilism and evaluate its strengths and weaknesses and argue that compatibilism is a stronger argument and, as a result, show why it is also true.
Compatiblists propose that free will and determinism coexist while to incompatibilists that would be impossible. If we are to decide for ourselves then firstly we must establish the meanings of causal determinism and freedom of the will. Proponents of causal determinism contend that
Free will is a problem that has been occupying the minds of many philosophers. The classical debate is whether we have free will or we are determined and therefore free will in an illusion. There are many views that philosophers have brought to the table in order to tackle this debate. Some of which are determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism. Harry Frankfurt’s general intake on the debate is that free will is not about having the ability to do otherwise. Instead, free will is about having the ability to make judgements about our desires. The purpose of this paper is to expound and asses Harry Frankfurt’s semi-compatibilist view, his concept of a person, and how it relates to the freedom of the will.
The question of free will (greec: τὸ αὐτεξούσιον or τὸ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν,lat: liberum arbitrium), which requires a high level of authenticity, rationality and the ability to choose between different alternatives interested for centuries important philosophers and since last decades also neuroscientists. If the person deals according to her personal motives (competing desires which depend upon her personality) and has freedom of action so we can call her desision free will. But this will often undergos environmental influences. For creation of a concept that overcomes this limitation of freedom the definition of absolute freedom was proposed. Karl Popper and Jean -Paul Sartre believed in this kind of free will. For metaphysical libertarianism (divided into physical and non-physical or natural theory) concept of free will implies that the individual in certain circumstances can make a choice from several possible actions. The non-physical theories consider dualistically that the events in the brain that lead to action, can not be reduced to physical explanations. William of Ockham and Thomas ...
Various views on free will have been developed since then. The three that I will mention in this essay are Libertarianism, Hard Determinism and Compatibilism. Libertarians believe each individual should look to enhance their lives through the use of free will or the freedom of choice. On the contrary, Hard determinism argues that free will is impossible. Proponents of this ideology
Compatibilists believe that these two things can co-exist and that determinism has no negative effect on free will. (Evangelist) For the compatibilist, the notion of freedom is the essence of their standpoint, as they wish for a freedom that goes hand in hand with moral responsibility. They believe that notion of freedom is the act of making decisions on the basis of reason. (Evangelist) This means that in order to have moral responsibility and freedom, the freedom that we have cannot be that of a spontaneous and uncaused nature, meaning that the choices we make are influenced and kept in line by moral values and beliefs. I support this view because I believe that it accurately represents how an individual processes the actions that they take or decisions they make while taking into account that there are no constraints or impediments preventing these actions, which is the essence of freedom to a compatibilist. According to Kane, being free, according to a compatibilist, is being able to do what we desire or want without the absence of any constraints or impediments that would in turn prevent someone from doing what they want or desire(Kane, 2005, pg. 13). These constraints can be physical or mental, as long as they take away from an individual's ability to do what they want or desire. An example of this form of free will could be something as simple as
The word “philosophy” is derived from two roots that are “philo” and “Sophia.” Philo means love whereas Sophia means wisdom. Therefore, philosophy means the love of wisdom. In actual practice, philosophy entails study of, pursuit, and enquiry into wisdom. A good number of great philosophers have referred to philosophy as the art of thinking. Others have only defined it as the systematic study of human feelings and thoughts.
Since the beginning of historical writings, many philosophers have pondered on the concept of free will. The struggle with the concept has ranged between, man deciding any action through the will he has to the hard determinist thinking of causal agents being the cause of man’s actions and thus having no free will. This paper will seek to critically discuss that free will is indeed not an illusion. By examining the arguments of the philosophers made by O’Connor (2002) and Sartre (1946) and conversely the arguments of the opposing compatibilists McKenna, Michael and Coates (2015), I will argue that to exist before free will is utilised, makes free will no illusion at all. While the later philosophers will argue that
Philosophy encompasses almost all different studies regarding different issues in the world. It is one of the broadest body of knowledge that speaks about everything that is connected with life. Like what it gives us, Philosophy has also its own life that evolves and becomes better throughout the time, giving us better ideas in dealing with life.