I believe that when I enrolled in PHIL 150, I acted freely. This is not to say that I acted in a way in which I controlled everything as there are external forces that could have taken place that swayed my decision of choosing PHIL 150, however, I simply state that the final decision was made by me after taking into account what the course entailed and if or not I 'd enjoy it. I will elaborate on my answer using the following three arguments; Determinism, Libertarianism and Compatibilism.
Well first before I talk about these three positions, I must first define my definition of acting freely. My definition of acting freely is the ability to have and make decisions when under no circumstance an external actor, rule or law can stop you from …show more content…
Assume that we were back before electricity and light bulbs were invented. The idea of these inventions were unknowing to us thus how could the creation of these come about if we subscribed to the view of determinism. It wouldn’t make sense as how could you predict something that at the time we had no knowledge on. Would this mean that determinism could predict even the events that we have no knowledge on? Well, if we were to say yes then we would have to subscribe to the fact that in a sense, no one person came about something by chance. Take a poker player. They associate winnings with probabilities, now if we were under the assumption of a determinist then these probabilities would be useless as regardless of if the probability was high or low the outcome would be set. This is fine until you understand that probabilities contradict a determinist view. This is because even if the next card that’s flopped is based on probability, the actual event is total random as it’s not a given that the highest probability will occur. Now, how does this equate to the idea that we have free will. Well, I believe this is quite simple. If there is probability then how can a prediction be right 100 percent of the time? thus if there is no set outcome then this would prove determinism wrong, thus leading to the fact that from this free will would exist. Thus my conclusion on determinism is that it is wrong in assuming that there …show more content…
I believe show perfectly why I subscribe to the idea that I chose PHIL 150 under my own free will. This is simply because I believe determinism doesn’t take into account the chance or probability of an event. For example say I chose to blindfold myself when choosing whether to pick PHIL 150, thus makes me believe that in some way I must have been acting freely. Libertarianism holds too strong of assumptions for me to say I acted completely freely which is why I believe that compatibilism helps me to get the final answer of saying that while the final decision was made by me, there was some forces that swayed my decision. To answer the question simply, Yes, I acted freely when choosing PHIL 150; however, it was not without some
Well first before I talk about these three positions, I must first define my definition of acting freely. My definition of acting freely is the ability to have and make decisions when under no circumstance an external actor, rule or law can stop you from …show more content…
Assume that we were back before electricity and light bulbs were invented. The idea of these inventions were unknowing to us thus how could the creation of these come about if we subscribed to the view of determinism. It wouldn’t make sense as how could you predict something that at the time we had no knowledge on. Would this mean that determinism could predict even the events that we have no knowledge on? Well, if we were to say yes then we would have to subscribe to the fact that in a sense, no one person came about something by chance. Take a poker player. They associate winnings with probabilities, now if we were under the assumption of a determinist then these probabilities would be useless as regardless of if the probability was high or low the outcome would be set. This is fine until you understand that probabilities contradict a determinist view. This is because even if the next card that’s flopped is based on probability, the actual event is total random as it’s not a given that the highest probability will occur. Now, how does this equate to the idea that we have free will. Well, I believe this is quite simple. If there is probability then how can a prediction be right 100 percent of the time? thus if there is no set outcome then this would prove determinism wrong, thus leading to the fact that from this free will would exist. Thus my conclusion on determinism is that it is wrong in assuming that there …show more content…
I believe show perfectly why I subscribe to the idea that I chose PHIL 150 under my own free will. This is simply because I believe determinism doesn’t take into account the chance or probability of an event. For example say I chose to blindfold myself when choosing whether to pick PHIL 150, thus makes me believe that in some way I must have been acting freely. Libertarianism holds too strong of assumptions for me to say I acted completely freely which is why I believe that compatibilism helps me to get the final answer of saying that while the final decision was made by me, there was some forces that swayed my decision. To answer the question simply, Yes, I acted freely when choosing PHIL 150; however, it was not without some