Free Will is a topic that various philosophers and people in general discuss at great lengths about its nature. This is due to the fact that the problem of free will applies to every person on the planet and directly influences peoples’ thoughts/reasoning depending on their sense of free will. With such prevalence within the thoughts of humanity, four views of free will have become widely known throughout the world of everyday people and philosophers alike. These four views being that of Determinism, Compatibilism, ultimate free will and Libertarianism. The problem of free will interests me to a great degree, as I have always seen or been told that one person is not meant for something or that such thing is not possible for them and is ‘destined’
…show more content…
Though I also believe that one’s past for the most part determines their interests and actions of the future, though not entirely. Due to these ideas, I believe that compatibilism within the problem of free will is logically possible. The problem of free will is the argument and discussion on whether ones actions are made out of one’s own desires or that it is predetermined by prior actions and that everything in the future is determined to occur because of it. Free will in philosophy is defined as the ability to choose based of one’s own desires without being impeded or constrained by outside sources. Compatibilism in regarding the problem of free will is that both pre-determinism and free will can occur simultaneously and work in conjunction with one another. The problem of free will is important due to its high integration on morals, ethics, personal responsibility, and hope …show more content…
In compatibilism, both determinism and free will are true while sometimes acting freely. Some try to disparage such a notion by attributing free will to being a non-physical entity while attempting to argue that our minds are in fact, physical. Therefore implying that we are not free to choose, as our minds are predetermined to do specific things due to previous causes. Neuroscientist Patrick Haggard claims such an idea, as he believes that under a specific definition of free-will, that being that free will requires a non-physical mind, discredits the idea that humanity has the free will they believe. Eddy Nahmias, an associate professor and author of the article Is Neuroscience the Death of Free Will states that neuroscience does not mean the death of free will, though it does only through their definition of such. Also that it could if they “somehow demonstrated that conscious deliberation and rational self-control did not really exist or that they worked in a sheltered corner of the brain that has no influence on our actions.” That being that they could prove that people did not have conscious self-control and the ability to choose their actions while it comes from one specific part of the brain. Though it may be true that the physical mind plays a role in decisions and actions, it does not necessarily take free will
Though I also believe that one’s past for the most part determines their interests and actions of the future, though not entirely. Due to these ideas, I believe that compatibilism within the problem of free will is logically possible. The problem of free will is the argument and discussion on whether ones actions are made out of one’s own desires or that it is predetermined by prior actions and that everything in the future is determined to occur because of it. Free will in philosophy is defined as the ability to choose based of one’s own desires without being impeded or constrained by outside sources. Compatibilism in regarding the problem of free will is that both pre-determinism and free will can occur simultaneously and work in conjunction with one another. The problem of free will is important due to its high integration on morals, ethics, personal responsibility, and hope …show more content…
In compatibilism, both determinism and free will are true while sometimes acting freely. Some try to disparage such a notion by attributing free will to being a non-physical entity while attempting to argue that our minds are in fact, physical. Therefore implying that we are not free to choose, as our minds are predetermined to do specific things due to previous causes. Neuroscientist Patrick Haggard claims such an idea, as he believes that under a specific definition of free-will, that being that free will requires a non-physical mind, discredits the idea that humanity has the free will they believe. Eddy Nahmias, an associate professor and author of the article Is Neuroscience the Death of Free Will states that neuroscience does not mean the death of free will, though it does only through their definition of such. Also that it could if they “somehow demonstrated that conscious deliberation and rational self-control did not really exist or that they worked in a sheltered corner of the brain that has no influence on our actions.” That being that they could prove that people did not have conscious self-control and the ability to choose their actions while it comes from one specific part of the brain. Though it may be true that the physical mind plays a role in decisions and actions, it does not necessarily take free will