Man has been grappling with the complexity of free-will and determinism since the antiquity era. Over the centuries, innovative ideas have been presented defending both cases of the argument. In the case of determinism, I choose to focus on two specific branches of the philosophy: casual determinism and theological determinism. These two concepts contribute the most compelling evidence on the determinist’s behalf. The main issue which arises from determinism is the notion that an individual is not living on his/her own terms, but instead is participating in a predestined reality. Free-will, on the other hand, suggests that an individual is completely authentic and has the liberty to dictate his/her personal existence. The concern within this
…show more content…
A growing sense of individual liberty has taken over the world, and men like Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus can be credited for this ideological revolution. These men were existential philosophers who argued that humans, whether they want to be or not, are free. Sartre goes as far to say that the notion of determinism in itself is ridiculous. Nothing and no one can affect someone’s decision; only the individual can define the life he/she lives. Sartre, interestingly enough, even sometimes wishes that he could believe in a fated outcome, because at least in that sense, he would have a path to follow. He claims it’s easier this way, and that most people can’t accept the fact that they are doomed to be responsible for their own life. That the quintessence of human nature is a lie, and life is but a jungle full of futile enterprises. Similarly, Camus says that humanity is living in an absurd existence. That man needs to wake up realize that there is no Truth out there worth searching for. Once this is realized, an individual can either commit suicide or rebel. That it is still possible to find happiness as long one accepts this fact, and find’s meaning in one’s own existence. Both men agree the general public is typically not strong enough to accept these actualities, but regardless, they are true. Self-discovery and authenticity form the basis of …show more content…
Men like Skinner, Aquinas, and Aristotle proved that through material observation their theories can be supported. While Aquinas was tackling a much steeper obstacle, demonstrating the existence of God, than Skinner, they still managed to deliver reasonable conclusions. What was highlighted from these men, was the idea that some aspects of your life, whether one realizes it or not, can influence the decisions an individual makes. Sartre and Camus may say one is completely free, but they are wrong. They can’t undeniable dispute the reality of a God or unconscious guidance, but they are right on target when they claim self-discovery and authenticity as vital components to life. I think back to the epics of the Iliad and the Aeneid. Both involved great warriors, like Achilles and Aeneas, whose fate was destined, yet they were still able to make mistakes and learn along on their expedition. Their script was written, but the journey was still in the hands of the individual. Therefore, my philosophy is to embrace the possibility of determinism, but not to relinquish my free-will. It is the choices I make along the way which will define who I am as a
A growing sense of individual liberty has taken over the world, and men like Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus can be credited for this ideological revolution. These men were existential philosophers who argued that humans, whether they want to be or not, are free. Sartre goes as far to say that the notion of determinism in itself is ridiculous. Nothing and no one can affect someone’s decision; only the individual can define the life he/she lives. Sartre, interestingly enough, even sometimes wishes that he could believe in a fated outcome, because at least in that sense, he would have a path to follow. He claims it’s easier this way, and that most people can’t accept the fact that they are doomed to be responsible for their own life. That the quintessence of human nature is a lie, and life is but a jungle full of futile enterprises. Similarly, Camus says that humanity is living in an absurd existence. That man needs to wake up realize that there is no Truth out there worth searching for. Once this is realized, an individual can either commit suicide or rebel. That it is still possible to find happiness as long one accepts this fact, and find’s meaning in one’s own existence. Both men agree the general public is typically not strong enough to accept these actualities, but regardless, they are true. Self-discovery and authenticity form the basis of …show more content…
Men like Skinner, Aquinas, and Aristotle proved that through material observation their theories can be supported. While Aquinas was tackling a much steeper obstacle, demonstrating the existence of God, than Skinner, they still managed to deliver reasonable conclusions. What was highlighted from these men, was the idea that some aspects of your life, whether one realizes it or not, can influence the decisions an individual makes. Sartre and Camus may say one is completely free, but they are wrong. They can’t undeniable dispute the reality of a God or unconscious guidance, but they are right on target when they claim self-discovery and authenticity as vital components to life. I think back to the epics of the Iliad and the Aeneid. Both involved great warriors, like Achilles and Aeneas, whose fate was destined, yet they were still able to make mistakes and learn along on their expedition. Their script was written, but the journey was still in the hands of the individual. Therefore, my philosophy is to embrace the possibility of determinism, but not to relinquish my free-will. It is the choices I make along the way which will define who I am as a