The debate of Free Will v Determinism is one that has gone on for centuries, and shall continue to go on for many to come. There are many who believe that their view is the end all, be all, correct view to hold. While not all of these thinkers are correct in their standings, Paul Holbach’s essay, “The Illusion of Free Will,” lays out a strong argument for universal determinism; man does not have any free will, and all of his actions are determined by the laws of nature. His argument is one that is accurate and strong, leaving little to criticize, despite what many believe to be proof that he is incorrect: the presence of choice and the absence of restraint. He takes these two beliefs and shows exactly why they do not denote free will, and all
…show more content…
This is essentially saying that man’s will is nothing more than an action that incites change within the brain that causes it to desire an outcome that is subsequently achieved through actions in the body. For example, a lack of food causes hunger: a change in the brain. Hunger causes man to desire food and subsequently eat: a desire for action, and an action followed through. Holbach also adds that there are, in fact, situations where the brain’s desire can be overridden, and “he does not act according to this impulse” that he previously experienced (439). The reason, Holbach explains, is simple: “it is because there comes some new cause, some new motive, some new idea, which modifies his brain in a different matter, gives him a new impulse, determines his will in another way, by which the action of the former impulse is suspended,” (439). All this boils down to support his original argument, which is that when a man is acted upon by an idea or desire, he will act according to that. If he does not act according to the original desire it is because some new information or idea has come along to change his original interest and desire, and that causes him to act differently and accordingly to the new desire. Holbach explains this further with an example involving a man who is “tormented with violent thirst,” (439). When the man comes across a body of water his desire is caused and motivated by his thirst, and thus he drinks. However, if he were to become aware that the water he is presented with is poisoned, he will most likely “abstain from drinking it,” (439). One could argue that this denotes free will, for his original action to drink has been stifled, seemingly by free will. Holbach will counter this, though, by arguing “that the motive in either case is
This is essentially saying that man’s will is nothing more than an action that incites change within the brain that causes it to desire an outcome that is subsequently achieved through actions in the body. For example, a lack of food causes hunger: a change in the brain. Hunger causes man to desire food and subsequently eat: a desire for action, and an action followed through. Holbach also adds that there are, in fact, situations where the brain’s desire can be overridden, and “he does not act according to this impulse” that he previously experienced (439). The reason, Holbach explains, is simple: “it is because there comes some new cause, some new motive, some new idea, which modifies his brain in a different matter, gives him a new impulse, determines his will in another way, by which the action of the former impulse is suspended,” (439). All this boils down to support his original argument, which is that when a man is acted upon by an idea or desire, he will act according to that. If he does not act according to the original desire it is because some new information or idea has come along to change his original interest and desire, and that causes him to act differently and accordingly to the new desire. Holbach explains this further with an example involving a man who is “tormented with violent thirst,” (439). When the man comes across a body of water his desire is caused and motivated by his thirst, and thus he drinks. However, if he were to become aware that the water he is presented with is poisoned, he will most likely “abstain from drinking it,” (439). One could argue that this denotes free will, for his original action to drink has been stifled, seemingly by free will. Holbach will counter this, though, by arguing “that the motive in either case is