Descartes Explanation Of Free Will In Cartesian Philosophy

Karma is a concept that is frequently compared the Abrahamic idea of sin. Essential to Buddhist thought, karma is complex term with many different interpretations that can be most simply explained by its meaning, “action.” It is the things a person does, says, or thinks whether they lead to good or bad results. A person cannot avoid amassing karma, and thereby suffering, while in the material cycle of samsara and can escape it by ceasing desire. Some Western scholars compare karma to a bank account where good karma is a form of currency to be spent and bad karma is a debt, but this comparison overlooks that, while the accumulation of good karma is encouraged, the ultimate goal of Buddhism is to shed karma, and the cycle of samsara in general,

According to Cartesian theory, free will is constrained by the limitations of the body and only attainable through the soul, but Buddhists have no concept of an immaterial soul, and therefore cannot have free will. Charles Goodman’s point of view follows this manner of thinking; if there is no self to make decisions then the person has no agency. Riccardo Repetti rejects this mindset and contradicts Goodman, claiming that a concept of permanent self is not required to make autonomous decisions because even if the self in not permanent, it still exists for a period of time and is capable of making decisions. These conflicting opinions on the free will and the concept of self are highly contested amongst the academic community, but Vishnu Sridharan found that both Goodman and Riccardo’s arguments prove that the concept of free will in not as important to Buddhism as it is to Western traditions like Christianity. If enlightenment can be achieved whether or not the self exists, it could be argued that free will is not necessary. Even the Buddha himself chose to remain silent on the minutiae of anatman, so it is unclear how to resolve this question, and doubtful if it even

In Christian tradition, it may seem obvious that people must have at least some free will or else they would be unable to be judged for their sins once they die. Despite this, the existence of free will is heavily debated amongst both scholars and Christian practitioners especially around the idea of evil actions. As God is often conceptualized as an all-powerful and utterly good being, it is hard for people to understand why God would allow for evil and sin to exist. There have been many theodicies developed to help explain the existence of evil; one of the most common one states that God gave humans free will which allowed them to choose to do immoral acts. While a simple explanation, this is incongruent with Dennett’s definition of free will which states that free will cannot be given by God. Some scholars can provide an alternate explanation for this. Joshua Reichard presents the idea of concurus, where God allows multiple systems to act upon the world and therefore is not responsible for every event despite being omnipotent. One of these systems could include free will. This fits in much easier with Dennett’s free will; with this explanation in mind, free will, while indirectly given by God, is one of many separate systems which help create the limits and choices available