In this two Christian philosophers, Richard Swinburne and Tim O'Connor, discussed the concept of neuroscience and the soul. The first philosopher, Swinburne, believed in the idea of substance dualism while O’Conner supported the argument for emergent individualism. Swinburne starts off by saying one’s physical body is simply the vehicle we interact with the world while the real essence of a person lies within their soul. When it comes to Swinburne’s belief on the soul after death I am reminded of Phaedo and how death will only bring about separation of body and soul.
Now free will is on the opposite end of the spectrum. Nondeterminism states that human actions are completely free of any antecedent events and therefor a person is solely responsible for his or hers actions.
Through actions, words spoken, and decisions these are a few ways we live freely. These are controlled by the individual only until it is not. A collective could argue that “everything in the physical process is determined” prior to the individual taking any action (Elrington). Everything in the course of history can be predetermined but the actions taken to get there are not. An event could change the course of history being that, someone's decision changes
When describing determinism vs. free will, Ayer begins by considering different aspects of freewill that are incompatible with determinism. The first concept that Ayer discusses is the assertion that a person is free just in the case that their action is not caused. He then rejects this idea using a moral standpoint by stating that a person is not morally responsible for an action that is purely based on chance because chance is – by definition – not something that a person can have control or a choice over. Ayer goes on to state that it is not an accident that a person chooses to commit an action rather than another, and “presumably there is a casual explanation” for the choice, which in turn leads back to determinism (pg 18). The second concept
Fate is defined as something that simply just happens or “Falls upon your lap without any help or actions”. It’s a gesture that is not thought about because when it come it just come without your inner thought or “permission”. While freewill is the opposite, it’s defined as something you as a person caused upon yourself, the actions you did was the reason you are in the situation and you can’t blame anyone but yourself, it’s thought of as the inner consciousness of a person or the permission to give one’s self. Fate vs. Freewill is what causes this novel to be so powerful because as Oprah stated “ When you hear this story, it’s going to turn the way you think and free will and fate upside down.” I believe that Oprah Winfey made this claim
In "Human Freedom and the Self", Roderick Chisholm has taken a libertarian approach on the issue of free will and determinism. Libertarians believe that humans have free will and make a distinction that free will and determinism are incompatible. Chisholm has the same opinion. On the problem of human freedom, Chisholm thinks that “Human beings are responsible agents; but this fact appears to conflict with a deterministic view of human action (the view that every event that is involved in an act is caused by some other event); and it also appears to conflict with an indeterministic view of human action (the view that the act, or some event that is essential to the act, is not caused at all).”(Page 3). He does not agree that determinism or indeterminism
Three of the most prominent challenges are related to the problem of manipulation and coercion, the role of chance, and the difficulty of defining free will. The problem of manipulation and coercion poses a significant challenge to Hume's view of free will. If individuals are manipulated or coerced into performing an action, their internal psychological states may not reflect their true desires, motivations, or beliefs. In such cases, it seems unfair to hold the individual morally responsible for their actions. This challenge highlights the role that external factors can play in deciding human action, even in the absence of external constraints.
William James thought the real problem was not understanding freedom, but rather knowing what determinism was. Determinism could be looked at as a belief. Indeterminism is not to accept this, but accept the alternatives. The world could be viewed as deterministic or in deterministic. There is no correct view because it brings conclusions only on facts we have.
In “Free Will and Determinism”, Theodore Sider introduced different perspectives on free will, namely hard determinism, libertarianism and compatibilism. Hard determinists reject free will, whereas libertarians reject determinism. And, compatibilists took believe that determinism and free will can co-exist by redefining free will as “a free action is one that is caused by the person’s beliefs and desires, provided that those beliefs and desires flow from ‘who the person is’.”
Does arresting someone before they commit a crime remove the perpetrator’s free will? What if they changed their mind? These topics are discussed at length during the 2002 film Minority Report by Steven Spielberg. The plot of Minority Report centres around protagonist John Anderton, the chief of a futuristic police department, that uses “pre-cogs”, humans who can see crimes before they happen, to arrest the perpetrator before they have committed the crime. This polarises audiences, who either believe that they have a right to arrest someone for planning a crime, and those who believe that everyone is capable of changing their mind, before committing the crime.
To summarize, I think that free will and predetermined are presenting a balanced. My point of view of pre-determined is whether a person is saved, and everything that happened to him is scheduled before it is created; free will is people able to choose to be a good person or evil. Even though, Professor Ted Honderich said “All our choices, decisions, intuitions, other mental events, and our actions are no more than effects of others equally necessitated events”( Honderich 1995). It’s means that we have no freedom because even our decision are predetermined.
Hard determinists sometimes accept “the freedom to act” as something soft determinists have, but in their eyes, it is not sufficient. They demand more from compatibilist definition of free will, saying that free will describes something genuine and absolute. Hard determinists believe that free will needs alternate possibilities for actions and beliefs, instead of just having counterfactual options and
“I believe the freedom to choose my course in life but I do not believe I am free to choose the consequences of my
In your previous post on “Free-Will” is was inclined to agree with some of what you posted. You also mentioned (Robert H?) Kane in your previous post. I really enjoyed reading his “A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will” book.
In order for free will free will to be tangible, an individual would have to have control over his or her actions regardless of any external factors. It can be argued that the inevitability of
