Anyone Who Thinks That They Have Free Will Is Out Of Their Mind

Given that our will plays a role in determining our belief, James argues if we should embrace this as a fact of psychological life, or struggle against it.

These statements suggests that men are not rational by nature, and it is the ability to exert one’s own free will, to be able “to live… at our own sweet foolish will,” that is more valued. Man’s freedom of choice should not be controlled by anything – even reason.

But, since intuition depends on who we are and what we are made of, things that we do not control, free will is not present and with that neither is moral responsibility (Strawson, page 17). Everything we do is based off of what we are made of in terms of our mind and rationale, and what we are made of is a product of external things that we do not control, so it must be true that everything we are, and everything we do, is not determined by our own free will. In order for us to truly have free will, it would require us to be our own creators, products of our own thoughts, which in itself is impossible due to our understanding of human procreation. By no means does this suggest that humans cannot be punished for evil actions, or that humans are being forced to do what they do, but rather that we do not have as much control over what we do in our lives like supporters of free will would believe. Free will is not present, so moral responsibility isn’t, either, for determinism proves to be the argument more worthy belief after comparison to free will. I did not make a free willed decision to title this paper, I did not even make the choice to take this class, for what I have been convinced is humorous, clever or for my own best interests in life as a whole is completely out of my control, and with that so are my

Armstrong begins his paper with a question for the reader of what it means to have a mind. It is well understood that man has the ability to perceive, to think, to feel, and so on, but what does it mean to perceive, to think, and to feel? The answer, he believes, lies in science. Seeing that science is constantly and rapidly gaining ground, he asserts that “...we can give a complete account of man in purely physico-chemical terms” (295?) Pointing out the fact that this view has been accepted by various scientists throughout time, he explains it is the most reliable way to approach the mind-body problem.

Before we can discuss the issue between Baron d'Holbach and William James we have to know the definitions of the items the issue is about. Free will according to the Encarta encyclopedia is "The power or ability of the human mind to choose a course of action or make a decision without being subject to restraints imposed by antecedent causes, by necessity, or by divine predetermination. A completely freewill act is a cause and not an effect; it is beyond causal sequence or the law of causality." So according to this statement freewill is the ability for humans to make

Journalist John Tierney, in his article, “Do You Have Free Will? Yes, It’s the Only Choice,” explores the notion of free will and exhibits how belief or disbelief in free will affects an individual’s life. By posing a hypothetical situation through rhetorical questions, incorporating experimental research, and using accusatory diction towards the opposing perspective, Tierney conveys his perception that a regard for free will allows for individuals to gain a greater sense of morality and ambition, even if the notion of free will is still disputed.

a. Attention Gatherer: Nothing is completely random, and everything is determined, as the determinist would say, but as humans, there is such a thing as self determinism. Each action has a cause, it is not random, and it is rational, but it is also a choice. Each individual can choose to do a multitude of things, and thus the actions are free, and they are not wholly predictable, but they are not wholly unpredictable either.

James taught at several universities including both Brown and Yale where he often had arguments and lengthy discussions with his students about religion. In his introductory comments, he clearly states that a lot of his freethinking students did not believe one should believe in religion if it cannot be rationally proven. This was contradictory to his thoughts and consequently wrote the paper in order to try sway his students view.

Whether we have free will is widely controversial. The absence of a universal definition poses a primary problem to this question. In this essay, I shall base my argument on a set of three conditions for free will: 1) that the actor is unconstraint in his action, 2) the actor could have acted otherwise and 3) the actor must be ‘ultimately responsible’ (Kane, 2005: 121) for his action. After I have explained them, I shall apply these conditions to three scenarios that cover most, if not any, circumstances that occur when taking choices. The purpose of this essay is to show that if my conditions are true, none of the scenarios is based on free will and thus we do not have free will.

Williams James’s speech The Will to Believe was so intriguing because he presents his case in a way that makes you able to apply his idea in your own life. William James the Harvard professor of physiology, psychology and philosophy was beloved by all his students. He filled the room when he spoke and even those who did not agree with his theories loved to listen to his speeches. William James dedicated 35 years of his life teaching and bringing his theories to life in his speeches and his books. James uses his personnel struggles with depression in his theories making them about how they can help people in everyday life. James use of language and images in his writing and his speeches made people feel involved. William James often changed

David Hume asserts that the grounds upon which connections between causes and effects are established are not rooted in reason. Hume argues that while reason does play a large role in understanding rational relations of ideas, the same principles cannot apply to matters of fact. He justifies this claim with the fact that the associations we make between cause and effect are the result of constant conjunction and habituation. He also stresses the irrationality of the principle of uniformity of nature, which is a key principle of making connections between causes and effects. Although the observations of the nature of ideas surrounding cause and effect are sound, the conclusions of irrationality seem far stretched. He hastily throws around the label of “irrational”, and does not consider that perhaps lacking rationality in the classical sense is not necessarily conducive to being driven without reason.

For example, William James studied religious experience and suggested that the spiritual process works to curtail people's negative behaviors (James, 1936). For James, spirituality helps individuals recognize their own earthly suffering as either a consequence of individual pathology or addictive behavior, or both. When people begin to criticize or consciously reject problematic individual behaviors as a permanent way of being, then they become open to the possibility of rising to a higher awareness. This higher awareness of his or her own behavior is then integrated as a part of the person's psychology. James was already considering the role religion plays in a person's consciousness early in the twentieth century.

The first point James states thoughts are individual to each and every thing that is capable of thinking. With each state of consciousness, it has both cognitive and emotional aspects, affected by the internal and external stimuli, making it personalized and exclusive to every single person. In the second point , it does not mean that the flow and constant change of thought is something that has no continuance, but that a thought once experienced can not recur and be identical. As the mind has already made connections with that specific thought and feeling, it will not

choice - the choice to do good or bad. He assumed that we are all free

A key part of this quote seeks to explore the relationship between “causation” and “correlation” in