Compatibility of Free Will in The Tenseless Theory of Time Essay

Or is each action pre-determined? These are interesting concepts that will bring us to the issues that will be discussed throughout this paper. Do we truly have free will on our actions or are they previously determined for us? Free will and Determinism offer us different views on how we can perceive the ultimate course of our actions and life.

Determinism is a doctrine suggesting that for every event there exist conditions that could cause no alternative event. Free will is a philosophical term describing a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. Understandably, the dichotomy between these two concepts is a topic philosophers have debated over for many years. As a result of these debates, a number of alternative philosophical perspectives arguing for the existence of free will, namely libertarianism and compatibilism, have emerged, existing in stark contrast to determinism. In order to ascertain the extent to which free will is compatible with determinism, one must first consider these different approaches to

Many times I find myself sitting and wondering whether I am fully free or not. I wake up every single morning and do the same routine, which is eat breakfast, go to class or work, do homework, go to the gym, shower, and then go to bed. Does this truly mean I am free? There are a lot of questions that you can ask yourself while following a routine. Is this really the path I should have taken? Were my choices determined by external factors? Determinism is the thesis that an any instant there is only one physically possible future. Robert Blatchford and Walter Terence Stace, two philosophers, both agree that determinism is true, although they have two different views on whether this means that people are free or not. Blatchford believes that everything is predestined. Stace on the other hand, believes that a person chooses what they do because of free will. In this essay I am going to discuss both of the philosophers’ views more in depth and why I favor Stace’s view over Blatchford’s.

One of the main questions that we face is whether or not, we as humans have genuine freedom. Are we free to make our own choices? Do we decide what happens in our lives in the future? Or are our lives set pathways in which we have no say at all? Are all our choices already decided? In other words, do we have free will or are our actions pre-determined, or both? Hard determinists, libertarians and soft determinists all set out to provide answers to these questions, holding different views on whether or not free will and determinism are compatible. Both hard determinists and libertarians believe that free will and determinism are incompatible but hard determinists

Often times when we read stories or plays we notice that there is a spiritual or fictional side to the story that can predetermine the outcome of the plot before the main course of action has actually taken place. To name an author, or in this case playwright, William Shakespeare incorporates fatalism and existentialism in his play. The best example of such writing is Macbeth where a diligent and loyal soldier, Macbeth, comes across 3 witches that prophesied his future that said he would achieve many great feats. To accomplish such a future involved him to commit heinous acts for which ultimately lead to his death. This reason makes the readers to question, was he a victim of fate or was it free will that lead to such a demise? Existentialism is a commonly used word for the belief that one has complete control of his or her life. This means that all the things that occur in their life, good or bad, are based on their actions. Fatalism is the opposite of existentialism as it means the belief in a preordained future where everything is set in stone and that nature will run its course. Everyone has control over their own actions, nothing is set in stone and that is why the phrase “you can be anything you want” is very significant because there is no fixed future. Throughout Macbeth, Macbeth makes many decisions that clearly alter the course of his future. These actions may have been based on predictions of his future and

Defending Hard Determinism Against the Strongest Objections Raised Against It In this academic essay there will be a clear and defined description of both hard determinism and its eventual nemesis indeterminism. Based on these definitions there will be a personal attempt at denying hard determinism. This will be accomplished through the introduction of David Hume and his radical philosophy on causality and the relation this may have on hard determinism, as well as the various possibilities it may distinguish. Furthermore the Causal Principle will also be introduced and slandered in its incapability to provide a concrete defense for hard determinism and its potential in proposing a solution

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.

Each action made by an individual is nothing more than a step closer to his or her death. In fact, the approach one takes towards his or her death is the result of either fate or free will. This concept of fate and free will in a person’s life is best explored in William Shakespeare’s Macbeth. In the play, the protagonist Macbeth allows external influences such as the witches and his wife, Lady Macbeth, to rule his actions which leads Macbeth to his ultimate demise and the demise of everything around him.

Are all events predetermined? Does everyone have a prophetic destiny that they must fulfill? If so, who determines their fate? Who—or what—binds them to their fixed ending? Is there really no way to resist? Is fatalism—the theory that all events are preset and inevitable—true? And if it is—is there ever such a thing as free will?

Fatalism is the belief that all events are predetermined and are inevitable. Throughout history fatalism has shaped the founding and fall of of many empires, cultures, and peoples. Out of these, The Roman Empire has probably been the most influenced by fate. In Robert Graves' I, Claudius, fatalism shapes the destiny of one man, who after complications with family and friends, fighting against tyranny, and fate, sees himself become emperor of Rome.

During the Modern era, philosophers, such as Descartes and Locke, developed the concepts of material substance and immaterial substance. Material substance, or matter, was mainly defined as being unlimited and spatially located. Looked at completely, materialists tend to view their materialism as a lack of free will. Thomas Hobbes, a materialist from the Modern era, accepted determinism as part of his materialism. Taking the materialist path, the argument against free will is that if the mind is material, then there is not free will. While the argument from materialism may be the strongest weapon in the determinist’s hand, some defenders have offered a more simple argument from predictability that doesn’t support on assumptions about materialism

I honestly believed that I have 'free will' prior to reading this chapter or even this textbook. Because it makes you question if everything even actually exist. However, I do feel that everything exists for a reason. As they make event happens. The event can be past history which is already happening and we can not change anything about them. The formal word philosophers called determinism. It defines the basic idea that future is defined by our past. I do not fully agree with them as I am working on my future to make it better.

A Clockwork Orange demonstrates the philosophically issues of free will and determinism through how the main character was treated in the movie. It also addresses important issues such as ethics, philosophy of the mind, free will and determinism, and the problem of perception. Philosophers such as John Hospers, B.F. Skinner, and Jean-Paul Sartre have different views on the issue through their theories of how individuals are or are not responsible for the free will choices that they make in life. The main character in the movie was a very violent , and reckless person. He participated in sinful acts such as being a gang member, raping women, being involved in fights, etc. These actions resulted in him being sent to prison and eventually being brainwashed into doing things out of his character. The three philosophers have very different interpretations of how the main character should have been dealt with and the reasonings behind his actions.

I do not think about theory of fatalism normally, but I only think about it when I have bad happen because if I believe that everything are pre-determined, I do not need to frustrate or blame myself for few days.

In this essay I will explain why I think the strongest position of the free will debate is that of the hard determinists and clarify the objection that moral responsibility goes out the door if we don’t have free will by addressing the two big misconceptions that are associated with determinists: first that determinism is an ethical system, and secondly that contrary to common belief determinists do believe in the concept of cause and effect. I will also begin by explaining my position and why I believe that the position of the indeterminist does not hold water as an argument and the third