Descartes And Spinoza On The Freedom Of Human Will

There is much debate over the issue of whether we have complete freedom of the will or if our will caused by something other than our own choosing. There are three positions adopted by philosophers regarding this dispute: determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism. Determinists believe that freedom of the will does not exist. Since actions are events that have some predetermined cause, no actions can be chosen and thus there is no will to choose. The compatibilist argues that you can have both freedom of the will and determinism. If the causes which led to our actions were different, then we could have acted in another way which is compatible with freedom of the will. Libertarians believe that freedom of the will does exist.

There are those who think that our behavior is a result of free choice, but there are also others who believe we are servants of cosmic destiny, and that behavior is nothing but a reflex of heredity and environment. The position of determinism is that every event is the necessary outcome of a cause or set of causes, and everything is a consequence of external forces, and such forces produce all that happens. Therefore, according to this statement, man is not free.

Throughout the history of metaphysics the question, What is? has always been answered in an incomplete,unsatisfactory or complicated manner, but Spinoza tried to answer this question in an exceptional way simply by describing God and His essence. Based on Spinoza’s views, God’s qualities can be referred to as attributes and modes are merely affections of a substance. This paper will provide a detailed view of Spinoza’s key ontological definition of God as the only substance, his attributes, and their co-relations. The study goes further to explore the major scholarly argument between Spinoza and Descartes, in regard to their view of substance, and its attributes.

in what really happens in his life. Descartes states that with free will that “we tried to doubt all

I want to argue that there is indeed free will. In order to defend the position that free will means that human beings can cause some of what they do on their own; in other words, what they do is not explainable solely by references to factors that have influenced them. My thesis then, is that human beings are able to cause their own actions and they are therefore responsible for what they do. In a basic sense we are all original actors capable of making moves in the world. We are initiators of our own behavior.

The will, at its most basic, consists in saying “yes” or “no” to ideas or propositions. Descartes adopts the position that the free will is independent of the deterministic and fundamental laws that govern matter. Human behavior is neither dictated by mechanical compulsion, nor persuaded or coerced by God, nor influenced by any external force to act in a predetermined manner. Descartes, in a bold stroke, proclaims the divine grace of God along with natural knowledge actually increases and strengthens human freedom, as opposed to restricting its effectiveness.

freedom of will, as presented in "Freedom of Will and the Concept of Person" and some problems that

I do believe that humans have free will to make their decisions. However, those decisions may be based on their personal environment, circumstances, unbringing and maybe even education. Each individual is responsible for

2. Descartes explains that the source of error and sin come from both the ability know things and the ability to make independent decisions that God had assigned to all humans. He explains that errors do not come from knowledge influencing the free will, but results from the ability to decide that directs our

In Meditations on First Philosophy Descartes attempts to explain the cause of errors in human beings. Descartes says that error occurs "since the will extends further than the intellect" (Descartes p.39). That's because our intellect is something that is finite; it is limited to the perception of only certain things. Whereas our will, ability to choose is not limited; it is has an infinite capacity. Therefore we sometimes attempt to will things which we do not have a complete understanding of. Descartes' argument, as I will briefly describe, is quite sound, if you agree to all his conditions (being that the intellect is limited and the will infinite). I am not, as of yet, sure if I necessarily agree to the later of his two

The power of knowing and the power of choosing combined lead one to create faults, nothing more and nothing fewer. A person, God’s creation, is made to decide and follow certain paths, and errors will be made due to the finite abilities of a person. It is a mistake to not take advantage of this freedom of the will, for it is the infinite God’s plan. Descartes’ philosophy revolves around certainty and entrustment of God, so it comes at no surprise the backbone of free will is based on belief of God. Descartes pronounces, “…it is an imperfection in me that I do not use my freedom well” (61-62, Meditations). If free will, or freedom as he states, is misused, that indicates only an imperfection in him. Full responsibility for mishaps in judgments and decisions are only caused by an individual’s finite ability given from an infinite being. Further Descartes says, “…willing is merely a matter of being, able to do or not do the same thing” (57-58, Meditations). Descartes entrusts being alive accompanies obtaining a will. Life accompanies the choice to make certain choices or rather obstain from making choices. This full throttled independence backed in God’s name shines positively in those who believe. The entrustment of the will, that everyone contains a hope of choice and deliverance of ideals if fought for accordingly. Underlining the full fleshed will is a sense

As was discussed early in this paper, Descartes fills his arguments with fallacies in that he has no concrete proof there is a God, and thus his idea that our will is given by God, and God ultimately decides how we should use that will is inaccurate. Additionally Descartes seems to produce contradictions on his opinion of freedom of choice. Perhaps I am taking an approach like Nietzsche when I say that Descartes perspective on freedom of choice is inherently impeding it in itself. Reason or intellect is important to Descartes in deciding what his actions may be, but this restriction, is exactly that, a restriction. So truthfully, this should not be seen as freedom of choice because the physical mind is suspending the spirit-mind. Kant does not apply much of his theory to the existence of a supreme being however, his beliefs although closer to reality than that of Descartes, are still flawed. As humans it is natural for one to decide quickly and to have one’s own interest ahead of universal well

The concept of God is central to the development of Cartesian and Spinozan philosophy. Although both philosophers employ an ontological argument for the existence and necessity of God the specific nature of God differs greatly with each account. While Descartes suggests a Judeo-Christian concept of God, Spinoza argues a more monistic deity similar to that of the Hindu tradition. The most significant difference however, lies within the basis and structure of each argument itself. Considered from an analytical standpoint through the lens of Gotlobb Frege, Descartes' proof of God possesses both sense and reference and is therefore capable of expressing the

There are many great philosophical ideas and questions that are known and of course unknown. One of the questions that really enticed my interest was the question of whether or not we have free will. I myself was once a believer of people having free will and doing what I want was my choice and my choice alone. However, after careful consideration and lectures I have been reversed in how I believe in free will. Is there any free will though? Many people would say yes there is and of course there are some who believe that free will is a fallacy and not to be believed. Whether or not there is free will is yet to be determined but what we have to go on and by is from philosophers and every person who has their two cents to fill in. In

Human freedom according to Spinoza is having more knowledge. The more knowledge you have, the better you understand yourself. And their capability to acknowledge God’s freedom in their own certain way is increased. It may not be completely free, it is however what people can use keeping in mind the end goal to adjust themselves to the will of God, to the extent the learning of their own vague nature permits. Moreover, he states freedom of will is deceptive, the reality of the situation can prove that growth in one's knowledge of causes can help one to abrogate, or to control the power affects. For Spinoza, in order for something to be completely free, it must be uncompelled in every sort of way including the cause of itself. And God is the only substance that can be totally autonomously free and be the cause of itself. On the other hand, as of Descartes, the only substance that is entirely free and can form anything because of its whole ‘freeness’ is our mind. The presence of our minds are independent and fully free. Meaning we are free to think about anything. He states that since the people are to think freely, they should not comprehend their ability to be free as being at an equivalent level to this substance's, or God's free-will. He says that God is far beyond perfect than people, and due to that, God’s traits are much more powerful than everyone else’s. Which leads us to the statement, God is freer than people. But he sticks to the fact that people are independent and have traits as well, and since they’re substances, it brings us to a conclusion that people indeed have free-will. And that free-will has been created by God and given as innate ideas in our mind. These innate ideas certainly do exist because we have been given the freedom of thinking. The ability to form ideas in our minds, to think that we’re actually thinking. Spinoza sort of separates these however, by including thought and extension as two separate characteristics. Whatever we know through ideas (mental) is the thought and what exists and sensed physically (physical) is known as the extension. Descartes took a look at this as well, he labeled thoughts as 'property of mind' and extension as 'property of the body'. Spinoza approached