Rene Descartes Arguments On Free Will

René Descartes believed that the mind and body are separate; that the senses could not always be trusted, but that because we as humans are able to think about our existence, we possess some sort of entity separate than our fleshly body. I believe this separate entity to be a soul”an immaterial and

‘Cogito Ergo Sum,’ - ‘I think therefore I am ‘ one of the most famous and well known quotes or arguments in all of modern philosophy; a phrase instantly recognizable to all those studying in the field of philosophy. This phrase refers to an attempt by Descartes to prove with absolute certainty his own existence; a systematic way to philosophize. The argument, while first proposed by ancient philosophers such as Aristotle and Saint Augustine, was utilized as an argument by French philosopher Rene Descartes in his influential text “Meditations on First Philosophy“. This argument appears in the books second meditation and provides the cornerstone for Descartes argument in the following five meditations and serves as the basis for Descartes overall metaphysical thesis, without which Descartes reasoning system would collapse. Throughout this paper I will

The first matter to be noted is that this view is in no way in contradiction to science. Free will is a natural phenomenon, something that emerged in nature with the emergence of human beings, with their

4. Adam’s decision was made by his subjective ability to reason. There is no way for a scientist or other being to take apart Adam and physically analyze Adam’s ability to reason. Since choices and reasoning are not at all physical, they cannot share a physical cause and effect relationship, and have nothing to do with determinist’s causal relationship philosophy.

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.

Secondly, to even think to reconcile scientific and religious views is entirely inappropriate. Descartes was a dualist in that he divided reality into two distinctly different realms. He said that the mind, which is what he thought was the Soul and not a physical brain, existed on its own and that the body was just a perceived extension of the mind. While he said that the mind and the body were related, he proposed that the mind was not governed by the body and therefore maintained free will. On the other hand, Descartes believed that the body can only be studied and explained through science. The mind was capable of free will, which has a religious connotation in that it denotes that a higher force, or God, is not controlling the minds of humans but then their minds are in control of their bodies. Then, the body was a scientific vessel that was inhabited by the Soul, or the mind, for a temporary amount of time. Apparently, the mind could not be explained through science but rather religion whereas the body could only be explained and studied through science and not religion. Descartes' attempt at

Sartre proposes an interesting view on free will when he says, "either man is wholly determined or else man is wholly free." This quote shows us that Sartre believes that man is free to do what he wants. For Sartre, freedom is the most basic value, which renders possible all other values the way our fundamental plan precedes and grounds our small choices. In that sense freedom is the source of all values. It is not logically possible to make sense of human responsibility and notions of justice without a conception of free will. This is because it is free will that allows us as humans to choose and make the right decisions in life.

René Descartes’ Wax Argument written in 1641 in his book titled “Meditations on First Philosophy” focuses on metaphysical knowledge of things that we interact with. Descartes does this by using a ball of hardened wax as an example. Descartes’ thought experiment begins with a hard ball of wax that is fresh out of the honeycomb. He uses his senses to describe this ball of wax to us, claiming that it still smells of the flowers that the honey came from and the sound it makes when you hit your knuckle on the hard ball of wax. While describing this ball of wax to us, he has held the ball of wax to close to a flame which has caused the ball of wax to change its physical appearance completely.

The first aspect I would like to navigate through is the constraints placed on the ability to choose. One does not have the opportunity to choose freely in an organized society, community or institute. There seems to always be a restriction to the actual amount of choices one has. If Descartes was correct in his assumption of complete freedom of choice and will every option would be available to someone at any given time, in any given situation. But this is not necessarily the condition. There are a few different examples that one can view to comprehend this facet of my argument. Take for instance, perhaps an extreme but an occurrence none the less, people born of poverty do not have the ability to choose to acquire certain things. It is impossible simply by the fact that they do not have the means to get it. There is no choice of purchasing a fifty dollar object if all one has is twenty dollars. I feel though that perhaps Descartes was speaking of another free will, a non-materialistic aspect. Another example one can then try to explain is how in many middle eastern nations individuals are born into a society where one religion is forced upon them. They must live to follow this religion or risk outcast by the community or even death. In such a decision one does not have the opportunity to choose to not follow the religion because, although it may seem available, most choices against the norm bring with them an extreme consequences.

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

William Rowe defines gratuitous evil as an instance of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.(Rowe 335) In a world with so much evil it raises the questions If God is all powerful, all knowing and all good, how can he allow bad things to happen to good people? Can God even exist in a world with so such gratuitous evil? These are questions that has afflicted humanity for a very long time and has been the question to engross theologians for centuries. The existence of evil has been the most influential and powerful reason to disprove the existence of God. It is believed among many theist that God is the creator and caretaker

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

On the other hand of free will the side of whether or not free will does exist there are many who believe that free will not only exists but also thrives as we speak. There are many different examples of why and how free will is there. Many have said that because I can do this because I just said I can and I am doing it right now whether it be waving a hand or just plain walking. There are reactions that we can control in the human body, we can voluntarily move our arms, legs, hands, feet and so forth but we can also decided when we use the restroom and even how we talk (we can lower or raise our voice). With the including of God into the talks of philosophical

Some people believe that no matter what a person does in their life, it will ultimately have no effect on the outcome ofa it. Existentialists find this to be true because they believe that no matter what they ever do, they will always die. Existentialists link the inevitability of death to the idea that there is no higher power. Additionally, existentialists hold the belief that no one should allow society to control how they live their life. Writer Albert Camus uses many existentialist themes his works like The Stranger and “The Guest”. The protagonists in both stories demonstrate existentialist beliefs in their actions. As a result, many existentialist ideas can be seen throughout out both novels. Camus uses the paradox of free will in order to illustrate the inevitability of death for everyone as well as the idea that in order to obtain free will, a person must reject society and face exile.

Rationalism is a philosophical view that appeals to scholarly and analytical reasoning as a source of explanation. Philosophers use rationalism instead of their experiences and/or religious teachings to understand human involvement in the world. It is dependant on the understanding that the real world has a realistic design where all parts of it can be understood through analytical and relevant rules.Various older writers sought out rationalism, generally it was Plato and those who adopted his ideas.