We DonT Have Free Will In The Film Lola Essay

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.

In order to have a personal theory regarding human behavior one must understand the different behaviors through the principals of psychology. Similar to a fingerprint, people are unique and their behaviors/personalities are all different. A person’s personality can have emotional impact in reference to the way they act, speak, react to different situations and the lives of people that they are involved with. Relationships can also be influenced by the way a person behaves and the personality they portray.

Humans make decisions many times a day, but what truly influences us to make the choices that we do? Are we controlled by our inherited traits and what we as people were born with, or does it have to do more with how one was raised in adolescence?

For instance, if the external constraints affect our internal choices, is it truly considered free will? If one is to choose their own destiny by making free choices based off their inner workings they cannot truly do that with constraints of the external world. Each one has restrictions due to the other, so genuine free will cannot be truly genuine. David Hume, in this position, accepts determinism within the parameters of this position. With that being stated, all actions are determined, or predetermined. So, little to no free will can be expected to exist at all. With preservation in mind, there are many gaps that could skeptically be explained within the position itself, stating that the two, acting freely and accepting a deterministic world can truly both be preserved.

In the study of philosophy, Free will is defined as “The ability to choose, think, and act voluntarily. Many people wonder if they truly have free will to make their own choices, or is everything pre-determined for them in order to carry out their lifestyle. I’m sure we all wonder if our choices are correct or incorrect or if we are able to take control of our lives. Philosophers Hume and Holbach have concepts that seek to prove whether or not free will actually does exist and they both use their philosophical beliefs based on determinism in order to properly explore their concepts of free will. This paper will actively seek to explain both concepts and will expose what problems may arise from their philosophical theories of free will in relation

People believe that genuine freedom of choice is not always possible because our decisions and actions are determined by factors beyond our control. This view is known as Determinism. There is also an extreme form of determinism known as ‘hard determinism,’ in which they believe that every demeanor can be traced to a cause, although they may disagree about what those causes are. The idea of determinism poses a difficult issue to the concept of ‘free will’. Are we able to make free choices if all our thoughts and actions are predetermined by our own past and the physical laws of nature? Majority of us would like to believe that we have the freedom of will and are able to make decisions based on our own discretion but, I personally believe that the deterministic view holds true to a certain extent and that most of our actions are a result of a force that is beyond our comprehension. My purpose in this essay is to explain and critically analyze Baron d’Holbach’s view on determinism.

Free Will is the capacity of acting without the pressures of fate and the ability to act because of one’s discretion. It is an idea that most believe in, because it means that you are in control

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. ”-Charles Darwin. What determines a way a person acts? Is it their own choice?

This view is very broad when covering the human personality, and had huge followings at times. Many psychologists agree that we are influenced by instinct and

The events could be avoidable or they could bring different endings. Simply, the director depicts that the fates of Lola and her people depend on her decision. While watching the movie, I recognized that the neighbor’s dog, which Lola meets on the stairs, provides a huge turning point in Lola’s life. Interestingly, the ending changes based on how Lola reacts to the dog. When she passes by the dog, the movie ends with Lola’s death. When she is tripped by her neighbor, the movie ends with Manni’s death. However, in the third storyline, which is the last, she decides to deal with the conflict. As a result, Manni finds his bag and delivers to his boss. Besides, Lola earns extra 100,00 marks at a casino. The director gives a life lesson to the audience by illustrating different endings based on Lola’s reaction to the neighbor’s dog. The lesson would be ‘try to overcome difficulties and it will produce good

The power of acting without necessity and acting on one’s own discretions, free will still enamors debates today, as it did in the past with philosophers Nietzsche, Descartes, and Hume. There are two strong opposing views on the topic, one being determinism and the other “free will”. Determinism, or the belief a person lacks free will and all events including human actions are determined by forces outside the will of an individual contrasts the entire premise of free will. Rene Descartes formulates his philosophical work through deductive reasoning and follows his work with his system of reasoning. David Hume analyzes philosophical questions with inductive reasoning and skeptism with a strong systematic order. Neither a systematic

Hume’s idea of freedom is radically different than Descartes. For Descartes, there are two types of freedom: freedom of indifference and freedom of inclination. Freedom of indifference is the freedom to assent to something without evidence of it or to assent to something obscurely. This is the lowest kind of freedom, because in this case, it can go either way meaning a good or bad outcome. In freedom of inclination, we have clear and distinct perceptions of something and you cannot help but assent to it. It’s sort of like God is somewhat forcing us along. According to Descartes, this is the highest form of freedom, because in this case, we could potentially be free from error since we’re going along in accordance with that perfect being.

     Before one can properly evaluate the entire debate that enshrouds the Free Will/Determinism, each term must have a meaning, but before we explore the meaning of each term, we must give a general definition. Determinism is, "Everything that happens is caused to happen. (Clifford Williams. "Free Will and Determinism: A Dialogue" pg 3). This is the position that Daniel, a character in Williams’ dialogue, chooses to believe and defend. David Hume goes a little deeper and explains in his essay, "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding of Liberty and Necessity," that determinism is this: "It is universally allowed, that matter, in all its operations, is actuated by a necessary force, and

For ages, Philosophers have struggled with the dispute of whether human actions are performed “at liberty” or not. “It is “the most contentious question, of metaphysics, the most contentious science” (Hume 528). In Section VIII of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume turns his attention in regards to necessary connection towards the topics “Of Liberty and Necessity.” Although the two subjects may be one of the most arguable questions in philosophy, Hume suggests that the difficulties and controversies surrounding liberty (i.e. free will) and necessity (i.e. causal determinism) are simply a matter of the disputants not having properly defined their terms. He asserts that all people, “both learned and

Therefore Hume claims that there is no necessary connection, it is just that we infer the idea of necessary connection but in actual fact we never actually observe it directly in nature. Hume goes on to convince us that we cannot observe the act of causation, for example he points out that we are aware of our ability to move our body i.e. fingers, hands etc. but this does not make us aware of the connection between the act volition and the movement of our body. He points out that we are capable of moving our fingers at will but we have no control over our internal organs. Why is this? Hume believes that we are incapable of rationalising a causal connection and things happen according to some sort of law, however these laws and necessities are beyond our understanding.