Sexual and Spiritual Freedom
The key to humanities freedom lies in its religious and sexual paradigms. Religion, as a social control mechanism, has sought to limit mans sexual freedom. The stigma associated with sexual promiscuity permeates every level of our society. I believe that in time people will demand freedom in the sexual and spiritual aspects of their lives. In order for this to occur a paradigm must be established that emphasizes wholism. Without this wholistic thought conflict can still exist and dogmatic religion is needed to band all the individuals into a splintered and confused mass.
Within our current Newtonian paradigm, material realism, true wholistic thought is impossible. The scientific rules of strong objectivity, the notion that objects are independent from the mind and determinism prevent it. Strong objectivity was established when Descartes divided the world in to the objective and subjective spheres. This was done mostly as a compromise with the then all-powerful church, which would rule in matters of the subjective mind while science enjoyed freedom in the world of “reality';.
Determinism is easiest under stood through analogy. Think of the universe as a bunch of billiard balls in a three dimensional pool table called space. If one were to know all the forces acting on these balls at any time it would be possible to extrapolate all future or past positions. This creates determinism and determinism destroys free will. The best example of this phenomenon in society would be the partisan political system and foreign policy. Sociologists and the public in general, see themselves and each other as one of these pool balls being kicked around. In this environment neither self-worth nor confidence is cultivated. These traits are vital in a society that increasingly asks its population to work unsupervised and off of the job site.
In 1665 Isaac Newton drafted the theories which set us on the course that led to the materialism dominating our culture. The philosophy of materialism matches the paradigm of classical physics, material realism. Since this revolution our vision has been a mechanistic one. This vision was formed as a direct result of the changes in philosophical and political knowledge that came to light in the mid seventeenth century. The power and simplicity of Newton’s three laws of motion and the success of scientific empirical method caused nearly every influential thinker of the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to use them as a model.
The strongest objection to determinism is in my view the following: (3) Truth, i.e., accurate knowledge of the facts of a case is only possible for me when I can cognitively get involved with the subject. However, the precondition for this is that I am not determined by irrelevant constraints in connection with the subject — e.g., by physical factors or by my own biological-genetic constitution, but also not by prejudices and preconcieved notions: precisely because I could not involve myself in the subject because of such constraints. Reduced to a formula, this means: truth presupposes freedom.
Humans are not forced to follow a path, and can choose to take many different routes due to their unpredictability. A human can do whatever they desire, or feel like to do, with the only restraint being physically unable to do something beyond their capabilities. A human can choose to kill, die, fight, build, or do a countless number of actions in a moment without being hindered by an outside forces. Humans are the primary cause of committing an action, and decisions that can be not influenced by a third party. A determinist may view that humans are already decided by their history, or by an external force that “guides” an individual to their destiny, or fate whatever it may be. However, then it would mean that humans are not
The question of our freedom is one that many people take for granted. However, if we consider it more closely it can be questioned. The thesis of determinism is the view that every event or happening has a cause, and that causes guarantee their effects. Therefore given a cause, the event must occur and couldn’t occur in any other way than it did. Whereas, the thesis of freewill is the view that as human beings, regardless of a cause, we could have acted or willed to act differently than we did. Determinism therefore, states that the future is something that is fixed and events can only occur in one way, while freewill leaves the future open. Obviously a huge problem arises between these two theses. They cannot both be true as they contradict one another. In this essay I hope to find a solution to this problem.
Imagine starting your day and not having a clue of what to do, but you begin to list the different options and routes you can take to eventually get from point A to point B. In choosing from that list, there coins the term “free will”. Free will is our ability to make decisions not caused by external factors or any other impediments that can stop us to do so. Being part of the human species, we would like to believe that we have “freedom from causation” because it is part of our human nature to believe that we are independent entities and our thoughts are produced from inside of us, on our own. At the other end of the spectrum, there is determinism. Determinism explains that all of our actions are already determined by certain external causes
Determinism is the theory that everything is caused by antecedent conditions, and such things cannot be other than how they are. Though no theory concerning this issue has been entirely successful, many theories present alternatives as to how it can be approached. Two of the most basic metaphysical theories concerning freedom and determinism are soft determinism and hard determinism.
Determinism is based off this notion that all events are pre-determined, without influence by human actions. If this is true, we can imply that people do not have free will and thus are not responsible for their actions. In Oedipus the King we see that the dichotomy of fate and free will is hazed by the hyperbole of events, which can make it difficult, but possible, to determine if humans even have free will. Through Oedipus’s flaws and decisions and Sophocles use of the imagery of a crossroad it is apparent that free will can be exercised in a meaningful way.
The argument of free will and determinism is a very complex argument. Some might say we have free will because we are in control; we have the ability to make our own choices. Others might say it’s in our biological nature to do the things we do; it’s beyond our control. Basically our life experiences and choices are already pre determined and there’s nothing we can do to change it. Many philosophers have made very strong arguments that support both sides.
A livable world is defined from the society you participate in everyday life. We as people make laws and regulations for situations that may or may not happen. This is because humans are imperfect and full of flaws. Laws and regulations are the guidelines for properly living in a society that dictates to the mass instead of hearing individual concern. Then again what is it meant to be “imperfect”? Who designates the description behind being perfect? This is what I believe is “the norm” or normal way of life of a society.
The problem of free will and determinism is a mystery about what human beings are able to do. The best way to describe it is to think of the alternatives taken into consideration when someone is deciding what to do, as being parts of various “alternative features” (Van-Inwagen). Robert Kane argues for a new version of libertarianism with an indeterminist element. He believes that deeper freedom is not an illusion. Derk Pereboom takes an agnostic approach about causal determinism and sees himself as a hard incompatibilist. I will argue against Kane and for Pereboom, because I believe that Kane struggles to present an argument that is compatible with the latest scientific views of the world.
The discussion of free will and its compatibility with determinism comes down to one’s conception of actions. Most philosophers and physicists would agree that events have specific causes, especially events in nature. The question becomes more controversial when philosophers discuss the interaction between human beings, or agents, and the world. If one holds the belief that all actions and events are caused by prior events, it would seem as though he would be accepting determinism. For if an event has a particular cause, the event which follows must be predetermined, even if this cause relates to a decision by a human being. Agent causation becomes important for many philosophers who, like me, refuse to accept the absence of free will in the universe.
Determinism currently takes two related forms: hard determinism and soft determinism [1][1]. Hard determinism claims that the human personality is subject to, and a product of, natural forces. All of our choices can be accounted for by reference to environmental, social, cultural, physiological and hereditary (biological) causes. Our total character is a product of these environmental, social, cultural, physiological and hereditary forces, thus our beliefs, desires, values and habits are all outside of our control. The hard determinist, therefore, claims that our choices are determined by these factors; free will is an illusion because the choices and decisions we make are derived from our character, which is completely out of our control in creating. An example might help illustrate this point. Consider a man who has just repeatedly stabbed another man outside of a bar; the other man is dead. The hard determinist would argue that there were factors outside of the killer’s control which led him to this action. As a child, he was constantly beaten by his father and was the object of ridicule and contempt of his classmates. This trend of hard luck would continue all his life. Coupled with the fact that he has a gene that has been identified with male aggression, he could not control himself when he pulled the knife out and started stabbing the other man. All this aggression, and all this history were the determinate cause of his action.
The discussion of free will and its compatibility with determinism comes down to one’s conception of actions. Most philosophers and physicists would agree that events have specific causes, especially events in nature. The question becomes more controversial when philosophers discuss the interaction between human beings, or agents, and the world. If one holds the belief that all actions and events are caused by prior events, it would seem as though he would be accepting determinism
“The determinist view of human freedom is typically based off of the scientific model of the physical universe” (Chaffee, 2013, p. 176). They believe that since events in the physical universe as well as the biological realm consistently display casual connections, and because humans are a part of the physical universe and biological realm, it is a reasonable assumption that all of our actions (and the choices that initiated the actions) are also casually determined, eliminating the possibility of free choice ( Chaffee...
Determinism essentially states that all events, including human actions, are determined by external factors such as the past and every event is inevitable. To visualise this, take a domino set for example. If the first domino falls, the domino next to it must fall as well and there is nothing that can stop this conclusion from occurring. Furthermore, I am a incompatibilist so I also think that as long as determinism is true, free will cannot be
The next theory is the theory of idealism. In a regular day basis idealism in basically the ideas that a person follows and believes in in his or hers entire life time. But in the philosophical world it has another meaning to it. In philosophy the meaning of this theory is that all the things in the world and everything that we believe in are part of our consciousness. That all the things even the physical parts are in a way formed from ...