Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
leibniz and descartes
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: leibniz and descartes
Discourse on Metaphysics by Leibniz
In the Discourse on Metaphysics by Leibniz he suggest that, "we maintain that everything that is to happen to some person is already contained virtually in his nature or notion, as properties of a circle are contained in its definition." This assertion raised a difficulty for Leibniz. This difficulty was that "human freedom will no longer hold, and that an absolute fatality would rule over all our actions as well as over all the rest of what happens in the world." With such a reality there would be no use for free will and whatever fate succumbs an individual is the will of the Most High; in other words, being destined. But for Leibniz, this is not the determined reality of humanity. Leibniz asserts, that it is God and only God, who has the insight of mans greatest reality. And man is unable to derive all of what he is, and is to become. For only God can foresee his fate. Leibniz suggest it is the perfect and good outcome, that God has prepared for each individual; and it is up to each person to fulfill that potential end.
This potential end (which God only knows all possible outcomes), is achieved through the person making free decisions and determining her fate. God decrees only the most perfect possible outcome for humanity, and this notion is woven within the cosmic tapestry of the human mind (a priori). Though this is the decree of God, that only the most perfect possible reality shall be for mankind; the imperfect is possible. For Leibniz states, "as I have already said, although God’s choice of the best is certain, that does not prevent the less perfect from being and remaining possible in itself, although it will not occur; for it is not its impossibility but its imperfection w...
... middle of paper ...
...laced upon the person who is to wear it. It must be within the soul innate, a priori, lying dormant, and awaiting development.
Now perhaps this is a possible reason why Leibniz suggest "that everything that is to happen to some person is already contained virtually in his nature." For this individual’s human nature has an infinitude of possible psychological and social qualities; which gives him an infinite number of possible realities to live out, depending upon the qualities of his nature. In approaching the first part of the question, (what makes up the nature of a person who chooses to perceive and know God, versus, the person who chooses to live his life consciously perceiving a reality without God?), it is seen that an individual’s nature is made up of an innumerable amount of qualities, ranging from that of the divine to the profane.
In determining the free will of a human’s nature many philosophers want to solve the dilemma of determinism. The dilemma of determinism is as follows (Rowe, p.587):
as free will and that all things in life are predestined. That no matter what we chose to do
One of the most important questions that society has been asking since the ancient times is to what extent man rules over his own destiny. For some people, destiny is entirely a matter of choice—that the purpose of and events in life are the consequences of conscious decisions. On the other hand, some people assert that destiny is preordained, which means that the events in life are inevitable and hence man is essentially powerless to stop them. Like many other questions relating to life, human control over destiny has found its way into becoming themes in great works of literature. Two of these works are Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex, written in the 5th century B.C., and Dante Alighieri’s The Inferno, which comes from his greater work, The Divine Comedy, published in the 14th century A.D. Apart from being separated by many centuries, these two works offer differing views on the question of destiny. Whereas Oedipus Rex advances the predetermined and therefore inevitable nature of destiny, Inferno asserts that destiny is a matter of choice.
Question #1: Compare the Ways that Descartes, Leibniz, and Berkeley each deal with the problem of evil and human error in a world created by an omnipotent and perfectly good God/creator.
It has been sincerely obvious that our own experience of some source that we do leads in result of our own free choices. For example, we probably believe that we freely chose to do the tasks and thoughts that come to us making us doing the task. However, we may start to wonder if our choices that we chose are actually free. As we read further into the Fifty Readings in Philosophy by Donald C. Abel, all the readers would argue about the thought of free will. The first reading “The System of Human Freedom” by Baron D’Holbach, Holbach argues that “human being are wholly physical entities and therefore wholly subject to the law of nature. We have a will, but our will is not free because it necessarily seeks our well-being and self-preservation.” For example, if was extremely thirsty and came upon a fountain of water but you knew that the water was poisonous. If I refrain from drinking the water, that is because of the strength of my desire to avoid drinking the poisonous water. If I was too drink the water, it was because I presented my desire of the water by having the water overpowering me for overseeing the poison within the water. Whether I drink or refrain from the water, my action are the reason of the out coming and effect of the motion I take next. Holbach concludes that every human action that is take like everything occurring in nature, “is necessary consequences of cause, visible or concealed, that are forced to act according to their proper nature.” (pg. 269)
That is a good question and there are probably a lot of answers to this question but coming u...
...s to avoid fate, a chain of unexpected unfortunate events are unleashed and a divine master plan is fulfilled. Man must simply act according to his own convictions concerning the matter and hope that if Fate is indeed existent, there might be an even balance between her and the freedom of choice.
...that fate. Events that lead to other events will eventually lead one to their fate. “Oedipus the King” is a great play that sets an example of what fate is. Oedipus chooses to flee from home, in attempt to avoid the god’s statement of his fate from coming true. However, Oedipus’s decision for fleeing is what was necessary to make his fate come true. Undoubtedly, this is what was meant to happen because Oedipus allowed it to. Perhaps if Oedipus ignored the god and never did a thing then perhaps the outcome could have been different for Oedipus. However it did not turn out that way and the choices that Oedipus made is what led him to his doom.
Although philosophy rarely alters its direction and mood with sudden swings, there are times when its new concerns and emphases clearly separate it from its immediate past. Such was the case with seventeenth-century Continental rationalism, whose founder was Rene Descartes and whose new program initiated what is called modern philosophy. In a sense, much of what the Continental rationalists set out to do had already been attempted by the medieval philosophers and by Bacon and Hobbes. But Descartes and Leibniz fashioned a new ideal for philosophy. Influenced by the progress and success of science and mathematics, their new program was an attempt to provide philosophy with the exactness of mathematics. They set out to formulate clear and rational principles that could be organized into a system of truths from which accurate information about the world could be deduced. Their emphasis was upon the rational ability of the human mind, which they now considered the source of truth both about man and about the world. Even though they did not reject the claims of religion, they did consider philosophical reasoning something different than supernatural revelation. They saw little value in feeling and enthusiasm as means for discovering truth, but they did believe that the mind of an individual is structured in such a way that simply by operating according to the appropriate method it can discover the nature of the universe. The rationalists assumed that what they could think clearly with their minds did in fact exist in the world outside their minds. Descartes and Leibniz even argued that certain ideas are innate in the human mind, that, given the proper occasion, experience would cause...
One thing that philosophers are great at is asking big questions, usually without providing answers. However, Saint Augustine has a more direct approach to his speculation, often offering a solution to the questions he poses. One such topic he broached in The City of God against the pagans. In this text, Augustine addresses the problem of free will and extends his own viewpoint. Stating that humankind can have free will with an omniscient God, he clarifies by defining foreknowledge, free will, and how they can interact successfully together (Augustine, 198). Throughout his argument, he builds a compelling case with minimal leaps of faith, disregarding, of course, that you must believe in God. He first illustrates the problem of free will, that it is an ongoing questions amongst many philosophers, then provides insight into the difference between fate and foreknowledge. Finally, finishing his argument with a thorough walk-through on how God can know everything, and yet not affect your future decisions.
Fate seems to defy humanity at every turn. A man may have his life planned out to the last second, but then some random force intervenes and he dies the second after he has completed his life plan. Some believe in fate, believing that our lives are predetermined from the moment we are born. Other people believe that everything is random, the result of some god rolling the dice in a universal poker game. Still other people believe that each and every person is in total control of his or her destiny, every step of the way. Who is to say which viewpoint is false? Every culture has a unique perception of the role of fate in our lives, and no group has the "right answer," simply a different answer. Taking into consideration the views of other cultures can help an individual refine his personal viewpoint on this inconceivable subject.
The choices people make lead them to where they end up, which may be interpreted as the opposite of fate. However, when some people believe something is meant to be, they are determined not to stray from where they think they should end up, even if it means throwing away their principles and values in the process. Through Shakespeare's Tragedy of Macbeth, Macbeth’s original character and values are destroyed because of the influence from the witches' prophecies, Lady Macbeth's greed, and his own hidden ambition.
In the end God ultimately decides ones fate, but one can influence His choice throughout their life. The play Macbeth by William Shakespeare, as well as the books The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli, Divine Comedy by Dante, and Oresteia by Aeschylus all talk about justice and fate. These stories show how even though God will decide what happens to someone at the end, the actions one does is how God bases his decision. One’s fate is determined based on what God and the law think is just. Human beings have free will and know what is right and wrong. Depending on what ones actions are they will have a good or a bad fate. Changing your ways to better fulfill Gods will is something that humans can do at any time. While it is true that God will determine what happens to people and what their final fate is, human beings do have control over their fate.
Freedom, or the concept of free will seems to be an elusive theory, yet many of us believe in it implicitly. On the opposite end of the spectrum of philosophical theories regarding freedom is determinism, which poses a direct threat to human free will. If outside forces of which I have no control over influence everything I do throughout my life, I cannot say I am a free agent and the author of my own actions. Since I have neither the power to change the laws of nature, nor to change the past, I am unable to attribute freedom of choice to myself. However, understanding the meaning of free will is necessary in order to decide whether or not it exists (Orloff, 2002).
...as caused by the divine and perfect plan of God who perceives the “end from the beginning” and performs “all things in accordance with the counsel of His will.”