In The Monadology, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz creates a metaphysical system that attempts to explain the nature of the material world. Leibniz does not believe that the material world can be explained using mathematics and other scientific principals, so he develops a rational theory to give him the causal explanation that he needs. This system Leibniz creates, appeals to the sufficient reason that is God and the pre-established harmony of the monads that make up the material world. Leibniz sets out to prove that his system has a substantial account of freedom, however, the principles and the rationalization he defaults to makes freedom almost impossible. Therefore, Leibniz’s metaphysical system does not account for freedom. Leibniz’s metaphysical system is broken up into two “realms.” The first realm is comprised of what Leibniz calls “monads.” A monad is a simple substance that cannot be broken down. Leibniz says, “there is also no way of explaining how a monad can be altered or changed in its inner being by any other created thing, since there is no possibility of transposition within it, nor can we conceive of any internal movement which can be produced, directed, increase or diminished there within the substance…The monads have no windows through which anything may come in or go out” (Mon. 7; p. 67-68). Leibniz is telling us here, that monads have all the knowledge that they will ever need, every action they take, or thought they will have is already inside of them. This is what Leibniz’s calls the Predicate in Notion Principle, that the predicate is contained in the subject. Not only do monads have within them all they need, but are also not material objects. “Now, where there are no constituent parts there is possible nei... ... middle of paper ... ... occurs in his idea of “hypothetical certainty.” He uses this as a link to a substantial account of freedom; however, he forgets that God creates a universe where, if I were meant to leave my door open, then I will leave my door open, because that is the best possible action. It is true that the best universe could not have within it any of the other infinitely possible universes, because that would mean simultaneous, contradicting contingencies. In other words, I could not open my door and leave my door closed in the same universe. So it must be that there is only one possible action that God would “certainly” allow. If God makes certain one action in the best universe, then God must make all actions certain in the best universe. Therefore, all actions in the best universe are necessary in that God chose those actions for that specific universe and none other.
Then he goes on to conclude by saying that, “The lessons learned from observing people and their beliefs support the position that I have defended: rational people may rationally believe in God without evidence or argument” (Feinberg 142). In schools today, students grow up listening to lectures that are subjective and then later are tested on what the teacher thinks and believes. Whether or not the taught perspective is factual or not, it teaches students from a young age to just take what the teachers, adults, and any authority says as truth, as a way to respecting authority. In the same way that it is reasonable to believe respectable authority, it is rational to have belief in God without specific evidence because we are created with the inclination that a higher being exists and God has shown Himself to be true to every generation. Furthermore, God has placed in every human the inkling to believe what is right or wrong, so when it comes to deciding whether to act a certain way, we can rely on our gut feeling if it is a good action or not. It is a very common and suggested thing to trust one's gut feeling when making a decision, even though it does not require any evidence to see if it is actually the right decision to
This forms Leibniz’s proof for the existence of God; a version of Aquinas’s cosmological arguments. God, then, is the necessary being which constitutes the explanation of contingent being, why the universe is this way rather than any other. Not only is God the explanation of the baseball scenario but he is also the source of the intelligibility of such concepts as bat, swing and pitch. Leibniz goes further to prove the omniscience of God. If God is the explanation of the intelligibility of the universe, then God must have ‘access’ to that intelligibility, such that God could be said to know what it is that being allowed to exist---that is, God must have the ability to grasp complete concepts. Not only does God constitute the contingent baseball game but he also knows what will take place before it happens. The pitch, swing and hit all take place not because God creates them but because he allows them. There is only one constraint on what God allows to happen, it must not violate Leibniz’s other basic principle---non-contradiction. God could not allow it to happen that the batter hit the ball and the pitcher got a strike. God chooses the universe that is most perfect, therefore the hitter hitting the ball out of he park was the most perfect of all possibilities.
In this paper I shall consider Spinoza’s argument offered in the second Scholium to Proposition 8, which argues for the impossibility of two substances sharing the same nature. I shall first begin by explaining, in detail, the two-step structure of the argument and proceed accordingly by offering a structured account of its relation to the main claim. Consequently I shall point out what I reasonably judge to be a mistake in Spinoza’s line of reasoning; that is, that the definition of a thing does not express a fixed number of individuals under that definition. By contrast, I hope to motivate the claim that a true definition of a thing does in fact express a fixed number of individuals that fall under that definition. I shall then present a difficulty against my view and concede in its insufficiency to block Spinoza’s conclusion. Finally, I shall resort to a second objection in the attempt to prove an instance by which two substances contain a similar attribute, yet differ in nature. Under these considerations, I conclude that Spinoza’s thesis is mistaken.
9- Bennett, Jonathan. "Berkeley and God." Cambridge University Press: Royal Institute of Philosophy: Philosophy 40.153 (1965): 207-21. Print.
If a human being is a material composite substance, she does not have freedom in the libertarian sense. (3,4)
The other issue that is being discussed between the two philosophers is determinism. Also determinism must be defined before interpreting their views. Determinism according to the Encarta encyclopedia is "A philosophical doctrine holding that every event, mental as well as physical, has a cause, and that, the cause being given, the event follows invariably. This theory denies the element of chance or contingency." Also like to other definition for free will this is confusing and incomplete to the reader. I think that determinism is a theory that every event has a cause and effect and that once a cause is stated than the event will follow.
This theory maybe seen as the far left of the free will argument and although this theory fits the ideology of most people on planet earth, it seems illogical to think freedom is absolute. Even in nature there are laws that all creatures must abide by. To demonstrate, one could look no further than the human life cycle, this is an event none have control over. The fact is that everyone lives, matures, and dies, this creates a great fallacy in the libertarian argument. Individuals also cannot choose where they are born, nor the parents that created them. These are merely rudimentary examples that free will is not an absolute, that mankind is left with choices that are not large scale, but simply minute decisions that cannot affect natural
...o tensions. Paul the apostle wrote by the same Spirit that Milton claimed that the Potter has the power over the clay and by the riches of God’s mercy he shall show mercy upon who he wants to show mercy. Theologians of history, Augustine, Wyclif, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and others all held this doctrine of predestination and taught it with vigor. With vigor predestination stands in Scripture and the challenge for Milton was to demonstrate the Father is reasonable, but at the same time God is the Almighty. So where does Milton’s views stand in relation to a perfect God? As others before "of Providence, Foreknowledge, Will and Fate, Fixt Fate, free will, foreknowledge absolute," in the Apostle Paul’s reply "O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus" (2.559,560- Romans 9:20 K.J.V.)?
Throughout history, western philosophers have vigorously attempted to define the word freedom, to little avail. This is because the word carries so many meanings in many different contexts. The consequences of these philosophers’ claims are immense: as “free” people, we like to rely on the notion of freedom, yet our judicial system relentlessly fights to explain what we can and cannot do. For instance, is screaming “bomb!” on an airplane considered one of our “freedoms?” Martin Luther, in his “Preface to the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans” asserts that people are free when their actions naturally reflect laws and morality to the point that those laws are considered unnecessary. Immanuel Kant, in his “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?”, articulates a similar view: freedom for Kant is the ability to exercise one’s reasoning without limitation in a public sphere. A deeper reading of these two texts exposes that Kant’s and Luther’s interpretations of freedom are actually more similar than different. Indeed, they are mutually exclusive: one cannot coexist with the other and Kant’s views can even be read as a restating of Luther’s understandings.
Free will is the capacity that one has in choosing one’s own course of action, basically, having free will means that one has the ability to decide what one wants to do and he is the unique source of the decision. Moreover, free will is divided in two varieties, surface freedom and ultimate freedom; the first one is the ability to make your own choices to fulfill your desires, on the other hand, the second one is the power to form your own desires and then fulfill them. Most of the philosophers agree that the surface freedom exists and that we have it, however, the big question is in the existence of ultimate freedom.
P. 15 "God has his mysteries which none can fathom. You, perhaps, will be a king. You can do nothing about it. You, on the other hand, will be unlucky, but you can do nothing about that either. Each man finds his way already marked out for him and he can change nothing of it."
...own to “There is an x such that x is a present king of France, nothing other than x is a present king of France, and x is bald,” (On Denoting Mind 1905). This is an example of how his views of senses affect his view on knowledge, we cannot take the originally quote at face value of what it is, just like we cannot truly accept the fact that something is a couch and not a bed, we must break it down and use our logic of other things and infer a conclusion from this information. We need to make sure each individual facet of the statement is true before concluding the whole statement is true, or else we could be misled to believe something that is not true.
This is because it’s possible for everything both to exist and not to exist, therefore both possibilities must have been fulfilled at some point. He phrases it in those terms, but I believe his argument is better understood by saying everything which exists must have come into existence, and therefore didn’t exist before that. Since something cannot spontaneously come into existence, he believes, another being gave everything else existence. This is called a “necessary thing,” meaning its existence is necessary for the existence of other things. Aquinas believes a being bestowed its necessity onto itself and did “not [receive] it from another.” What was a paradox before, an object being both the cause and effect, is now the logic. This object is God, and gave existence to all other
Freedom is a human value that has inspired many poets, politicians, spiritual leaders, and philosophers for centuries. Poets have rhapsodized about freedom for centuries. Politicians present the utopian view that a perfect society would be one where we all live in freedom, and spiritual leaders teach that life is a spiritual journey leading the soul to unite with God, thus achieving ultimate freedom and happiness. In addition, we have the philosophers who perceive freedom as an inseparable part of our nature, and spend their lives questioning the concept of freedom and attempting to understand it (Transformative Dialogue, n.d.).
Given the original definition of freedom it can be inferred that while neither Winston nor the proles are completely free, the proles enjoy individual liberties while Winston does not. Our assumptions about human nature lead to the conclusion that we consider freedom to be important as it allows us to progress in our search to protect and promote ourselves.