Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Political philosophy
Political philosophy
The branch of philosophy called "epistemology
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Political philosophy
The term philosophy means love of wisdom, it is derived from the Greek Philia (love) and Sophia (wisdom). Philosophy is a way of thinking and an attempt to explore profound questions relating to our existence, such as, how can we build a good society?, what do we mean by good? , what is the meaning of life? and what is genuine happiness? Philosophers focus on many issues, among them; Epistemology, Metaphysics, Logic, Aesthetics, Ethics, and Political Philosophy. Epistemology is the study of knowledge. It is concerned with how knowledge is acquired, what obstacles are faced in the pursuit of knowledge and the limits on what can be known. It differentiates between rational and empirical knowledge. Metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality, it focuses on fundamental existential questions about being and meaning. Logic is the study of reason;deductive and inductive, valid arguments, premises and conclusions. Aesthetics is the study of the nature of beauty. It focuses on art, perception and enjoyment. Ethics is concerned with how people ought to conduct themselves and whether questions of defining right and wrong can ever be answered. Political philosophy is the study of the State in relation to those they govern. It questions the rights and responsibilities of the individual and issues of law and justice. The very nature of Philosophy means that it's scope for enquiry is endless. One of the most widely debated philosophical questions is that of the existence of free will. There are three main positions. Determinism - free will is impossible and Libertarianism-free will is possible and Compatabilism seeks to reconcile the conflict by proposing that the diametrically opposed positions are compatible with one another. The deba... ... middle of paper ... ...eld accountable for their behaviour or considered blameless depending on the circumstance. A problem with the idea of acting on our desires is that we are sometimes coerced into having these desires. For instance, a person being subject to peer pressure and subliminal advertising may start smoking. The initial act of lighting their first cigarette was not a free choice although the person will probably peceive it to be. The addictive nature of the nicotine contained in the cigarette creates a cycle that is difficult to escape. This individual would consider themselves to be free to act on the desire to smoke throughout their life yet they are enslaved by a substance and by their own mind. Many would argue that as compatabilists have conveniantly overlooked the issue of internal states being determined that they are simply determinists who have redefined free will.
In “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person”, Harry Frankfurt illustrates the concepts of freedom of will and freedom of action, but more importantly, Frankfurt has refined the compatibilism theory. Compatibilism allows the freedom of will to exist in the deterministic world. According to determinism theory, the future state of worlds is determined by some events in the distant past (E) and the laws of nature (L). More specifically, E refers to the history, such as experiences or states whereas L refers to scientific or physical law like gravity. For example, an alcoholic’s action is determined that he will not stop drinking. Here E is that he had been drinking in the past, and L is the physiological addiction effect caused by alcohol. As we can control neither E nor L, then it follows that we can never act free. The thesis of compatibilist, however, states that we may have free will, even if all of our actions are determined by forces beyond our controls.
The most inclusive perspective on free will, compatibilism, combines ideas of determinism and free will, claiming that although we do have the freedom of will and choice, our past experiences define our judgement and therefore our will. (McKenna) Determinists who disagree with the first part, free will, in compatibilism, agree with the later statement, that experiences playing a defining role in our will. In his book, “Between Chance and Choice: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Determinism” author Robert Bishop states the principle of deter...
For centuries philosophers have debated over the presence of free will. As a result of these often-heated arguments, many factions have evolved, the two most prominent being the schools of Libertarianism and of Determinism. Within these two schools of thought lies another debate, that of compatibilism, or whether or not the two believes can co-exist. In his essay, Has the Self “Free Will”?, C.A. Campbell, a staunch non-compatiblist and libertarian, attempts to explain the Libertarian argument.
Compatiblists propose that free will and determinism coexist while to incompatibilists that would be impossible. If we are to decide for ourselves then firstly we must establish the meanings of causal determinism and freedom of the will. Proponents of causal determinism contend that
Neither soft determinism nor hard determinism successfully reconciles freedom and determinism. Soft determinism fails as it presents a limited type freedom, and it can be argued that the inner state of the agent is causally determined. Hard determinism presents a causally sound argument, whilst ignoring the moral bases of our society. Due to the failure of these theories to harmonize the data, the metaphysical problem of freedom and determinism persists.
Free will is a problem that has been occupying the minds of many philosophers. The classical debate is whether we have free will or we are determined and therefore free will in an illusion. There are many views that philosophers have brought to the table in order to tackle this debate. Some of which are determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism. Harry Frankfurt’s general intake on the debate is that free will is not about having the ability to do otherwise. Instead, free will is about having the ability to make judgements about our desires. The purpose of this paper is to expound and asses Harry Frankfurt’s semi-compatibilist view, his concept of a person, and how it relates to the freedom of the will.
The question of free will (greec: τὸ αὐτεξούσιον or τὸ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν,lat: liberum arbitrium), which requires a high level of authenticity, rationality and the ability to choose between different alternatives interested for centuries important philosophers and since last decades also neuroscientists. If the person deals according to her personal motives (competing desires which depend upon her personality) and has freedom of action so we can call her desision free will. But this will often undergos environmental influences. For creation of a concept that overcomes this limitation of freedom the definition of absolute freedom was proposed. Karl Popper and Jean -Paul Sartre believed in this kind of free will. For metaphysical libertarianism (divided into physical and non-physical or natural theory) concept of free will implies that the individual in certain circumstances can make a choice from several possible actions. The non-physical theories consider dualistically that the events in the brain that lead to action, can not be reduced to physical explanations. William of Ockham and Thomas ...
What is free will (in other words, what do we mean when we say something like “we have (or lack) free will”?)?
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.
Various views on free will have been developed since then. The three that I will mention in this essay are Libertarianism, Hard Determinism and Compatibilism. Libertarians believe each individual should look to enhance their lives through the use of free will or the freedom of choice. On the contrary, Hard determinism argues that free will is impossible. Proponents of this ideology
...ink a can of soda. This statement shows that you had the desire to drink the soda with no outside source forcing you to drink that soda. Now to criticize, what if there was a computer chip that was implanted in your brain, that every time you feel thirsty, that you must fulfill this desire by grabbing the can of soda in the refrigerator. Are you still fulfilling your desire, or is an outside force forcing you to drink the can of soda? Currently, you do not know that there is a computer chip implanted inside your brain, but you still fulfill the desire of thirst by drinking a can of soda without anyone preventing you from doing so. As long as you have the desire to drink the can of soda to quench your thirst, you are fulfilling the compatibilist idea of free will.
This standpoint theorizes that determinism is compatible with freedom, and the coexistence of both of these is a possibility within the world.
Nature is complicated. It includes many different sorts of things and one of these is human beings. Such beings exhibit one unique yet natural attribute that others things apparently do not—that is free will.
Since the beginning of historical writings, many philosophers have pondered on the concept of free will. The struggle with the concept has ranged between, man deciding any action through the will he has to the hard determinist thinking of causal agents being the cause of man’s actions and thus having no free will. This paper will seek to critically discuss that free will is indeed not an illusion. By examining the arguments of the philosophers made by O’Connor (2002) and Sartre (1946) and conversely the arguments of the opposing compatibilists McKenna, Michael and Coates (2015), I will argue that to exist before free will is utilised, makes free will no illusion at all. While the later philosophers will argue that
Philosophy encompasses almost all different studies regarding different issues in the world. It is one of the broadest body of knowledge that speaks about everything that is connected with life. Like what it gives us, Philosophy has also its own life that evolves and becomes better throughout the time, giving us better ideas in dealing with life.