Arguments about free will and determination have created a quagmire in getting a clear distinction that lies between the two parameters. Many philosophers have postulated about different key points that tend to demarcate free will and determination. One may ask him or herself over which side he or she is likely to skew when it comes to explaining about determination and being free. The two hold different weights depending on the context in which they explain, the relevance, and the overall importance and niche held in the society. The concept of free will and determinism has posed a great challenge about my life. Sometimes I wonder where my life lies. Sometimes I justify my mode of actions as skewed towards free will, but at the moment, the notion becomes very different marked with a feeling of external factors controlling me. To comprehend precisely about the feelings, it is good to extrapolate on the question of Am I free or determined? Perter van Inwagen offers different philosophical perspectives are used to validate on the points.
The first variable that is important in understanding if one is free or determined is compatibility. It refers to the overall similarity index based on the actions that one engages in. Compatibility tends to bring things closer, minimizing on the minor differences that exist and extrapolates on the similarity areas. Regarding determinism and free will, there is a wide gap displaying a difference between the two variables. Being free comes along with full liberty. One can rescind or maintain a decision earlier settled on. For example, in shopping for an ice cream, one might opt for vanilla or strawberry type depending on the nature of environment and influences from friends. On another day, he or she can come into the same café but order a very different one despite all factors remaining constant. The decision comes from inner conviction to act. On the contrary, determinism requires one to stay within the required threshold of decisions earlier made strictly; hence, a person cannot deviate from the premeditated course of action.
There are a number of premises that informs my view on determinism. Firstly, determinism would always inform decision making. Human reasoning that directs their actions originates from deterministic tendencies that bring about common behavior among people within a given environment. From this perspective, I tend to agree with the fact that free will is quite curtailed at the point where determinism informs what is aspired (Van Inwagen, 191). It is presented that determinism and free will may not go hand in hand at any given time. This is consistent with the tenets presented by the reference article that maintains that there is a significant incompatibility between free will and determinism.
Understanding the nature of an exciting perform is valuable in getting clear facts about free will and determinism. It squarely lies on the decisions made upon convictions or sometimes from a mere external action. Physical actions convey greater weight compared to premeditated or imaginary ones. Determinism justifies a feeling of conviction beyond a reasonable doubt of a resigned attitude one would develop towards someone who is charged guilty of a murder case. On the contrary, free will first compel one to look into the issue beyond the surface before making judgments. This, in turn, creates a more relaxed decision made as compared to the case of rigidity showcased by real determinists.
In Peter van Inwagen’s addresses the timeless mystery of free will and determinism. Van Inwagen goes in depth in discussing if free will is compatible with determinism, and introduces the No Choice Principle. After explaining incompatibilists and compatibilists, he expresses a clear bias against the legitimacy of compatibilists. Peter Van Inwagen analyzes free will and determinism in his article and sets out to argue that determinism is not compatible with free will (Van Inwagen, 4). Determinism gives an insight on how we should understand human behaviors and the key patterns surrounding it. It explains that human actions cascade from specific causes that are either within or not within our individual control. Therefore, a key consideration should be taken to gauge on how people exude different characteristics so that they can develop a clear demarcation and justification of the human behaviors. Determinists give various reasons as to why humans behave in a specific way. Factors such as environmental causes, psychological forces, social dynamics, and human nature are considered as a key influence on how human beings behave. Determinism opposes the existence of free will based on the idea of the scientific model of the physical universe, which validates that all human actions are pegged on the nature of the external influences.
First, Van Inwagen defines determinism as the doctrine that at every point in time, in compliance with the laws of nature, determines a unique future in continuation from that point. Determinism allows for the illusion that people have the privilege of choosing from an assortment of actions, however only one path is physically possible. In contrast, free will allows for one to deliberate on one’s actions and to choose which path to adhere to. When one has free will, this implies that one could have chosen something else. Those who believe that free will and determinism can coexist are known as compatibilists, and conversely, those who believe that the two cannot coexist are unsurprisingly called incompatibilists (Van Inwagen, 191). Van Inwagen progresses to show that if determinism exists, free will cannot. The No Choice Principle implies that I cannot have a choice about anything that is an unavoidable consequence of something I have no control of.
Philosophers give different stands on the aspects of determinism and free will. They bring out clearly the difference between the two parameters based on the compatibilist takes by looking at attached consequences. Determinism creates a sense of radical pessimism where a mixed influx of actions dominates the arguments. However, free will does not exhibit such characteristic. The argument that Peter Van Inwagen articulates that free will is incompatible with determinism and indeterminism. He observing that we are free to do only what we do, and therefore, we are not able to act than we do. Van Inwagen assumes the world is deterministic and it follows free will and cannot exist because our behavior and actions are predetermined and thus present the condition of constraint upon the individual (Van Inwagen, 7). The feeling of freedom comes in with the aspect of free will. One feels totally in control of the flow of events and critical decisions made.
As opposed to being compelled by external factors, one has the audacity and the full range control to carry out fundamental in-depth analysis of all the parameters surrounding a situation before settling on a decision to make. I have noticed that I am starting to embrace a great sense of exposure when deciding on the chain of events to follow in my daily activities. I feel that I have the ability to go beyond the surface in analyzing key factors related to a product before I settle on buying it. For example, when purchasing yogurt or cheese product, I feel obliged to determine other factors like health, taste, season, and preference apart from cost. Free will is, therefore, a springboard to realizing the power of free will.
One of the biggest barriers to explaining the clear demarcations of free will is the confounding differences that creep in when explaining the differences between free and unfree actions. People tend to argue that all cases of actions are caused by laws of nature, which determines the overall cause of action. However, according to a broader analysis by the philosophy pundits, it is realized that there is a difference existing between free actions and unfree actions as far as the power of free will is concerned. It is understood that free will actions are sufficiently meditated, and are carried out of the total conviction of the human conscience. On the other hand, unfree actions are conducted restrictions that impair the normal activities. Therefore, it is good to understand that there is a clear difference, and this basis should form the reasoning behind assessment of one's behavioral mode.
Conclusion
In conclusion, determinism and free will would be viewed from diverse premises depending on the individual perspective and points of value. While it would be quite difficult to draw a conclusive view that holds any given premise as to take precedence over the other premises, there are reasonable boundaries that would inform any form of argument regarding free will and determinism. Free will and determinism are key aspects that should be understood beyond the surface since they form part of our everyday activities. From what I comprehend from different research, there is the existence of free will and free choice. People should understand that internal and external factors that are beyond our control are the sources of inability to make realizable changes. Human beings should move out of the comfort zones and orient themselves into growing personalities through many experiences they come across. It is the high time people should learn from their past mistakes, and make an initiative of taking responsibility for themselves.