3 Answers

  1. This is a debatable point. The position that asserts that free will is possible within the framework of determinism is called compatibilism, while the opposite point of view is called incompatibilism.

    Although (1) modern scientific data do not provide unambiguous arguments in favor of determinism (in part, rather the opposite) and (2) the psyche is not necessarily an “array of physical phenomena” – this is a rather weak position from a philosophical point of view, the so-called “identity theory”, the problem of determinism and free will, which you wrote about, is still quite actively discussed in modern philosophy.

    To put it very briefly, the discussion largely rests on the definition of “free will” itself. This, if you think about it, is not such a simple question. For example, you can recognize that everything in the world is fundamentally predetermined, but you can assume that the laws of the universe are so complex that the human mind can never fully understand them.

    Then free will will consist in the fact that we do not know what actions we are predestined to: from a practical point of view, for an individual, there is not much difference between “the future is not predetermined” and “the future is unknown to anyone.” In both cases, you need to make every effort to achieve your goals, and moral responsibility will be determined, relatively speaking, by how hard you tried – an understanding that is close, in particular, to stoicism.

    There are other possible combinations of free will and determinism, of course. Some authors go so far as to suggest that moral responsibility and fully reasonable and informed behavior are possible only in a deterministic world, arguing that in a non-deterministic world, all events are somewhat random, and therefore we could never fully assess the consequences of our actions, which means that we could not be responsible for them.

    So there's a lot to argue about here.

  2. Hello.

    Strictly speaking, there can be no freedom within the framework of determinism. But there are many difficult points here.

    First of all, man is a very illogical being and strives for the goal more than he can withstand the logical rigor of thought. Pure logic without sophistry is probably as utopian as building a just society.

    What's the point? To the fact that the philosopher is a human being, not an automaton. Determinism can be violated in one way or another. After all, life is more complicated than mathematical schemes, and philosophers are most often humanitarians who can hardly tolerate mathematical rigor.

    On the other hand, free will is also interpreted differently. This is both an opportunity to make a choice for yourself, and an opportunity to eventually realize yourself (even within the framework of determinism), it is also a conscious need – reconciliation with determinism, etc.

    We can also say that the set of factors influencing the choice is practically unlimited, and therefore the total predestination of an action has a probability that tends to zero and is practically recognized as zero, which means that a person is free, etc.

    It should also be added that if a person is a person in the Christian sense of the word (i.e., we proceed from the recognition of the Christian teaching about man), then his freedom differs both from the determinism of nature and from blind chance. How is that? Apophaticism is often found in theology. The personality itself is apophatic in many ways, that is, we cannot say at the level of Christian theology what it is, but we can only say what it is not. So is freedom. This is neither determinism nor randomness. And at the everyday level, you understand this. After all, if your hand is pushed by gravity or a magnet, you are innocent of hitting someone with it. And, if the cramps throw your hand to the side, you're also innocent. But when you want to hit a person yourself, then you are to blame. It is the same as with a person: he or she – someone-is a person, and it – something-is not a person. At this level, it is clear, but if you go into the wilds, we will come to apophatic.

    Well, for materialists, there are only two ways: either determinism or randomness. The concept of personality that exists in modern psychology is something akin to character, in any case very different from the Christian concept. And here the philosopher can build a multi-level system in which it is possible to recognize a person as free and delectable, or it is possible not to recognize, but to punish only in a practical sense. Unfair, then? Well, many philosophers say that justice is something unclear or it does not exist at all, or maybe it is different for everyone, but there is no objective justice. Therefore, the difficulties only increase.

    In practice, we still distinguish between freedom and non-freedom, and therefore justice is quite achievable, if we want it, of course.

    That's somehow how I see this question.

    I wish all readers freedom and justice!

    God help us!

  3. Strictly speaking, no. However, philosophers are people who can come up with very sophisticated speculative speculations. Sophistication here concerns the definition of freedom as appropriate to the character of the subject or morally acceptable.

    Both options, in my opinion, are weak. There is no freedom within the framework of determinism. And it is not surprising – determinism itself is very weak as a concept. Chaos naturally rules the world. On the contrary, the islands of logic and causality are surprising and almost miraculous.

Leave a Reply