A. Student Polina Kukar 12U Philosophy Date Free Won't [This Title Was Predetermined] The concept of free will is a matter of intense debate from the perspectives of religion, science, and philosophy. For religious followers, free will is often considered a paradox. If God is all-seeing and all-knowing, has he predetermined the actions of every human being? Philosophers too have struggled with the idea of free will. Aristotle, for example, while accepting that many of our decisions are predictable based on our character and habits, argued that there could be loopholes in the cause and effect chain that allow for the conscious choice of different paths. The Stoics advanced the concept of determinism believing that natural laws control all things, including the mind, arguing that every event in history is connected to a previous event that caused it and an event, in turn, is a preceding cause of what comes after. Neuroscientists have added to the discussion of free will by concluding that it is an illusion, partly because scientists have proven that the brain commits to a decision before a person is consciously aware of a decision being made at all. If free will is a possible concept, it existed only once and will never exist again. For the purposes of this essay, free will is the ability to act and make decisions based on conscious and deliberate choices. Assuming that one accepts that mentally we are able to choose between two options, as individual human beings, we are still controlled by the law of physics and all external laws of nature. Even the fact that we are referring to actions as choices implies that there are a limited number of options to choose from. The brain is the product of evolution, environment and genetics and therefore the structure of the brain undoubtedly determines patterns in choices and actions. Not only are we controlled by the past, but our actions are also greatly influenced by our most basic wants and needs. We strive for health, safety, and smaller goals like respect, recognition, appreciation, and love. I see
free will as an inverted triangle, extending from the very beginning of time to the supposed end (within this argument I will assume that time has both a beginning and end). Suppose we have only one human, person A. This person has the largest amount of options a person can possibly have. They are limited by only their environment and their own mind and body. Now suppose person B stumbles into the equation. Both person A and B are now somewhat limited by each other. Their actions will affect and influence one another, thus lessening their options. One could argue that they both have free will, but less of it. Add another person, person C, and the pattern continues. As time goes on, we are more and more affected by decisions made by others-- both in the past and by those around us. Now the point where this scenario gets complicated occurs when we add purpose to the equation. I do not believe in conscious or spiritual purpose. However, actions have consequences. At this point I subscribe to two schools of thought. I believe that everything in the universe either exists as a result of one initial intention, or that everything exists because it is leading up to one final intended result (in relation to the triangle analogy, the omnipotent purpose would either be the cause of the person and environment or the end result at the triangle's tip). A visitor to my philosophy class named Sabchu stated that: I am twenty-nine [years old] because I was twenty-eight before. Yesterday is the cause of today, and the day before that is the cause of yesterday. Although his idea agrees with one of my options, I wondered if the opposite may be equally justifiable. Could he not be just as much twenty-nine due to his being twenty-eight as he is because he will be thirty? Could today not exist because tomorrow will, and not because yesterday already did? One of the most interesting responses to the question of free will was voiced by Baruch Spinoza, born in Amsterdam in1632. Spinoza was an incredibly radical thinker for his time because, while he was Jewish, he was willing to be excommunicated from his community for his refusal to accept the idea of an anthropomorphic God. For Spinoza, a God does exist but it is an abstract and impersonal God. He did not believe in the God of the old testament, but rather that nature is God and that everything follows natural laws (Stanford, 2001). For Spinoza, God is all and all is in God.
(Gaarder, 206). Spinoza argued against the concept of free will. Expanding on the writings of Descartes, Spinoza accepted the idea of determinism, arguing that life runs like a clock in that all of the elements of life fit together like gears. If one could stand back and look at the world from afar, from the beginning of time, all actions would be predictable and repeatable and thus not subject to individual choice. If he lived today, Spinoza would probably adopt the idea of man being comparable to a computer. With certain inputs, the outputs would be predictable and obvious down to the most minute details. His main work, Ethics, Geometrically Demonstrated, was representative of the ideas of his time, namely, that mathematics and reason were the window into morality and truth. Spinoza believed that man's desires and hopes block his path to happiness. He felt that acknowledging that the world unfolds from a pre-ordained pattern would allow one to intuit all of nature. If humans accept that all things are connected, they can achieve true contentment (Philosophy and Philosophers, 2012). In Sophie's World, the analogy is made that an apple tree can only produce apples. Similarly, a human being can only be human and that entails living within the limits of humanity. He compares apple trees to humans in that,...if it is an apple tree it will not have the ability to bear pears or plums. The same applies to us humans. (Gaarder, 211). While there are some differences between my views and Spinoza's, they are astonishingly similar. For 2000 years people have been debating the concept of free will. What makes sense to me is that there can't possibly be free will as long as every human is just as much a part of reality as the next. Even recent findings about studies of the brain are pointing to the ideas brought forth by determinists. Spinoza's closed universe concept isn't that different from what scientists are realizing today. There is no such thing as free will because the human mind is determined in its willing by a cause other than itself. God's will, which has no cause other than itself, reveals itself by necessity rather than freedom. (Scott, 2011). This aspect of Spinoza's argument is similar to my main belief. I would say that when there is free will once, there can never be free will again. After an initial free decision, every choice that follows is out of necessity, pertaining to that first decision. Supposing I was created out of free
will, all of my motivations in life stem from a set of needs following a set of rules determined by external forces. As Spinoza said, Men believe themselves to be free because they are conscious of their own actions and are ignorant of the causes by which they are determined. (Michaelson, 2012). However safe it may feel to believe that we are free to do whatever we please, there has been no evidence to prove that free will as a concept is even possible. Many of these philosophical questions that have been debated for centuries are fascinating but ultimately without value to our daily lives. It doesn't matter if we have free will or not; we are still going to wake up every day and function within a system that has been foisted upon us. We can't function outside of our society, so how much free will can we possibly have inside of it?
Works Cited Baruch Spinoza (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). (2001, June 29). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved November 14, 2012, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/ Gaarder, J. (1995). Spinoza. Sophie's World (p. 206, 211). London: Phoenix. Spinoza: Ethics Summary. (2012, May 11). Philosophy and Philosophers. Retrieved November 14, 2012, from www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0cb8qfjaa&url=http%3a% 2F%2Fwww.the-philosophy.com%2Fethics-spinoza-summary&ei=yiykUKmYN4aW2gXr- ICIBQ&usg=AFQjCNEO-Db-8vz0bxWnf2nvnwIQXSfQ6w Scott, A. (n.d.). Spinoza' Ethics.Angelfire: Welcome to Angelfire. Retrieved November 14, 2012, from http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/s Michaelson, J. (n.d.). Free Will: The Last Gasp of the Unenlightened Mind Reality Sandwich. Reality Sandwich Evolving consciousness, bite by bite.. Retrieved November 14, 2012, from http://www.realitysandwich.com/free_will