Compose a 1000 words essay on Determinism. Needs to be plagiarism free!Download file to see previous pages... Free Will, Soft Determinism, (In)compatibilism Some of the eternal normative questions suc

Compose a 1000 words essay on Determinism. Needs to be plagiarism free!

Free Will, Soft Determinism, (In)compatibilism Some of the eternal normative questions such as that of morality too have shaped the major arguments of compatibilism. The problem is that without free will, it is believed that there cannot be any morality among the human beings. The issue is ultimately about human choice. The starting point of the debate is not that what the choice must be. On the other hand, the question here is about whether human beings have the choice of choice at all, especially in their crucial actions with regards to life struggles. Pippin proposes that “freedom is understood by Hegel to involve a certain sort of self-relation and a certain sort of relation to others. it is constituted by being in a certain self-regarding and a certain sort of ‘mutually recognizing’ state. This state of self-consciousness and socially mediated self-reflection, defined in a highly elaborate systematic way as a ‘rational’ self- and other-relation, counts as being free” (p. 194). It means that free will is not only constituted with relations to one’s self but also in relations to other as well. Free will, in other words, is constituted by a dialectical relationship between the individual and the society. Here, in Hegel, the conflict between free will and determinism progressively blurs. One of the most important questions that need to be addressed reflexively is the problems of whether determinism is inconsistent with free will. But, one could argue that there is no given inconsistency as such between determinism and free will based on his/her lived in experiences alone. If the actions of a person are completely determined by rational factors, we must be in a position to correctly predict that person’s future course of action as well. No determinists have ever come up with a mechanism to do so whatever determinism they preach in theory. According to Steward, “it appears that it is a matter of luck in some sense that we ever manage to decide things, but this luck does not appear to prevent those decisions we do manage to make from having been truly up to us. And this means that we must be cautious, in turn, about the demands we impose on the libertarian. In particular, we must not insist that the libertarian story entail that luck be entirely absent from the arena of action” (p. 169). The dialectics between chance and necessity of course have a crucial role in understanding the interactions between free will and determinism. God or the ultimate determinism must itself be seen as an expression of the free will of the universe. Pippin suggests that “treating Geist itself as a kind of norm. a collective institution whereby we (remaining the natural organisms we ontologically are) hold each other to a responsiveness to and directedness by reason, and thereby realize spirit as ‘freedom” (p. 204). It is the universal and human beings’ hold with it determines our free expression of the will. The free will does not exist independently. It materializes itself only in the given conditions. To argue that human beings are completely governed by their decisions is completely wrong. Even our own decisions do not determine our own behavior or a particular course of action.