CONTENTSINTRODUCTIONPRE-SOCRATICSOCRATES (469–399 B.C.)PLATO (429–347 B.C.)EXISTENTIALISMARISTOTLE (384–322 B.C.)THE SHIP OF THESEUSFRANCIS BACON (1561–1626)THE COW IN THE FIELDDAVID HUME (1711–1776)HEDONISMPRISONER’S DILEMMAST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225–1274)HARD DETERMINISMJEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU (1712–1778)THE TROLLEY PROBLEMREALISMIMMANUEL KANT (1724–1804)DUALISMUTILITARIANISMJOHN LOCKE (1632–1704)EMPIRICISM VERSUS RATIONALISMGEORG WILHELM FRIEDRICH HEGEL (1770–1831)RENÉ DESCARTES (1596–1650)A-THEORYTHE LIAR PARADOXTHOMAS HOBBES (1588–1679)PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGEMETAPHYSICSJEAN-PAUL SARTRE (1905–1980)FREE WILLPHILOSOPHY OF HUMORTHE ENLIGHTENMENTFRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE (1844–1900)THE SORITES PARADOXLUDWIG WITTGENSTEIN (1889–1951)AESTHETICSPHILOSOPHY OF CULTUREEPISTEMOLOGYTWIN EARTHARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER (1788–1860)KARL MARX (1818–1883)MARTIN HEIDEGGER (1889–1976)VOLTAIRE (1694–1778)RELATIVISMEASTERN PHILOSOPHYAVICENNA (980–1037)BERTRAND RUSSELL (1872–1970)PHENOMENOLOGYNOMINALISMGOTTFRIED WILHELM LEIBNIZ (1646–1716)ETHICSPHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCEBARUCH SPINOZA (1632–1677)PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION
The definition of free will in compatibilism is that one is free to choose how to act to whatever extent made possible by that persons makeup. But then, if it is not determinism that is considered to be a constraint in compatibilism, what is the constraint? According to compatibilism, a constraint is any type of external coercion. Free will, therefore, is defined as freedom of action. As long as an individual is able to make his own decisions (even if those decisions are already determined) free of an external force (like imprisonment), then that person has free will. Alternatively, some people do not believe in compatibilism. Those who believe incompatibilism to be true claim that determinism is simply incompatible with the notion of free will. For example, how can one have free will if every decision is predetermined from birth?
id: 159f52e74bf34819548ed3143ac55534 - page: 181
This does not necessarily mean that incompatibilism states free will does or does not exist. In fact, incompatibilism can be broken down into three types: 1. Hard determinism (which denies the existence of free will) 2. Metaphysical libertarianism (which states free will does exist and denies the existence of compatibilism) 3. Pessimistic incompatibilism (which states that neither free will nor compatibilism is true)
id: b615f5494243a2909c154c4675811efc - page: 183
The previous incompatibilism: image shows several offshoots of compatibilism and Semicompatibilism is the notion that determinism is compatible with moral responsibility. Hard incompatibilism is the belief that moral responsibility and free will are not compatible with determinism. Illusionism is the belief that free will is just an illusion. Incompatibilists who deny determinism accept that random events must therefore occur in the world (be they mental, biological, physical, etc.), and thus, randomness and accidents do exist. This then creates chains of unpredictable futures (as opposed to the one predestined future in determinism). Another form of incompatibilism, metaphysical libertarianism, comes in four
id: 5b9e6f75f4801928f614b285b8382750 - page: 183
Soft causality is the belief that most events are determined, while some events are not as predictable. Agent-causal libertarianism is the belief that new causal chains can begin that are not determined by past events or laws of nature. Non-causal libertarianism is the idea that in order to make decisions, no cause is needed at all. Those who believe in compatibilism believe humans can be free agents (and have free will) when they are free of certain constraints, and that personalities and characteristics are determined in ways that are out of their hands (such as genetics or upbringing), while incompatibilists deny that determinism plays a role in free will and accept that random events and accidents must therefore occur in the world (be they mental, biological, physical, etc.).
id: f62206bc213b55f564206b1f9ec9e892 - page: 183