StripGenerator

in Chat away!

• King

  dadebomb123 29.6.2012

  freedom is to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints. The existence of freedom and its exact nature and definition have long been debated in philosophy. Historically, the constraint of dominant concern has been the metaphysical constraint of determinism. The two main positions within that debate are metaphysical libertarianism, the claim that determinism is false and thus that free will exists (or is at least possible); and hard determinism, the claim that determinism is true and thus that free will does not exist.

• King

  dadebomb123 29.6.2012

  Both of these positions, which agree that causal determination is the relevant factor in the question of free will, are classed as incompatibilist. Positions that deny that determinism is relevant are classified as compatibilist, and offer various alternative explanations of what constraints are relevant, such as physical constraints (e.g. chains or imprisonment), social constraints (e.g. threat of punishment or censure), or psychological constraints (e.g. compulsions or phobias). In fact, compatibilists will often assert that determinism is not just compatible with free will, but actually necessary for it.
  
  The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will implies that individual will and choices can coexist with an omnipotent divinity. In ethics, it may hold implications for whether individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. In science, neuroscientific findings regarding free will may suggest different ways of predicting human behavior.

• King

  dadebomb123 29.6.2012

  yeah :)

• King

  dadebomb123 29.6.2012

  there are too many big words (and barely any spelling mistakes)

• King

  dadebomb123 29.6.2012

  XD

• Duke

  Scales 29.6.2012

  That is free will, not freedom. There is a subtle but very important difference between the two.If you understand what you posted, then you know that it is talking about whether our actions are predetermined or if our actions are truly the result of free will. It has nothing to do with whether or not we have the right to make choices, only whether our choices are pre-programmed.
  
  Predetermination does not necessarily depend on a guiding intelligence. Only on an inevitable outcome. So one might be an atheist and still believe that evolution is following a natural, inevitable path. This concept is also present as the basis of many psychological theories to various degrees. In the debate over "nature vs. nurture", there is an element of pre-determination in both sides.

  edited by owner

• Duke

  Scales 29.6.2012

  Free will is a state in which no constraints are put on the decision making process so all actions are dependent only on themselves. This is an obvious fallacy as, at the very least, ones psychology will, at least in part, determine ones choices.
  
  When you consider how upbringing, health issues, environmental factors, advertisements, social interaction, religious beliefs, political views, etc. all effect what you think and feel, it is obvious that all of our actions are at least influenced and are therefor not truly free.
  
  Whether you believe in free will or determinism is a separate issue from freedom. It is Freedom that needs to be defined in order to be achieved. But even if you define freedom, that will only lead you back to the question of free will.

• King

  dadebomb123 29.6.2012

  damn you are smart
  
  good point

• Duke

  Scales 29.6.2012

  I try.

• King

  dadebomb123 29.6.2012

  and win