"But desire and rationality – unlike the independent, freely willing agent – are not powerless, far from it. By being embedded in the causal matrix they inevitably have their effects, and a strong, skillfully pursued desire can have far-reaching effects indeed". [1]This quote, along with the rest of the article, reminded me of Wednesday's discussion and how the class tried to reconcile free will and determinsim. At one point in the class, a student asked why cannot free will and determinsim be integrated on the idea that although actions are influenced by prior events, people think about their actions, and thus their thoughts and desires guide them in making decisions? The response was that humans' biology were determined at birth, thus all there thoughts and actions being a byproduct of the brain, were also determined at brith. That is why desires and thoughts are not agents of free will.
In Clarks' article, he tries to say that people's thoughts and desires have a major influence on their actions. While this is true, it is also true that their actions cannot be changed by thought and desires if one believes in determinism. And as one's thoughts and desires have already been determined, the circumstances of the world would have to be completely different is one's thougths and desires would have an influence on actions.
Although I can see many problems with fatalism, I find it hard to follow Clarks' logic in expelling it. So for my question I ask "Is fatalism the opposite of free will and/or determinism?
Clark, Thomas W. "Free Will: Three Strikes Against Fatalism." Naturalism_Org. Center for Naturalism, 98. Web. 19 Feb. 2011. <http://www.naturalism.org/freewill.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment