Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
Can human beings act independently and make their own choices, or their decisions are not autonomous and are influenced by various factors? Do they have the right to do what they want? Are they free? Individuals have always been trying to find answers to these questions as they can help to understand the basics of human beings nature. Cogitations linked to these issues and attempts to find the most suitable response resulted in the emergence of the concept of free will and numerous perspectives on it. Being one of the fundamental ideas of philosophy, it attracted outstanding thinkers who tried to offer their explanation and vision of free will. Kant, Descartes, Sartre, and Nietzsche introduced their own treatments of free will and its importance in the role of any person. The philosophers stated that it exists; however, different aspects influence peoples ability to make decisions and their actions. In other words, regarding these four philosophers, free will is linked to specific elements that should be considered.
For this reason, the paper offers a discussion of this fundamental concept by comparing the major works of the outlined philosophers and their assumptions. Such works as Meditations by Descartes, Groundwork for the Metaphysic and Morals by Kant, Beyond Good and Evil by Nietzsche, and Existentialism Is a Humanism by Sartre are analyzed to find the central ideas introduced by thinkers and compare them to outline central differences regarding the concept of free will stated by them.
Comparing the Ideas
Overview
Descartes is one of the outstanding European thinkers who devoted much attention to various humanistic concepts. For this reason, freedom is one of the central themes in his philosophy which is linked to the attempts to understand ourselves and move forward. The detailed analysis of the concept of free will appears in Meditations offering a comprehensive discussion of the term and its importance in the life of human beings. Descartes believes that all creatures who can think are free in nature as they are created by the image of God, who has free will and created the world. Following the philosophers vision, the freedom of will is the ability to do or not to do something. The power of choice and its understanding is important for any person as it helps to understand that a person bears the image and similitude of God. In such a way, a persons free will comes from their origin and serves as the source of volition, which is vital for their lives.
Kant offers another definition and vision of the idea of free will. His discussion of this concept is linked to the idea of morality and aspects associated with it. The philosopher does not only speak of freedom that should be morally responsible, but he also states that the freedom of will should be presupposed to consider ourselves as theoretically moral. From this perspective, free will becomes critically important as it influences peoples ability to make decisions and remain human beings. At the same time, Kant argued that to have the chance to act autonomously or make independent decisions, it is critical to align the decision-making process to the categorical imperative offered by him or the moral law. From this perspective, these two ideas become interconnected. Kant states that the free will and will influenced by moral laws are the same and cannot be distinguished. In such a way, from this philosophers perspective, free will is inseparable from categorical imperative and morals.
Sartre also has his own idea of free will and its importance for human beings. He believes that all individuals have always been free and will always remain free. It is one of the fundamental peoples qualities and the leading aspects influencing their lives. Additionally, an individual cannot avoid making choices as they are the essence of their lives. That is why free will is critically important, as it helps to guide peoples lives and guarantee they make choices helping to generate benefits or attain desired outcomes. However, Sartre specifies his idea of free will by stating that man is free to make any choice; however, it is critical to remain responsible for outcomes and accept them, as they come from the decision made previously. It means that everything individuals do and attain is the result of their freedom and the opportunity to make choices and act independently. In such a way, Sartres definition of free will emphasizes its critical importance for human beings and their right to freedom.
Finally, Nietzsche also devotes much attention to discussing the idea of free will and its place in the life of human beings. In his work Beyond Good and Evil, the philosopher offers both positive and negative views on the concept. He introduces the ideas of free will and non-free will, which are closely interrelated. The last one is viewed as an abuse of cause and effect and is considered mythology by Nietzsche. He says that there are only strong and weak wills that matter in real life. From this perspective, free will is also linked to the extravagant pride of man and their desire to act in particular ways. From his perspective, the idea of free will means the power of will, which can guide a person but cannot be modified by an individual. It is enough to leave space for various options and various alternatives. In such a way, Nietzsche views free will as a critically important factor coming from peoples personalities and their desire to attain a particular goal, which is vital for their lives.
Comparison
Thus, comparing and contrasting the definitions of the free will offered by the four philosophers, it is vital to focus on a particular aspect. The main idea is that they discuss the concept and its relevance regarding different factors that might prove its relevance or emphasize limits influencing the ability to choose. Thus, Descartes determines free will considering the image of God and peoples similarity to it. Initially designed to be free, individuals cannot lose this quality as it is the main factor influencing volition and their lives. They have the freedom to do or not to do something, which is Gods idea and his plan. For this reason, free will is critical for a better understanding of peoples actions and their nature. The absence of this opportunity and alternatives contradicts human beings nature and might prevent people from bearing the likeness of God. However, this definition of free will is not the universal one and might be opposed by other paradigms.
Thus, Kant offers another definition described above and demonstrating the differences in views. He analyzes this concept regarding the idea of the categorical imperative. It is the term used to describe moral laws all individuals have to follow regardless of their wishes or current circumstances. In other words, different from the arguments stated by Descartes, Kant assumes that to be autonomous in decisions and act free, any individual has to use the current moral law and ensure their actions do not violate it. From this perspective, the freedom to choose does not come from the likeness of God but from the ability to observe the idea of the categorical imperative and its major ideas. Only under these conditions a person will not have a fear of consequences and will be free in their actions. In such a way, Kant steps aside from the ideas formulated by Descartes to introduce new ones, which are linked to morals and social norms, rather than to religious issues and the figure of God.
Sartre also moves forward from the two definitions mentioned above and develops the idea of free will. Similar to Kants cogitations, he accepts the notion of morals and the influence of choices made by people of society and the world surrounding individuals. However, he shifts the focus from the categorical imperative towards the real consequences of all decisions made by a person. Accepting the critical role of freedom in the life of all human beings, Sartre states that it is impossible to avoid making choices. That is why a person can have free will only if they are aware of results and have the responsibility to accept and manage them. For this reason, the central difference is in the factors linked to the idea of free will and limiting peoples opportunities to make autonomous choices. It is impossible to act independently and select among the variety of available options if a person is not ready to accept the results of such actions and manage them.
Finally, Nietzsche moves away from the three ideas of freedom offered above and offers his unique cogitations linked to the issue. He emphasizes that free will is not always good, and there are both positive and negative issues associated with it. In such a way, he disregards statements offered by previous philosophers viewing freedom as the major benefit and a factor promoting only favorable change. At the same time, Nietzsche views free will as the result of peoples desire to perform a particular action, meaning that it is the question of willpower. It contradicts Descartes idea of likeness to God, Kants statement of the categorical imperative, and Sartres emphasis on circumstances. According to Nietzsche, free will comes from peoples desire to attain a particular goa, which cannot be modified but influences persons. For this reason, free will becomes a critically important factor associated with the unique features of every human being and their abilities to act considering existing conditions and goals. It makes Nietzsches paradigm different from the previous ones.
In such a way, the four discussed philosophers offer their own visions on the concept of free will. They agree on its importance and the critical role it plays in the life of every human being; however, they use different notions to discuss the possible limits of freedom and its nature. Descartes appeals to the religious matters and likeness of God, emphasizing the fact that every person is born free. In contrast, Kant appeals to the idea of the categorical imperative, stating that moral is the only factor that might be used to determine the degree of freedom and conclude whether a person is free to act. Sartre focuses on the consequences of actions that allow a person to be free if they are ready to accept them. Finally, Nietzsche revolves around the power of will and peoples desire to make a particular action as the critical determinant of their freedom. The differences in these paradigms are preconditioned by differences in thinkers values and epochs influencing their visions and attitudes. However, all four philosophers accept the critical importance of free will and the role it plays in peoples lives.
Conclusion
Altogether, individuals have always been trying to find the answer to the question of whether they are free in their choices or they have to follow the existing models or frames. For this reason, the idea of free will has always been attractive to numerous thinkers. Kant, Descartes, Sartre, and Nietzsche also devote much attention to this notion and determine it. They agree that the freedom to act is critical for all human beings; however, they differ regarding the source of free will and its limits. Appealing to different factors, the philosophers create their paradigms leading to the enhanced understanding of the free will and its influence on every individual. The differences are significant and help to look at the discussed concept from four angles which promotes the enhanced understanding of the multidimensional nature of the question and its complexity.
Bibliography
Descartes, Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Sartre, Jean Paul. Existentialism Is a Humanism. London: Yale University Press, 2007.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.