Reasearch on Free Will and Determinism

We should not condemn others or admire others, this is not their choice. From beginning to end, we are helpless and blind. There is no moral responsibility. Some of the reasons the deterministe raises are human nature, which means that people are born with a basic intuition that affects their behavior. The other is the environmental impact. It simply means that people are shaped by their environment and conditioned by their experience. In addition, social mechanics, ie the social forces, ie the social biological and psychological forces influenced by people, are dominated by psychological power.

The determinism is (i) irresponsible for the lack of free will (ie human behavior is determined not by human freedom but by the laws of nature and the state of the world) and (ii) human behavior It seems to imply that it is. You can freely choose to do anything). Not all existentialists reject the laws of nature under the category law (that is, not all science is wrong), but we believe we have free will. Therefore, the key theme of existentialism is (i) to assert that we are free, and (ii) to clarify what that means.

The history of philosophy has always been dominated by competition arguments over free will and deterministic thinking. Simply put, the problem is whether we should think that human beings can choose actions and shape their lives fundamentally free - or whether they should be considered to be determined by their strength beyond their control , They are destiny, biology, politics or class. The failure rate of some people is rising and we can easily assert that responsibility for things is always outside of ourselves. Tell us that their life is totally on parents, school, government, boss, media. In addition to ourselves. The result is fundamental low achievement and self deception

There are three standard answers to the problem of free will. The first is known as "hard decision theory" and accepts incompatibility between free will and determinism ("incompatibility"), asserts determinism, thereby refusing free will. The second reaction is liberalism (which is also unrelated to political philosophy), it accepts incompatibility, but denies that determinism is realistic. This seems to be a promising approach. After all, is modern physics still telling us that the universe is uncertain? The problem here is that some kind of uncertainty provided by modern physics is not what the liberalist needs or wants. If the order soup turns out to be completely dependent on the laws of physics, the state of the universe 10,000 years ago, and the inversion of countless subatomic coins, the appetizer will not be more free than before. In fact, it is randomly chosen and it does not help liberals.