Between Holbach's Arguments On Determinism And Free Will

Holbach is an incompatibisist concerning determinism and free will. In-compatibilism is the beliefs in determinism and free will are inconsistent. Inconsistent are when you have two beliefs that being inconsistent if and only if it is impossible for them both to be true at the same time. Meaning one has to be at least must actually be false. The beliefs I am talking about are determined and to see if the will is free? He thinks at least one must be false at all times, meaning he believes that we do not have free will.
Hume as a very different view than Holbach in some regards. One way he is different is; Hume is a compatibilist this means he believes in determinism and free will are consistent. Hume has a different view on what free will is
There are multiple reasons I dislike his argument the most is that first, is the argument that we talked about in class which is we have no control over our perceptions. The second reason I dislike his argument is of “Why do we think we are free”. The last reason is very simple; I believe I have free will. The first reason I dislike Holbach’s view is because of one of his premises. In his argument, in premise two he states if we have no control over our perceptions, (possibly don’t need the one with our perceptions) we have no control over our will. I first thought of this as a true premise till we talked about it in class. In an objection given in the notes and in class is that we have no control over what our desires are, we are free to resist them. This made me think of all the bad situations, people can be in but yet even they have desires to do certain actions they resist those desires. This is a showing that people have free will. Holbach would suggest that this is a product of external influences beyond one’s control. My rebuttal to that is someone can refuse something even if peer pressure is part of that equation and peer pressure is an external influence. The second reason I dislike his argument is why he thinks we are free, he says it’s because we only think freedom is the absence of external constraints. This means that the reason we believe we have free will is that nothings is stopping you from moving at any point
The first reason I agree with Sartre view is personal freedom to social responsibility. Second he believes that we are full- blown free. Lastly, his idea that values must be freely chosen. My first point is personal freedom of social responsibility. In his first premise he says every choice is a choice of what one takes to be. Second premise is that one cannot conceive of something good only for oneself. I agree with the conclusion the most. So in choosing for oneself, one is effect chooses for everyone similarly situated. I agree that each choose a person makes can affect someone else. An example is if you decide to cheat on a spouse, you can hurt so many people which therefor affects everyone's family, friends. That is my example which is different than Sartre conclusion. Second, is that he believes that we are full blown free, I think we are completely free and that we make our own choices with little outside forces, such as god or nature.. The last reason I agree with his views the most is because he believes values are freely chosen. Everyone has different values that are developed through observations in lives and it is their chooses to accept or reject those values. This is why I agree with Sartre view the