' Holbach's Arguments Against The Concept Of Determinism
When it comes to determinism and free will, there are two categories which determinists would side with. Either they are a soft or a hard determinist. Determinism is defined as the theory that “everything in the universe..is entirely determined by causal laws, so that whatever happens at any given moment is the effect of some antecedent cause” (Pojman & Fieser, Free Will and Determinism, p. 388). In this essay, I will be reviewing philosopher Baron d'Holbach's arguments against the concept of free will in the perspective of a hard determinist. Afterwards, I will be defining what is free will in my personal opinion as well as whether or not free will is compatible with determinism. Baron d’Holbach was known for being “one of the leading philosophers of the French Enlightenment” (Pojman & Fieser, A Defense of Determinism, p. 396). He was also
…show more content…
a hard determinist who believed “that free will is an illusion”(Pojman & Fieser, A Defense of Determinism, p.
396). Therefore, d’Holbach argues that since determinism is true, this would mean that there is no such thing as a “free” will. Instead, d’Holbach argues that an individual's “action is the result of the impulse [they] receiv[e] either from the motive, from the object, or from the idea which has modified [their] brain, or disposed [their] will” (Pojman & Fieser, A Defense of Determinism, p. 397). In other words according to d’Holbach, the actions we take based from our will is determined by “forces” such as our desires and impulses to come up with one decision and stick with
it. Therefore when the individual does not act on their impulse, it is because there is some new cause, motive, and idea that prevents the action from happening. Hence, d’Holbach believes that there can only be one possible outcome in a decision and it will be one that you have no “free will” over. An example d’Holbach gives is the scenario of a man who is “tormented with violent thirst” until he becomes aware of the fountain that can help him quench it ( Pojman & Fieser, A Defense of Determinism, p. 397). Therefore, the man will drink out of the fountain not because it was by his own free will, but he did it because he had no other choice. It was either that or continue to remain thirsty. D'Holbach also argues that if the man was told the water is poisoned, the man will then stop himself from the drinking the water because of “his own conservation” ( Pojman & Fieser, A Defense of Determinism, p. 397). Meaning, “the fear of death, or the desire of preserving himself, necessarily prevails over the painful sensation caused by his eagerness to drink” (Pojman & Fieser, A Defense of Determinism, p. 397). In other words, an individual's will can cave into the pressure and expectations set upon them (Richard, Hard Determinism, 2015). D'Holbach not only argues that there can only be one decision outcome, he also argues that “[c]hoice by no means proves the free agency of man” (Pojman & Fieser, A Defense of Determinism, p. 399). Meaning, the outcome of a choice made by an individual does not need free will, but instead it is “the laws of physics” that determines the outcome of our choices (Richard, Hard Determinism, 2015). Therefore, even a voluntary act cannot be considered free (Richard, Hard Determinism, 2015). He also argues that political freedom is not the same as free will, and it cannot create free will (Richard, Hard Determinism, 2015). Instead, political freedom is only considered as non-interference (Richard, Hard Determinism, 2015).
a hard determinist who believed “that free will is an illusion”(Pojman & Fieser, A Defense of Determinism, p.
396). Therefore, d’Holbach argues that since determinism is true, this would mean that there is no such thing as a “free” will. Instead, d’Holbach argues that an individual's “action is the result of the impulse [they] receiv[e] either from the motive, from the object, or from the idea which has modified [their] brain, or disposed [their] will” (Pojman & Fieser, A Defense of Determinism, p. 397). In other words according to d’Holbach, the actions we take based from our will is determined by “forces” such as our desires and impulses to come up with one decision and stick with
it. Therefore when the individual does not act on their impulse, it is because there is some new cause, motive, and idea that prevents the action from happening. Hence, d’Holbach believes that there can only be one possible outcome in a decision and it will be one that you have no “free will” over. An example d’Holbach gives is the scenario of a man who is “tormented with violent thirst” until he becomes aware of the fountain that can help him quench it ( Pojman & Fieser, A Defense of Determinism, p. 397). Therefore, the man will drink out of the fountain not because it was by his own free will, but he did it because he had no other choice. It was either that or continue to remain thirsty. D'Holbach also argues that if the man was told the water is poisoned, the man will then stop himself from the drinking the water because of “his own conservation” ( Pojman & Fieser, A Defense of Determinism, p. 397). Meaning, “the fear of death, or the desire of preserving himself, necessarily prevails over the painful sensation caused by his eagerness to drink” (Pojman & Fieser, A Defense of Determinism, p. 397). In other words, an individual's will can cave into the pressure and expectations set upon them (Richard, Hard Determinism, 2015). D'Holbach not only argues that there can only be one decision outcome, he also argues that “[c]hoice by no means proves the free agency of man” (Pojman & Fieser, A Defense of Determinism, p. 399). Meaning, the outcome of a choice made by an individual does not need free will, but instead it is “the laws of physics” that determines the outcome of our choices (Richard, Hard Determinism, 2015). Therefore, even a voluntary act cannot be considered free (Richard, Hard Determinism, 2015). He also argues that political freedom is not the same as free will, and it cannot create free will (Richard, Hard Determinism, 2015). Instead, political freedom is only considered as non-interference (Richard, Hard Determinism, 2015).