Philo Question.. Essay

607 Words3 Pages
Open Roads Peter van Inwagen thinks a compatibilists position is confusing, considering that it should be reason and logic how “choices” of an individual will determine free will and how it is that they define free will and a physically possible choice may determine an outcome. It is not clear when free will and determinism are compatible. For this, Inwagen demonstrates two views to understand and clear the confusion about compatibilist position. He says the easiest view to understand is the first one that gives a clear idea about futures that do not have a physically possible connection with the present are “open” to and individual. Second view is more difficult because compatibilist talk about reasonable futures. To fully understand Inwagen views, I fist like to define terms that need further explanation to fully understand his explanation. He defines free will as being able to take more then one fork in the road, meaning choices. Determinism is the way things are at any particular moment determines a unique physically possible future. Indeterminism is the concept that events (certain events, or events of certain types) are not caused, or not caused deterministically (by causality) by prior events. It is the opposite of determinism and related to chance. Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent. I will now try to explain Inwagen’s first view on how the relationship between free will and determinism are compatible and how he finds this view confusing. The distinction between a physically possible future and a physically connected future is important, because a physically promising future is connected to a future, one that is permitted by the laws of nature, without violating the laws of nature. If at a moment in time, then that is how a physical
Open Document