Table of contentsSummaryIntroductionLiterature reviewDeterminismContribution of freedom of willCritique of freedom of willConclusionSummaryDo we have free will? In this essay we have given a brief explanation about freedom of will. By analyzing some of the written works associated with freedom of will, we will sort out things that have not been covered in any works so far and explain this theory in more detail. A summary of these articles has been given in our essay. Moreover, the aim of this essay is to search for the gap which has not been revealed or identified or which we can term as research gap on the topic of freedom of will. That said, we have outlined some of the research gaps in this report; on the one hand, the theory has much to support it, on the other hand, it has long been the subject of criticism. For this reason, we have focused on some of these criticisms made and the supporting factors, while presenting our views on this topic. We have included some of those contributions that seem to have an impact on this theory that has been formulated in the philosophical world. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essayIntroductionFreedom of will is a person's ability to choose unhindered between possible courses of action. Free will is closely related to the concepts of moral responsibility, praise, guilt, sin, and other judgments that apply only to freely chosen actions. This means that what we humans do is based on our own choice. This is why some people do bad things and others don't. It is also the opposite of good deeds. It is also linked to the notions of advice, persuasion, deliberation and prohibition. Traditionally, only voluntary actions are considered worthy of credit or blame. There are many different concerns about threats to the possibility of free will, varying depending on exactly how it is conceived, which is the subject of some debate. Literature Review To write this essay, we read some articles related to our topic. But our main concerns, which reflect major criticisms on this subject, are not dispelled by reading these articles. For example, Moghal, A. (July 7, 2015), Free will, determinism and the new fatalism: Freedom of will is not the same for all philosophers. From a scientific, philosophical and theological perspective, free will remains one of the greatest mysteries known to man. The French philosopher and mathematician René Descartes classified our world into two types of things, mental matter and material matter. This doctrine completely denies freedom and emphasizes that the world is a perfect causal system in which every future event is strictly predetermined. But this should not be understandable. Because we do work according to our own will, not by the direct force of God and we are also responsible for our own activities. This is why we live in a world with a legal and judicial system that guarantees justice. This means that those who have themselves transgressed an immoral act must be punished. This type of philosophical thinking, like fatalism, presents certain problems. The controversy between free will and fatalism is still ongoing in the West and no one has reached a definitive conclusion. It is truly a shame that the doctrine of Karma is confused with fatalism. THEfatalism is the doctrine that all events are subject to fate and occur out of unavoidable necessity. Here we have discovered another philological thought and we will take care of it with fatalism. First, we might discover some unscientific problems with fatalism. Now we introduce determinism. Determinism, on the other hand, holds that the law of causality is as true for man as it is for nature in general. Determinism is not like fatalism. The difference between the two is that determinism does not only talk about external factors like God but also talking about the internal factor. For example, you go to your university and suppose you have an important course. But on the road, while you are on your way to your university, see that an old man has fallen on a pond and needs help. So at that moment, you jumped over the pond to save the old man without thinking about your important class. Here are the internal factors responsible for making your action. Unlike fatalism, determinism allows both external and internal conditions to play a role in our decisions. But the main problem is that he doesn't talk about self-will. It only focuses on internal and external factor. This is why he does not agree with determinism. There are many terms we use to refer to freedom of will that do not fit logical arguments. Think for example of fatalism. Here, we totally deny human freedom. This says that what we do is completely fixed before. But the problem is that when we say this, it refers to the fact that man's good and bad deeds have been corrected before, which is why no one should be rewarded or punished. But is this possible in real life? As a rational thinker, I cannot believe this. And to be honest, this belief is very weak compared to philosophical logic. Freedom of will The free will versus determinism debate revolves around the extent to which our behavior has been the result of certain forces over which we cannot control or whether people are capable of deciding for themselves whether to proceed or show their behavior in a specific way. DeterminismThe deterministic approach says that every type of behavior has a reason why it is expected. Free will is considered an illusion. In fact, we cannot take control of certain forces, namely internal and external pressure. Thus, our behavior is governed by them. There are different levels of determinism: Hard Determinism Hard determinism speaks of free will as an illusion and accepts that every moment and activity has a basis. In hard determinism, there are behaviorists who believe in it deeply. Their most direct and articulate spokesperson was BF Skinner. Concepts such as “free will” and “motivation” are undermined as illusions that disguise the true reason for human behavior. Soft Determinism Soft determinism describes that people have a choice and that choice is limited by external or internal forces. For example, if you are poor, it does not mean that it has made you a thief, but it does cause you to follow this path. Soft determinism expresses that some behaviors are more controlled than others and that there is an element of free will in all behavior. However, the problem with determinism is that it is inconsistent with society's beliefs about responsibility and self-control that form the basis of our moral and legal obligations. Another obstacle concerns the fact that psychologists are less inclined to predict theA person's behavior matches 100% accurately due to the complex interaction of variables that impact behavior. As opposed to the deterministic psychologies of those who believe that what “is” is inevitable. are therefore those who believe that human beings have the capacity to regulate their own destiny. However, there is also a middle position that dates back to the psychoanalytic psychology of Sigmund Freud. At first glance, Freud appears to be a proponent of determinism in that he maintains that our activities and opinions are governed by the unconscious. However, the whole purpose of the treatment was to help the patient overcome this force. Indeed, without the belief that people can change, therapy itself is meaningless. This idea has been taken up by several neo-Freudians. One of the most important is Erich Fromm (1941). In “Fear of Freedom,” he argues that we all possess the latent ability to regulate our own existence, but many of us are too afraid to do so. As a result, we give up our freedom and allow our lives to be governed by circumstances, other people, political ideology or irrational feelings. However, determinism is not inevitable and in the very choice that we all must do good or evil, Fromm sees the essence of human freedom. Contribution of freedom of will First, you can reject the challenge, claiming that it is strange at first glance. The experience of free will is so anchored in consciousness that it would be foolish to attempt a demonstration of it. Trying to demonstrate the capacity for free will would be as bizarre as trying to prove that we see the color red when we look at a rose. – This is not a good answer. There is no alternative to seeing the red rose, for fear of disrupting the physical intake or constitution of your perceptual system. There are, however, alternatives to the idea that your behavior is caused by a will that is itself uncaused. There is necessity (that is, the totality of natural causal forces at play) and chance (random variation not reducible to causes). Since we model everything we study as the product of a combination of necessity and chance, we will approach human experience and behavior in the same way. Necessity and chance are everywhere; they are comprehensive in our efforts to explain phenomena. The doctrine of free will denies this. It claims a special region for human behavior that is occupied neither by necessity nor by chance. The analogy between seeing the red in the rose and having free will is therefore poor. If it were clear that the subjective experience of free will could not be an illusion, then nothing that we are subjectively sure of could be an illusion. But illusions are possible, aren't they? Indeterminism (or libertarianism) holds that a man's true self consists of his will. Even if his body is subject to causal laws, his will is free. In reflex or habitual actions, man behaves rather mechanically. But in voluntary action, man's action is not only the result of conditions internal and external to him. His will is the power by which he can transcend these conditions and freely choose between alternative courses of action. It is therefore not only impossible in practice but also theoretically to determine its action in each case. This characteristic of free will is called “unpredictability.” However, he is faced with real chances or real possibilities, and in choosing between them he is a real creative agent. This characteristic is called "true creativity".Criticism of freedom of willDes.