Philosophers sometimes view the idea of human freedom of action as the real problem of free will, but this classification is one of the main misunderstandings in both subject matters.
The misunderstanding between freedom and free will may have begun as early as the time when Thomas Hobbes and David Hume, argued their cases to support the theory of the modern concept of compatibilism.
From both Hobbes’ and Hume’s perspective, to be free to act on one's will is basically to be free of external restrictions, limitations, constraints, and controls. From their perspective, the absence any external constraint gives makes the agent freedom to do as he or she wills, even if the person’s will itself is determined (or predetermined) by causal laws of nature.
Factors That Affect Personal Development
Take a moment to consider all of the genetic and environmental factors that have shaped who you are today, and you will quickly become overwhelmed. From gender, race, and socioeconomic background—to family dynamics, education, and genetics—there are millions of factors that have converged to make you who you are.
Most people believe that humans are responsible for their own actions and that they all have the opportunity to make the right choices. But when you consider how large a role race, gender, wealth, and family upbringing all play in shaping an individual, can you truly believe that everyone has the same opportunities? Furthermore, are there some conditions under which people cannot be considered to be morally responsible?
Many legal systems say, “yes.” Children and the mentally ill are held to different standards of morality than most adults are. Some people would agree that someone who is physically coerced into committing a crime should not be punished. Some have even argued that a genetic predisposition (e.g., alcoholism or an environmental factor like childhood abuse) can explain criminal behavior and encourage leniency.
The question of free will in today’s world is complex and is informed by sociology, genetics, mathematics, quantum physics, law, and much more. Humans may never know with certainty how much control they have over their choices, but it seems certain that they will continue to seek the answers.
Free Will and the Problem of Evil * The Problem of Evil and the existence of God * If God exists and is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, then why is there evil in the world? * Free-Will Defense * If people have free will, then an omnipotent God chooses not to control them. Human beings make their own evil as a byproduct of free will. Are you the master of your fate?
The two most discussed influences on human behavior and personality are genetics (human nature) and the environment (nurture). The following are the major schools of thought on the factors that affect personality and human development: * Human nature * The environment * Psychological forces * Social dynamics * Compatibilism * Indeterminism * Libertarianism Determinism * Both John Stuart Mill and Baron d’Holbach are the major proponents of determinism. * Baron d’Holbach wrote The System of Nature, which examines: * Motives and the Determination of the Will * Absence of Restraint Is Not Absence of Necessity * The Complexity of Human Conduct and the Illusion of Free Agency * Pragmatism An American thinker whose work blends science, psychology, and philosophy, William James (1842 - 1910) was one of the founders of Pragmatism, a school of philosophy that connects questions of meaning and truth to practical applications and consequences. Among his writings is The Principles of Psychology (1890), a 1,200-page work that introduced the concept of “stream of thought.”James believed that we lived in a world of possibilities and sought self-improvement through morality and morality. Writing The Will to Believe, he believed the universe was both a universe of actualities as well as a universe of possibilities. |

Existentialism
Jean-Paul Sartre, born (1905–1980), was a French philosopher and founder of existentialism, a school of thought based on the idea that “existence precedes essence.” His Being and Nothingness (1943) offers a full exploration of this view. Sartre also wrote literary criticism, plays, and novels and was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1954 (which he declined). What is the difference between what is known and what is believed? It may seem like an obvious question, but if you look below the surface and truly investigate the difference between knowledge and belief, you may find yourself second-guessing some of your most basic assumptions.
Before the 17th century, philosophers focused mainly of metaphysical philosophy. The focus changed in the beginning in the 17th century when there was a shift an emphasis on metaphysics to an emphasis on epistemology. Many of the important philosophers of the time, such as Descartes, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, and Kant, focused on epistemology, and they set epistemological investigations at the center of their works.
The Change in Philosopical Evidence This change in philosophical emphasis affected all aspects of Western thought and culture because instead of investigating the metaphysical world and the “other-world” relationships, the focus was now on the concept of knowledge and belief.The French philosopher Descartes is credited with being the one who began the “epistemological turn” when he immersed himself on developing a model for the theory of knowledge.(File:René_Descartes_i_samtal_med_Sveriges_drottning,_Kristina.jpg, 1884) |
Epistemology: Knowledge and Justified Belief
From the classical definition and as a branch of philosophy, epistemology is the study of knowledge—specifically, occasions in which people conclude, determine, or establish that the answer to a foundational question is unknowable.
From the definition of knowledge, philosophers have established three basic conditions under which one can determine knowledge; these three necessary conditions are based on the general Theory of Knowledge, and they are: * Belief * Truth * Justification * Knowledge and Belief * As a general definition, knowledge is something that is believed to be true and can be backed up with evidence. For example, you may say that you know that it is raining outside because you can point to the window and see the rain coming down. Or, you may say that you know that Abraham Lincoln was born in 1809 because you can back up the claim with an academically credible source. Even further, you may say that you know that 6 x 7 = 42 because the rules of mathematics make it so. * Meanwhile, a belief is something that is believed to be true, but for which there is not any adequate evidence. For example, you may believe that a coworker dislikes you because she does not talk to you or smile at you. However, you do not know it for a fact—it could be that she is just shy. You also may have strongly held religious beliefs that you are highly convinced of, but for which you cannot offer factual evidence.
Theories of Knowledge
The difference between knowledge and belief seems rather clear. The problem is, how much evidence does it take to change a belief into knowledge? Who makes the criteria for what kind of evidence is reliable? How do you know for sure that you can trust your senses, or even your own mind? How do you know for sure that you are not dreaming right now? How do you know that you exist at all? And, even if you could somehow prove your own existence, how do you know that what you see in the external world is not just an illusion?

The major theories of knowledge are skepticism, empiricism, and rationalism. As a theory of knowledge, skepticism rejects the notion that genuine knowledge exists. Empiricism suggests that knowledge is established by justification of it through the senses. For empiricism, all knowledge is justified through empirical beliefs. Simple empirical beliefs are connected to the world around you and supported by the natural sciences.
Rationalism encourages people to establish knowledge through perceptual reality. Is possible to rely primarily on your own biased perceptions of reality in your interpretation of the world around you? The three theories of perception that feed into rationalism are naïve realism, indirect realism, and idealism. Naïve realism promotes the idea that the world is as you see it.
Indirect realism introduces some form of doubt by encouraging further exploration because not all things you perceive in an object are actually there or exist. Idealism is the notion that objects are basically a collection of your perception, rather than independent valuations from your intellect.
Epistemological Skepticism
Epistemological skepticism is the principle that no satisfactory explanation can be given for any viewpoints, theories, opinions, and beliefs about the world. Epistemological skepticism goes as far to deny and reject even the apparently rock-solid beliefs that there is a physical world. It also rejects and denies that you have a body, and the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that fire causes heat.
The main goal and objective of epistemological skepticism is to focus attention on the relationship between beliefs and the justifications that people give for such belief. The aim of epistemological skepticism is not to get people to stop believing, but rather to challenge them to evaluate the justification for their beliefs.

The general position of rationalism is that knowledge is primarily centered and established on basic beliefs that are validated and justified through pure reason.
Arguments that are in favor of rationalism contend that moral knowledge is validated and justified by beliefs that are based on a priori reasoning.
Rationalism also maintains that authentic beliefs are unchangeable. This position of inflexibility makes rationalism less susceptible to skepticism.

Learning Materials
There are many people who are in agreement about nothing. The people who doubt everything also doubt that there are people who do not agree about anything. The people who deny that human beings can understand anything say that humans have not understood that the sky is over their heads.
These two views about the ability to agree are incomparably the strongest in number within the field of philosophy. Rene Descartes proposed that knowledge must be established on a solid foundation of certainty. The German philosopher Immanuel Kant created a creative resolution of rationalism and empiricism with his proposition that objects of experience can be neither pure sensation (matter) nor pure thought (form).
Empiricists and Rationalists
Empiricists are philosophers who argue that the source of knowledge must be based on sensation, which arises from the five senses of touch, smell, taste, sight, and hearing. On the other hand, rationalists are philosophers who contend that reason is the source of knowledge.
During the 17th and 18th centuries, there were complicated debates between empiricists and rationalists vying to become the dominant authority in the concept of knowledge and the field of epistemology. During these rigorous debates, the physical sciences such as physics, mathematics, and other fields of study, such as theology and logic, were called into play.
Leibniz Rationalism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason | From the Leibniz rationalist position, truths that cannot be certified by appeal to the laws of logic are called truths of fact. These categories of truths include most of what is ordinarily called knowledge. Leibniz’s contention is that to establish a valid truth, people must appeal to the principle of sufficient reason—this means that no fact can be real, and no statement can be classified as true unless it has sufficient reason it should be can be classified as such.
To learn more about Leibniz, click on the icon below:

Some of the ongoing problems that are associated with rationalism are: * A priori reasoning that is the mainstay of rationalism is limited in value for the following reasons: * Analytic truth is merely established and grounded on the meaning of words, it is not based on observations * Synthetic truth necessitates experimentations, investigations, and observations