voluntary choice or decision
freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention
The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion.
French historian and philosopher, associated with the structuralist and post-structuralist movements. He has had wide influence not only (or even primarily) in philosophy but also in a wide range of humanistic and social scientific disciplines.
“A body is docile that can be subjected, used, transferred and improved”
Why do criminals behave the way they do? Because they are forced to act in such a manner.
Without free will, we seem diminished, merely the playthings of external forces. How, then, can we maintain an exalted view of ourselves? Determinism seems to undercut human dignity, it seems to undermine our value.
Determinism versus Free Will ?
the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will.
“A body is docile that can be subjected, used, transferred and improved”
Skinner showed how positive reinforcement worked by placing a hungry rat in his Skinner box. The box contained a lever in the side and as the rat moved about the box it would accidentally knock the lever. Immediately it did so a food pellet would drop into a container next to the lever. The rats quickly learned to go straight to the lever after a few times of being put in the box. The consequence of receiving food if they pressed the lever ensured that they would repeat the action again and again.
Skinner showed how negative reinforcement worked by placing a rat in his Skinner box and then subjecting it to an unpleasant electric current which caused it some discomfort. As the rat moved about the box it would accidentally knock the lever. Immediately it did so the electric current would be switched off. The rats quickly learned to go straight to the lever after a few times of being put in the box. The consequence of escaping the electric current ensured that they would repeat the action again and again.
Foucault said constant supervision and forced discipline broke the will of the criminal and made him into a “docile body”. The “docile body” was easy to control by people in authority.
What freewill tries to account for is our introspective conviction that we are in control of many of our choices, and thus our destiny - that we are free to think and decide.
I will do my best to show that even though, at times, it really does seem like it doesn’t, we do have free will.
The id is the impulsive (and unconscious) part of our psyche which responds directly and immediately to the instincts.
The superego incorporates the values and morals of society which are learnt from one's parents and others.The superego's function is to control the id's impulses, especially those which society forbids...It also has the function of persuading the ego to turn to moralistic goals rather than simply realistic ones and to strive for perfection.
Initially the ego is “that part of the id which has been modified by the direct influence of the external world” (Freud 1923). The ego develops in order to mediate between the unrealistic id and the external real world.
A pioneer American publicist who is generally considered to have been the first to develop the idea of the professional public relations counselor—i.e., one who draws on the social sciences in order to motivate and shape the response of a general or particular audience.
First of all, I would like to thank both debaters for providing such an interesting, well-mannered, and thought provoking debate. As I read through, I thought about all the angles of their arguments, first absorbing the discussion, then re-reading, keeping the topic strictly in mind. After a third reading I was still undecided. Both styles were fluent, both presented sound arguments, and both deserve a win. This particular debate is an exemplary example of how debates should be, light on pictures, balanced with sourcing, just enough quotes and external text to make a solid point, and the bulk being point presentation.
We know there can only be one winner. My difficult task is now at hand:
SonoftheSun laid the groundwork for the debate by defining the parameters of freewill. Solid, and concise.
daaskapital smoothly presents his postion, and remains strictly on the topic, with emphasis on "in modern society", and wins round one due to his focus.
SonoftheSun, unfazed, returns the focus to the ability to choose, and presents information which undoubtedly was not forced by society, but rather fringe individuals within society. Backing up his claims with poor dietary habits furthers his position of being able to "choose" what you eat. Points well made.
daaskapital strays a bit offtopic by comparing definitions, and wanders a bit further by discussing experiments with rats to strengthen his postion, but rats don't really have much to do with modern society, save for a nicely placed analogy, and thus SonoftheSun gains round two.
SonoftheSun drives home his points about conditioning not removing free will, and that it still exists, regardless of how society influences us.
daaskapital, however, shines during his closing by clarifying his position remarkably well.
What they see as free will are just the influences of their surroundings.
Edward Bernays used Freud's theory........to control the population.
daaskapital makes a solid argument for human programming, and as thus, freewill would not exist. His position is clearly explained, and he overall is very convincing that modern society is actually a bunch of mindless zombies.
SonoftheSun, in contrast, started slow, made very logical assumptions, and gave examples of such. Consistency is definitely a strong point for him, and accordingly, wins round three and the debate.
Sonofthesun: Opens with a very well laid out intoduction, outlining his point of view very well, also explaining the basics of the debate.
Daaskapital: starts very strong, great job of defining his view of free will, provided good sources etc... then things start to go south..Daaskapital makes a statement regarding criminals being forced to act the way they do, this statement would work better if he had provided anything to back it up with.
Round 1: Sonofthesun
Sonofthesun zeros right in on the criminal comment, pushing the point that criminals still have a choice in what they do, no matter the environment of raising,
DaasKapital : continues along as if nothing was pointed out by Son that he felt needed until towards the very end of his post providing a few lines to counter Son.
Daas goes on to provide some great information on Operant Conditioning, but wish he would have provided a bit more on the points SonoftheSun brought up.
Round 2: Daaskapital, by a narrow margin.
Sonofthesun: in his conclusion, he drives his points home in a simple but effective way, and also again working on the criminal aspect that daas brought up, but basicly left un countered, at the end son lists point after point, a bit long, but very effective.
Daaskapital: daas seems to lose focus a bit in this round, perhaps forgetting this was the final round, again not driving home any of the topics, but just touching on them and moving on to the next one, I do feel if there was one more round, Daas could have put it all together..
Final round and debate: SonoftheSun