Study Guide Unit 5 Chapter 6 Section A1 What Is Fatal 234415

Study Guide Unit 5chapter 6 Section A1 What Is Fatalism Glossary2

Study Guide: Unit 5 Chapter 6, Section A 1. What is fatalism? Glossary 2. In Buddhism, what kind of gestures are human choices seen as? 3. What is the Buddhist concept of freedom called? What is it a freedom from? Chapter 6, Section C 1. What is determinism? Glossary 2. What is predestination? 3. How is determinism different from fatalism and predestination? 4. What is meant by antecedent conditions? Glossary 5. What is meant by sufficient cause? Glossary 6. What was Pierre Simon Laplace’s claim about predicting the future? What would he need to know to be able to do so? 7. What was Baron Paul Henri d’Holbach’s position regarding the existence of free will? 8. What is indeterminism? Glossary 9. What is meant by ‘free will’? Glossary 10. What is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? Glossary 11. What argument based on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle was advanced by Sir Arthur Edington? 12. What is soft determinism? Glossary 13. What is compatibilism? Glossary Essay Assignment: Topic and Instructions NB: Before starting your essay, you should read this entire document as well as the information in the ‘Essay Assignments: Grading Criteria and Helpful Information’ folder found in Unit 5. Philosophy Bites Podcast Here is a blurb about the podcast from Wikipedia: “Philosophy Bites is a podcast series featuring philosophers being interviewed for 15–20 minutes on a specific topic. The series, which has been running since 2007, is hosted by Nigel Warburton, freelance lecturer, and David Edmonds…The podcast has been one of the top 20 most downloaded series in the United States and has over 34 million downloads.” For the essay assignment, you should do the following: • Choose one of the podcast episodes that is on a topic of interest to you from the list below (all the way at the bottom of these instructions); you may want to listen to a few before deciding on one. • Write an essay that summarizes the podcast episode (your summary should only be one paragraph that gets at the main ideas of the episode). In addition to discussing the podcast, your essay must include reference to/discussion of at least one reading from our text that relates to the topic of the podcast episode, as well as at least one reference to/discussion of an article/entry (also related to the podcast episode) in either The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy or The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, through quotation and/or paraphrase. • Your objective for this essay is to inform your reader about whatever concept/topic/philosopher/problem is discussed in the podcast; the essay should be informative, not persuasive. Regardless of the podcast episode you choose, your essay must include the following: • A heading done according to MLA • An original title • An introductory paragraph that contains your thesis (if you are unsure of how to write a thesis, read this advice on developing a thesis) • A summary of the podcast episode you chose. • Body paragraphs that develop and support your thesis (here is some excellent advice on how to structure body paragraphs) • A minimum of 3 full pages (your works cited page doesn’t count as a • A conclusion (see this VERY helpful advice on how to conclude your essay) • A MLA works cited page that includes all sources referenced in your essay. Your essay should be double-spaced, in Times New Roman 12 point font; your paper should be written in Standard English and done in MLA format. To submit your paper, click on ‘Essay Assignment’ in the Unit 5 folder. You should attach a file that can be opened with Microsoft Word (doc or docx); do not submit a pdf or type in the submission box. Any instance of plagiarism will be punished by a minimum of an F on the assignment and a report to the dean of the philosophy department. Further punishment could include failure in the course, suspension, or expulsion. Episodes of Philosophy Bites 139 What is Philosophy? 009 Edward Craig on What Is Philosophy? 027 Alain de Botton on Philosophy Within and Outside the Academy 143 Martha Nussbaum on the Value of the Humanities 107 John Armstrong on What Can You Do With Philosophy? 002 Mary Warnock on Philosophy and Public Life 218 Simon Glendinning on Philosophy's Two Cultures (Analytic and Continental) 170 Brian Leiter on the Analytic/Continental Distinction 072 M.M. McCabe on Socratic Method 001 Simon Blackburn on Plato's Cave 019 Mary Warnock on Sartre's Existentialism 093 Sebastian Gardner on Jean-Paul Sartre on Bad Faith 210 Colin McGinn on Descartes on Innate Knowledge 075 Adrian Moore on Kant's Metaphysics 082 Christopher Shields on Personal Identity 021 Tim Crane on Mind and Body 255 Keith Frankish on the Hard Problem and the Illusion of Qualia 254 Ted Honderich on What it is to be Conscious 044 Thomas Pink on Free Will P03 Neil Levy on Free Will, and Its Connection to Moral Responsibility 144 Paul Russell on Fate 197 Daniel Dennett on Free Will Worth Wanting 003 Stephen Law on The Problem of Evil 103 Marilyn McCord Adams on Evil 067 Peter Adamson on Plotinus on Evil 162 Frank Jackson on What Mary Knew 254 Ted Honderich on What it is to be Conscious 203 Tim Bayne on the Unity of Consciousness 123 Ned Block on Consciousness 128 Pat Churchland on Eliminative Materialism 074 Barry C. Smith on Neuroscience

Paper For Above instruction

Understanding the interplay between free will, determinism, and fatalism has been a central concern in philosophical discourse. This essay explores these concepts through the lens of a selected Philosophy Bites podcast episode, complemented by insights from primary readings and encyclopedic sources. The focus is to clarify these often-confused terms, examine their implications for human agency and moral responsibility, and highlight contemporary philosophical debates surrounding them.

The chosen podcast episode, "Neil Levy on Free Will, and Its Connection to Moral Responsibility," provides an illuminating discussion on the nature of free will and its essential role in moral accountability. Levy argues that the concept of free will is deeply intertwined with our capacity for rational deliberation and decision-making, asserting that moral responsibility presupposes some form of free choice. The episode emphasizes the ongoing debate between compatibilists, who believe free will is compatible with determinism, and incompatibilists, who argue the opposite. Levy leans toward compatibilism, reflecting the view that free will can coexist with a deterministic universe, which is a significant stance in contemporary philosophy.

In the context of these discussions, the concept of determinism plays a crucial role. Determinism is the doctrine that every event, including human actions, has a cause rooted in antecedent conditions, making all occurrences predictable if those causes are known—a view supported historically by Pierre-Simon Laplace. Laplace’s famous claim suggests that with complete knowledge of the universe's state at a given time, future states could be predicted with certainty. However, the rise of quantum physics and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle challenges this deterministic outlook, introducing elements of indeterminism. This scientific development complicates traditional debates on free will, as it opens the possibility that not all events are determined by prior causes.

Buddhist philosophy also offers a distinctive perspective on human choices and freedom. In Buddhism, human choices are seen as conditioned by a complex web of causal relationships, emphasizing that actions are neither wholly free nor entirely determined in a rigid sense. Instead, the Buddhist concept of freedom, called "nirvana" or liberation from suffering, involves freeing oneself from the cycle of causally connected rebirths and attachments. This freedom from desire and delusion reflects a profound spiritual understanding of liberation, contrasting with Western notions of free will, which focus more on moral responsibility and autonomous decision-making.

The philosophical landscape is further nuanced by the debate between fatalism and predestination. Fatalism holds that the future is fixed and unavoidable, regardless of human actions, aligning with a passive acceptance of fate. Predestination, more specific in theological contexts, asserts that divine foreordainment determines all events and human souls' destiny. Such views raise questions about human agency; if outcomes are preordained or inevitable, what room remains for moral responsibility? Compatibilist theories, like soft determinism, attempt to reconcile free will with determinism by arguing that freedom is compatible with causal necessity as long as individuals act in accordance with their desires and intentions.

Throughout history, philosophers and scientists have offered different interpretations of these concepts. Baron Paul Henri d’Holbach, a fierce determinist, argued vehemently against free will, claiming that human actions are driven by unconscious causes rooted in nature. Conversely, contemporary scholars like Daniel Dennett advocate compatibilism, emphasizing that the sense of moral responsibility persists even if our choices are determined by prior causes. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle introduces a scientific perspective that questions classical determinism, suggesting a universe where indeterminism is embedded at the quantum level, leaving open the question of free will’s scientific plausibility.

In conclusion, the debate over free will, determinism, fatalism, and related concepts remains central to philosophy concerning human agency, morality, and scientific understanding. The integration of scientific discoveries like quantum mechanics challenges the classical deterministic paradigm, reopening questions about our capacity for autonomous choice. Philosophical positions such as compatibilism reconcile free will with determinism by redefining freedom in terms of acting according to one’s desires, even if those desires are causally determined. Ultimately, understanding these nuanced positions enriches our comprehension of human nature and moral responsibility, emphasizing that the discussion is ongoing and vital for our interpretation of human freedom.

References

• Dennett, D. C. (2003). Freedom evolves: Moral science and the mystery of free will. Penguin Books.
• Honderich, T. (2002). How free are you?. Oxford University Press.
• Laplace, P. S. (1825). A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities. Dover Publications.
• Levy, N. (2011). Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and the Contingency of the Self. Routledge.
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2021). "Determinism." Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism/
• Heisenberg, W. (1927). "Zur Theorie der Gesellschaften." Zeitschrift für Physik, 43(3-4), 172-198.
• Smuts, J. C. (1926). Holism and Evolution. Macmillan.
• D’Holbach, P. H. (1770). The System of Nature. Dover Publications.
• Miller, F. (2007). "Buddhism and the Philosophy of Freedom." Journal of Buddhist Ethics, 14, 145-165.
• Crane, T. (2013). The Meaning of Freedom. Oxford University Press.