Erasmus's Argument On Free Will
Free Will Compromised by God
Free will is a concept of much debate. I base my conception of free will on Erasmus's definition. Erasmus argues that free will is “The human will by which man is able to direct himself towards to turn away from what leads to eternal salvation”(6). My conception of free will alters the last clause and instead substitutes, man’s ability to direct himself towards and turn away from success, in addition to having the freedom to define such success. In this paper I will argue that man’s will is never completely free; it is always dependent to some extent on God. I will analyze the philosophical theories of Erasmus, Luther, Descartes, Spinoza, and the movie The Adjustment Bureau, and the arguments they they make in their …show more content…
Many people, including myself, have been raised with the belief that God has a designed path for us and that when bad things happen, it is because God is testing us or furthering His divine plan for us. This seems to connect with the deterministic nature of Luther’s argument, but with more emphasis on dependency on God in terms of Earthly free will instead of divine will. This is where I disagree with Luther’s argument, I think while God knows the fate of our salvation, He is basing that decision on the deeds He knows we will commit on Earth. While He may help us get to salvation, he does not decide our fate independent of our actions in this …show more content…
The general members of this population believe, like Descartes does, that they have free will. However, unless an individual became aware of the Adjustment Bureau and chooses to go against the plan he does not have this earthly free will. He does not have free will because the human race is dependent on the Adjustment Bureau to avoid extinction. On the individual level, the Adjustment Bureau sometimes needs to alter an individual’s decision making processes to cause certain “pivotal” events to take place. The main two characters in the movie take control of their will and win independence from the plan. Therefore, the chairperson makes it seem that humans could take control of their will if they had the strength, as the protagonist did. However, it is overlooked that to do so he would have to become aware of the existence of the bureau. If the coffee had been spilled on David, it would not matter how strong his affection was--he would have not seen Elise or more importantly become aware that his destiny had been predetermined. This ignorance keeps regular people powerless to take back their will. You cannot fight a war you don’t know exists. This movie mirrors the reality that is similar to the one Luther describes. The main difference is the “enlightened” people in the movie can change their destiny while Luther’s God would not change the plan under any circumstances. God would not let
Free will is a concept of much debate. I base my conception of free will on Erasmus's definition. Erasmus argues that free will is “The human will by which man is able to direct himself towards to turn away from what leads to eternal salvation”(6). My conception of free will alters the last clause and instead substitutes, man’s ability to direct himself towards and turn away from success, in addition to having the freedom to define such success. In this paper I will argue that man’s will is never completely free; it is always dependent to some extent on God. I will analyze the philosophical theories of Erasmus, Luther, Descartes, Spinoza, and the movie The Adjustment Bureau, and the arguments they they make in their …show more content…
Many people, including myself, have been raised with the belief that God has a designed path for us and that when bad things happen, it is because God is testing us or furthering His divine plan for us. This seems to connect with the deterministic nature of Luther’s argument, but with more emphasis on dependency on God in terms of Earthly free will instead of divine will. This is where I disagree with Luther’s argument, I think while God knows the fate of our salvation, He is basing that decision on the deeds He knows we will commit on Earth. While He may help us get to salvation, he does not decide our fate independent of our actions in this …show more content…
The general members of this population believe, like Descartes does, that they have free will. However, unless an individual became aware of the Adjustment Bureau and chooses to go against the plan he does not have this earthly free will. He does not have free will because the human race is dependent on the Adjustment Bureau to avoid extinction. On the individual level, the Adjustment Bureau sometimes needs to alter an individual’s decision making processes to cause certain “pivotal” events to take place. The main two characters in the movie take control of their will and win independence from the plan. Therefore, the chairperson makes it seem that humans could take control of their will if they had the strength, as the protagonist did. However, it is overlooked that to do so he would have to become aware of the existence of the bureau. If the coffee had been spilled on David, it would not matter how strong his affection was--he would have not seen Elise or more importantly become aware that his destiny had been predetermined. This ignorance keeps regular people powerless to take back their will. You cannot fight a war you don’t know exists. This movie mirrors the reality that is similar to the one Luther describes. The main difference is the “enlightened” people in the movie can change their destiny while Luther’s God would not change the plan under any circumstances. God would not let