Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 24 views

    Kövenç, Nefi̇se Midterm Essay

    Uploaded by

    nefise
    Schopenhauer and Nietzsche distinguished traditional notions of free will from their own understandings. Schopenhauer viewed free will and necessity as interchangeable, while Nietzsche introduced desert free will and agency free will. Nietzsche rejected desert free will and the idea that one is responsible for their nature or motives. They developed different concepts of free will by evaluating these descriptions. The author agrees more with Schopenhauer's notion that free will is limited by people's innate characters and tendencies, and that one cannot freely will what they will in the first place.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Kövenç, Nefi̇se Midterm Essay

    Uploaded by

    nefise
    24 views1 page
    Schopenhauer and Nietzsche distinguished traditional notions of free will from their own understandings. Schopenhauer viewed free will and necessity as interchangeable, while Nietzsche introduced desert free will and agency free will. Nietzsche rejected desert free will and the idea that one is responsible for their nature or motives. They developed different concepts of free will by evaluating these descriptions. The author agrees more with Schopenhauer's notion that free will is limited by people's innate characters and tendencies, and that one cannot freely will what they will in the first place.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Schopenhauer and Nietzsche distinguished traditional notions of free will from their own understandings. Schopenhauer viewed free will and necessity as interchangeable, while Nietzsche introduced desert free will and agency free will. Nietzsche rejected desert free will and the idea that one is responsible for their nature or motives. They developed different concepts of free will by evaluating these descriptions. The author agrees more with Schopenhauer's notion that free will is limited by people's innate characters and tendencies, and that one cannot freely will what they will in the first place.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    24 views1 page

    Kövenç, Nefi̇se Midterm Essay

    Uploaded by

    nefise
    Schopenhauer and Nietzsche distinguished traditional notions of free will from their own understandings. Schopenhauer viewed free will and necessity as interchangeable, while Nietzsche introduced desert free will and agency free will. Nietzsche rejected desert free will and the idea that one is responsible for their nature or motives. They developed different concepts of free will by evaluating these descriptions. The author agrees more with Schopenhauer's notion that free will is limited by people's innate characters and tendencies, and that one cannot freely will what they will in the first place.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    NEFİSE KÖVENÇ

    In discussing free will, both Nietzche and Schopenhauer distinguished the traditional notion of free will
    from their understanding of free will. Schopenhauer approached free will from an abstract point as he
    claims that necessity and consequences are interchangeable, that is why free will would be of a kind that
    was not determined by grounds. On the other hand, Nietzche introduced two kinds of free will: desert
    free will and agency free will. Gemes describes desert will by saying “. It will be helpful then to separate
    deserts responsibility, the kind of responsibility which is a precondition of deserved punishment and
    rewards, and agency responsibility.”(Gemes,322) Nietzche rejects desert free will as he says “ one is not
    responsible for anything, not for his nature, nor his motives.”(Nietzsche cited in Gemes,324) By
    evaluating those descriptions they end up with two different notions of free will.

    I think there is a sufficient explanation of the acts of will in human persons. If one eludes the traditional
    concept of free will which includes predominantly the freedom of doing what one wills, then one would
    be enable to examine more than just physical freedom. That is what both Nietzche and Schopenhauer
    tried to do. Schopenhauer claims that people have tendencies according to their characters and their
    willingness is strongly tied to their character. One can assert that she can will both X and the opposite of
    X at the same time, then one must know that one is in an illusion. What drags us to such thoughts is our
    imagination which enables us to imagine doing opposite things. However, in reality, it is not possible.
    According to Schopenhauer, to will two contradictory things, one must be other than herself which is
    impossible. Therefore, a person who is inclined to commit a crime will commit a crime under certain
    conditions. However, one would not even know that he would commit a crime unless necessary
    conditions are arranged. I agree with Schopenhauer that people have tendencies that stem from their
    character which are inborn, individual, constant, and empirical.

    When it comes to Nietzche, he seems more open to exceptions and affirms the agency's free will. His
    exception is the “sovereign individual which he describes as” ‘proud’, ‘quivering in every muscle’, ‘aware
    of his superiority’, ‘like only to himself ’, ‘bound to honour his peers’ “(Gemes,326) According to Nietzche
    ” to have a character is to have a stable, unified, and integrated, hierarchy of drives” (Gemes,327) and
    most of the people have no character as they are exposed to so many competing forces both externally
    and internally that they lack those qualities in themselves. However, he also claims that one should give
    up this predetermined notion of personhood, soul, or unity and be aware of that one can create a new
    character by showing hard effort. Therefore, Nietzche claims that one is able to distinguish herself from
    competing forces, organize her mind, and create a new character. Though, only a few selected can
    become sovereign individuals “Nietzsche sets autonomy as a goal”(Gemes,337)

    To conclude, despite Nietzche has point claiming that society is impelled by certain forces without
    realizing it, his sovereign individual is still part of society and her mind can not be a blank slate as till she
    becomes aware of herself, her nurture and character would have an immense affect on her. Therefore, I
    agree with Schopenhauer’s notion of free will which is even though we are free to do what we will, we
    can not be free what to will in the first place as he says “What happens, happens necessarily.”
    (Schopenhauer, FW,79)

    You might also like