This has been an especially tough week for me while reading “The Grand Inquisitor.” It really did open my thinking as to why many philosophers have battled the idea of whether free will or determinism is best for our lives. Within the short parable, the author argues that people are ultimately given some form of free will by a higher power (God, in this sense), but swap this gift for the instruction by political or religious figures within their society. Within the parable, the author illustrates the human desire to have their own needs taken care of- even if that means we must sacrifice our free will. For example, a pet dog will obey you and follow your command if you reward them with their needs of a loving home and daily meal (ie: "don't bite the hand that feeds you"). After a while, this can be habitual for humans, as well. We will naturally enjoy following the leadership and command of another if we have our needs taken care of.
Although I do not like the idea of determinism, and enjoy the idea of free will and compatibilism, I will say that this whole argument is extremely accurate and valid. Within “The Grand Inquisitor,” the concept of free will is described as a burden rather than a gift we were given by God. It is simply human nature that we wish to have the security of our needs being taken care of, and we could easily follow the direction of others if it means we will receive those needs. When reading through our required readings this week, I loved the idea that believing in determinism doesn’t negate the concept of free will- but instead it shows that determinism overpowers free will. I have enjoyed this reading, although it was a little complex for me to grasp at the beginning. I am excited to explore in to this idea further and gain some more insight in to this debate.
Katie Callaway
No comments:
Post a Comment