Boethius View on Free Will - Literature review Example

Task: Boethius view on free will Many philosophers refer to free choice of the will as the ity that humanity has to do what they view as most suitable and less likely to be detrimental to the principalities that govern the society. The power to choose what is most satisfactory over other forms, without preconditions from other provisions or restrictions entails a free choice of will. This power to choose the most suitable decision is depends on the level of liberty granted to an individual (Cahn 375). The determination of causation in humans has unlimited provisions and understanding is of essence to determine what is better than the other is. This entails a succinct understanding of the ability of humans to launch detailed and comprehensive inquiry in a concern or problem. The voluntary decisions of the mind render the determination of problem causation an unlimited endeavor. The notion of necessity and causation of a phenomena or a problem has virtually no end and any inquiry would turn to end at supposition (Cahn 869). The only way to determine problem causations is to bring the diverse causes to narrow positions and assume that the unit used is representative enough to believe in the cause. In response to the question of necessity and liberty of the mind, there is a dire need to find a means of proving free will. It is by liberty that there the proof of free will shall be based. It entails the capacity to follow or diverse the actions we have according to the forces dictated by the will. That is, if one chooses to proceed with an issue, he or she enjoys the freedom. Similarly, if the same person chooses to reverse the decision, they would enjoy the same level of freedom to do so as they would to perform the contrary (Cahn 869). That would offer a ten tentative means of determining free will. Ethics and religion, in any society, show relationships and tend to be complementary. Religion plays a plausible role in making the society to submit. The presence of religion in the society renders the society to embrace ethical submissions, compared to if there was no religion. The human mind and the divine mind are distinct and different based on ethical considerations. The society’s moral qualities are different from the qualities set by religions. Religion, therefore, is of central role in shaping the ethical standards of a society (Cahn 968). The demand of free will that humanity tends to presume to possess is impractical, to some extent that the demand may be void of specificity. The demand for free will should show the definite facet of the will needed. Decisions are made based on philosophical understanding of virtue, by the decision-maker. Philosophical decisions depict the notion that an individual has on common life and they may not be satisfactory. Free will refers to the autonomy granted by the God to people to embrace what seems right for them and which can absolutely favor their preferred choice. Boethius rejects the notion of randomness since there is God in existence and who is responsible for every happening. According to Boethius, there is no belief in anything happening by chance (Cahn 419). Nothing originates from the occurrence of chances according to Boethius. On freedom, Boethius maintains that it is a fundamental tool, on which rational nature exists. Rational nature that results from freedom does anchor independent thinking, according to Boethius. Freedom of choice is vital when making any judgment. Human souls are freest when they have the will to discriminate the different things and choose their best (Cahn 420). Anyone denied the free will is most likely to deviate from the recommended way of independent reasoning. Boethius responds to the question on foreknowledge by maintaining that God possess prior acquaintance with anything that is to happen later. Boethius disagrees with the provision that since God has the foreknowledge of every happening then humans do not have the freedom and will to resolve on anything. Boethius holds that the foreknowledge that God possesses on future events has no interference with the freedom of the will to make rational judgment, even on future events (Cahn 422). Foreknowledge has no necessity on the events that are likely to occur in future and do not interfere with the freedom of the will of humans and making of rational judgments. Contingent actions, according to Boethius, are things that God has foreknowledge of and cannot happen. Necessary actions are of two distinct types, conditional and simple. Simple necessary actions are those that are almost inarguable (Cahn 426). Conditional necessary actions are those that one has knowledge that someone possesses on an issue. According to Boethius, necessary actions are those that God has a view of as present, from the foreknowledge that God has. Things become contingent if, for reasons of the foreknowledge, there was no provision that it will come to existence. Boethius addressed the question on the nature of God, as well. On consolation of philosophy, Boethius holds that there exists God who manages all things and keep them in the desirable state. That all things emanate from God and nothing originates from nowhere (Cahn 419). All things have a source and that ascertains the presence of God. God outside existed since ancient time and continue to determine various things in the divine world.In my view, free will entails the ability and presence of authority to decide on an action in which I have no restriction to reveres. That is, I would have done another or considered a contrary decision instead of my apparent choice and preference. In my opinion, there are chances in life. If someone sets for a journey, for instance, the journey may end as desired or not. Possibilities are that there may be instances as accidents during the journey. Assuming that it was the by the person’s true will to set for the journey, the accident would be an occurrence by chance. The free will of the person would have led him to postpone, or even cancel the journey. If, as Boethius argues, God had a foreknowledge of the accident, it should be deemed to affect the decision to proceed with the journey. However, Boethius argues that the foreknowledge by God does not affect the freedom of will, by any chance, even in the case of the accident. Boethius consent to the fact that God controls the world and all that in it never occurred from nowhere. The argument that the foreknowledge by God has no influence in free will is a misconception. The misconception emanates from Boethius’ claim of God’s control on all things but fails to recognize the control that God has on accidental occurrences. His notion of contingent versus necessary actions is ambiguous in several aspects. The premise that contingent and necessary actions differ because based on the foreknowledge of God is rather not well elaborated. It is questionable that if the God has the prior knowledge that accident would occur, then the free will of the person in deciding to go for the journey is limited. Knowledge requires necessity, according to Boethius. Only God holds that necessity to have a foreknowledge and, therefore, restricts the exercise of free will. The expression of free will is vital in initiating autonomy of thought for individuals. Autonomy of thought constitutes one of the greatest promoters of liberty and freedom. Freedom and liberty empowers the society to embrace societal ethical values. The society should support natural religion given its role in supporting ethics in the society. Human morality and natural religion are important in the society. Work Cited Cahn, Steven. Classics of Western Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Hackett Publishing, 2012. Print. Read More