Rationalism asserts that knowledge can be acquired through logical reasoning rather than sensory perception . This is the philosophical worldview which opines that actions and processes should be based on reason and knowledge rather than emotions or religious doctrine. There are different rationalists who had various worldviews and this includes Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz. The purpose of this essay is to present the dominant views of these key rationalists in relation to the concept of free will. These views are going to be compared and contrasted and evaluated on the basis of their strengths and weaknesses. At the end, the paper will conclude on which account is convincing and whether or not there is a better counter thesis to their claims and assertions.
Rationalists and their Views of Free Will
Rationalists believed that knowledge had to be intellectually documented by deducing it in some way through an empirical method. This means that if something could be proven empirically, then it existed. If something could not be proven, it did not exist. Obviously, this reasoning was important in the Age of Enlightenment and the Age of Reformation which promoted science over religious dogma. However, these philosophies came up at a time where the entire Europe was controlled by the Church and Christian doctrine was at the core of all things. Rationalists could prove everything scientifically, but when it came to the existence of God, the immorality of the soul and Freewill, there was a challenge in proving it and this was naturally leading to a situation where science was seen to be in conflict with religion.
Descartes
Descartes wrote in 1639 that the will of people is so free that it cannot be constrained in any way or form. This is because Descartes believes that God has given us a will that cannot be restrained or constrained in any way or form and Descartes believed strongly in that. He stated that free will is innate and inborn and everyone had the right to make free choices. Descartes uses words like “inner experience”, “awareness” and “consciousness” to define the right and ability of people to make choices and live by them. In order to conceptualize it, Descartes called free will a faculty of mind that gave a person the ability to define his “will”. Thus, it is some kind of power and capacity to decide and choose what a person wants and what a person does not want without influence and interference.
Therefore, in Descartes’ view, the ability to reason is based on the ability to link information to a person’s will. He called will “cogito” which is the ability to logically think, sort through information and choose what must be done in a given situation. This is done by mediating on something and thinking it through in order to make a decision on which path of action to take on a given situation or issue. Thus, in his view, freewill is about wanting what is true or good and this is done by thinking and analyzing information and options in order to make a reasonable decision or choice.
Leibniz
Leibniz identifies that the human nature is such that the human being is capable of making independent choices on moral issues and moral matters. This is because obligation, in Leibniz’s view is conditional and there is nothing that forces an individual to take a particular course of action, but his own personal decision. Therefore, the choice a person makes is ultimately his own decision but not the decision or choice imposed on him by God or anyone. People have personal autonomy and this autonomy means they have the ability to make choices and through this, they are fully accountable for anything they do with their freewill.
Leibniz has an outright rejection of determinism. He identifies that what a person does and what choices a person makes is based on what the person chooses. There is nothing that pushes a person to make a particular choice. We make choices on the basis of what we do with our freewill. As such, people are to be held accountable fully for what they do and not place any attribution to anything supernatural or spiritual. This is because in his view, human beings from inception strive for excellence. We are programmed to improve our circumstances and do things that are best for us. So anything we do is based on our own decisions and choices and as such, we are fully responsible for what we do with our will and ability to choose.
In Leibniz’s view, what is right and proper was based on the will and rules of God. And this means that we have freewill but it is based on what God has given to us. There is no other approach or view of freewill but this is due to what God has laid down for us in his rules.
Spinoza
Spinoza on the other hand denies freewill entirely. In his view, any decision and choice that a person makes is as a result of necessity so we make decisions based on the circumstances and the realities of a given situation, not by our own independent volition. This is because he believes that every human being is constrained in various ways and form. Spinoza goes as far as saying that spiritual beings also have constraints because there are limits and there are complications that everyone has to be aware of. And due to this, it is not possible to state that the human being has an independent right and ability to exercise freewill in the absolute sense.
Spinoza identifies that free will is exercised on the basis of what a person deems to be right and in his view, free will was relativist, not absolute. Thus, in the views of Spinoza, everyone judges from his own affect, what is good and what is bad. This is opposed to the view that human beings have an absolute and independent mind which causes them to take absolute decisions. This is in contradiction to Nietzsche’s view that people are accountable for their actions in an absolute sense. Rather, Spinoza states that people do what is right and what is wrong based on the realities of their situations and experiences. Thus, no one can have free will in the purest sense as other writers like Descartes claim.
There is a limit placed on those who think we are at liberty to choose. Spinoza states that we cannot choose our circumstances and our situations. Many things are forced on us. Thus, in any variable and framework, we cannot be sure of which approach is the best and the most perfect. We have to choose on the basis of the facts.
Comparison of the Different Positions
Descartes and Leibniz believe that human beings are independent and make decisions and choices based on what they want and what they believe should be done at a given point in time. Whereas Descartes sought to use a scientific method to deduce the approach through which human beings exercise their free will, Leibniz focused on God’s will and God’s laws.
Descartes identified that human beings exercise their freewill on the basis of what is rational. And this is done by internalizing information, analyzing options and choosing the right thing and the right approach. This seem to present a rational approach through which human beings go through certain stages in order to take decisions.
On the other hand, Leibniz argued that the choices made by human beings in exercising their freewill is based on the wise and good purposes of God. This asserts that Leibniz brings together the metaphysics of religion into the empiricism of rationalism. This is because rationalism seek to identify that things must be based on logic and patterns that can be proven in a logical sense and a logical approach. Thus, Leibniz stands unique in his attempt to link spirituality and the Will of God which cannot be proven through empirical rules. This makes Leibniz less than a hard rationalist.
Spinoza on the other hand, has a relativist and teleological view of freewill. Whilst Descartes and Leibniz identify that individuals are independent and take decisions by evaluating the options and making a choice for which they are fully accountable, Spinoza argues that human beings are not absolute in their choices. He holds a unique view that human beings have to take decisions by examining constraints and limits that are placed on him by different realities. Thus, the human being has no real power to make individual decisions. Every decision we make is premised on some kind of circumstances that limits our thoughts and our powers.
However, all three rationalists identify that human beings have the ability to make decisions, therefore there is freewill. They differ on how this freewill culminates and the extent of independence the individual enjoys in exercising free will. Whilst Descartes and Leibniz identify that human beings have absolute power, they differ in what determines their limits. Descartes thinks that we take rational decisions and make rational choices for our best ends. Leibniz identifies that God limits and controls the circumstances and we make the best choices within what God has given us.
Spinoza attacks both of them and says that we make decisions based on the realities of the circumstances at hand. Spinoza attacks Descartes by saying that there cannot be a rational decision and a scientific way of defining the approach through which people exercise their free will. He says that the exercising of free will is based on what is going on and what is happening at a given point in time. Therefore a person makes the best of what he has and what he stands.
Spinoza attacks Leibniz on the grounds that we are all limited in different ways and forms. Spinoza goes as far as saying that God’s will could also change because there are famous passages in the Bible where human beings repented and God changed his plans. There were also times when people refused to repent and they faced the consequences of their actions. Therefore, there is no clear and rigid set of rules that define the way God treats human beings. Everything is subject to change and as such, nothing is written in stone. Every situation must be judged on its merit. Our exercising of freewill is teleological – ie based on the end that is in sight. Rather than deontological where we have rigid rules that must be observed and honored at all times and in all situations as per Kant and Nietzsche. Therefore, Spinoza identifies that there is a high degree of flexibility when dealing with freewill and choices.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Views of Philosophers
In the ideal sense, human beings make the rational choice and this means that Descartes is right in his view. We always analyze situations, think use our brains and make choices based on the facts. However, it is not so simple and straightforward. In real life, there are times when we have to take different decisions and make choices. We do not exercise our freewill for the best interest all the time. There are times where we are forced by circumstances to make other choices. Thus, his approach of scientifically deducing a way through which people exercise their will was something that is not logical and not realistic.
Leibniz is right in several ways and forms. Most human beings believe that their circumstances are arranged and presented before them by a higher power. This is because religion is something that we all take to. Thus, the supernatural might want us to act in various ways and forms and this is often present to us through religious leaders and spiritualists. However, in reality, it is not possible to know everything that God requires of us. There are many aspects of the Bible which has different opposites. There are parts of the Bible that says we should love our neighbors. There are also parts of the same Bible that requires us to rebuke our neighbors and bear witness against them in some serious situations. Therefore, in the face of ambiguities, we cannot be so reliant on Leibniz’s position. We will have to look outside the scope of his views and presentations.
Spinoza seem to have the strongest position. We are all in difficult situations and difficult circumstances from time to time. Therefore, we need realism to take decisions and make choices. We need to look at the facts and our constraints and make decisions and choices. This means Spinoza’s position is right and it represents a lot of the realities and circumstances we might find ourselves in. However, the weakness of his teleology comes in areas of accountability. If we are to allow people to justify their means, it means we can give excuses for all our actions and strictly, we are never accountable for anything. Therefore, Spinoza’s position is defunct in making people responsible for their actions.
Conclusion
All three commentators are right in many ways, but they all have limits. Therefore, it might be appropriate for people to go by different views and different philosophies in examining free will. Therefore, my solution is that the three writers’ views must be applied where they are appropriate. Descartes’ view is applicable in situations where people need to think of making rational decisions and rational choices. One has to exercise his or her free will in the best way and the best form possible. We have to think critically and make the best choices and this is appropriate for legal and economic decisions. Leibniz’s position is appropriate for making social and moral decisions. And in this process, a person must belong to a religious tradition and must understand what is best in every situation. This way, a person can be sure of what God wants in a particular social or moral dilemma. Finally, Spinoza’s worldview is the most appropriate for our day-to-day lives. It is the basis for realism in International Relations. People must make decisions on the basis of the circumstances they are faced with. They must integrate their limits and difficulties in order to make the right choices that will lead to the best results. However, for the best results, Spinoza’s worldview must be applied in exercising freewill responsibly. There is always responsibility and accountability. So users must be aware of that.
Works Cited
Dascal, Marcelo. Leibniz: What Kind of Rationalist?: What Kind of Rationalist? New York: Springer, 2014. Print.
Fraenkel, Carlos, Dario Perinetti and Justin E. H. Smith. The Rationalists: Between Tradition and Innovation. New York: Springer, 2010. Print.
Gennaro, Rocco. New Essays on the Rationalists. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Print.
Goldenbaum, Ursula and Christopher Kluz. Doing without Free Will: Spinoza and Contemporary Moral Problems. Indianapolis, IN: Lexington Books, 2015. Print.
Parkinson, George. Routledge History of Philosophy Volume I. London: Routledge, 2013. Print.
Schouls, Peter. Descartes and the Enlightenment. Toronto: McGill-Queens University Press, 2014. Print.
Velasquez, Manuel. Philosophy: A Text with Readings. Mason, OH: Cengage, 2014. Print.
