The Dilemma of Determinism, by William James, is a discussion of the concepts of indeterminism and determinism that seeks to show us which of them is the best option and how they contextually play into our experiences and rationality . He begins this piece with an important claim, that if a situation arises in which there are two possible conceptions or outcomes (possible theories of truth) that have an equal chance of being true, there is a simple solution. He argues that the reasonable thing to do in this case is to accept the more rational answer as the “truer” truth of the two available options. In essence, this is his version of Occam's Razor precisely in terms of truth. This framework is important because it becomes the foundation of James's argument throughout his article. The question of determinism versus indeterminism is not one that can be resolved acceptably, so establishing the previous framework creates a platform where this topic can be openly discussed. James believes that indeterminism is the right choice and makes an extremely convincing argument against determinism. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Before we properly define indeterminism/determinism, it is important to understand two terms provided by James that will help us understand the subsequent concepts. These terms are hard determinism and soft determinism. Hard determinism, by James' account, is a much more archaic style than soft determinism. Partly because it tends to use old-fashioned language with terms like fatality, bondage of the will, and necessity. When using this thought process, the universe is entirely deterministic, meaning one thing is responsible for what comes next and so on. Imagine that the universe functions like a series of dominoes, where each domino that falls has done so explicitly because of the fall of the previous domino, and so on. Furthermore, this view is adamant about the idea of ​​free will, placing faith in the fact that it cannot and does not exist. Free will has no place in a deterministic universe as it would result in a paradox. Continuing with soft determinism, James believes that of the two concepts, soft is a much more sinister option. His reasoning behind this is how (contextually) the idea/word “freedom” is used. When using soft determinism, people believe that while the universe is deterministic, humans have free will in said universe. A tricky situation that arises when using this methodology is that there may be confusion regarding freedom of will and freedom of action. Freedom of action simply means that, although the universe is deterministic, people have a small say in the most minute actions that happen on a daily basis. Free will implies that the universe in which it takes place should be indeterministic or it would once again create a paradox. Considering that James does not agree with the way soft determinists use the word freedom, he removes it from his vocabulary regarding the language used in the course. From this, James presents the idea that understanding this need and how it goes hand in hand with his definition of true freedom. From here, James goes on to give us a definitive view of what determinism is. Determinism is the idea that events are all caused by previous events, meaning that the universe consists of a fixed, unchanging sense of events over time (like a series of dominoes). ANDa universe made up of a fixed and immutable sense of events over time. Every event that happened in the past was directly responsible for the next one and immutably constituted the future. James gives us this helpful passage that explains it simply: 'professes that those parts of the universe already established absolutely name and decree what the other parts will be... the future has no ambiguous possibilities in its womb; the part we call the present is compatible with a whole' (James). This definition basically tells us that previous parts of the universe that already exist (from the past) have an absolute say in whatever action takes place next. The future is created by the actions of the past and James tells us that our future is not full of infinite possibilities, but in fact it is the opposite. On the other hand, we have Indeterminism; The idea that events do not require other events to happen after them Indeterminism is the opposite, the concept that previous events are not entirely responsible for events that happen after. A critical component of Indeterminism is the idea of ​​“chance” and how it works with James's approach in terms of making sense of it. James uses chance the way most people would use the word probability, and he doesn't believe it's something beneficial. Chance/probability is something he believes is negative, as it is almost impossible to predict with 100% certainty and it is a concept that eludes our understanding. Using this, James can explain indeterminism more simply. At any moment there is an almost infinite amount of things that could happen, but between each of these events there is a different probability on the probability of them occurring. For example, when I walk my dogs there is (theoretically) the possibility of being eaten by bears or returning home safely. While it may be confusing, think of it as the probability of any number of events occurring. Both of these events are possibilities, but clearly one of them is more likely to happen than the other. No matter how much one is more likely than the other, the important thing is that there is still the possibility of me being eaten by a bear, or any other event occurring. James introduces two final terms before finally arriving at his dilemma. These two concepts are called Epistemic Indeterminism (EI) and Ontological Indeterminism (OI), and although they initially seem opposite, they are highly compatible with each other. EI is the study of nature, and if our universe takes place in a deterministic framework, this is the option James believes is best to explain what is going on. They share a commonality mostly partly due to a human flaw. Human beings unconsciously separate reality and perception into different parts due to human capabilities. The next concept is OI, which is the study of knowledge. People who hold this concept instead place more value on a person's experiences, which gives them a way in which to experience the world indeterministically. By placing more intrinsic value on a person's experiences, one helps make sense of an indeterministic universe since each person's experiences are unique and in this view seem tailored to the individual. James draws a comparison to the soft determinist and shows us once again the potential problems they might have regarding freedom of will and freedom of action. According to James, from this perspective, the idea of ​​freedom is safe from debate for multiple reasons. The first is that, assuming that the deterministic structure of the universe is still in place, the experience of freedom is naturally not problematic. Draw a line between freedom (not a problem) and freedom of will(problematic), since having freedom of will completely contradicts being within the framework of an ontologically deterministic universe. Having free will in a deterministic universe is a complete paradox as the two are almost opposite. By introducing freedom of action, James uses ideas to get rid of the concept of free will, as he sees it as unimportant and not exactly what he thinks the true absolute nature of freedom should be. Now that we have all the necessary concepts and terms, James begins to explain his dilemma of determinism. This concept comes from the worldwide belief that "destiny" determines a person's entire life. In turn, this does not give humans the ability to make choices regarding their conduct and, in doing so, conferring immunity on them and not making them responsible for their conduct or actions. If fate is real and works as James claimed, then a murderer wouldn't really be guilty of his crime, would he? James recognizes the potential disaster on this view, and this is a major part of his dilemma regarding determinism. Starting with an example involving a crime involving murder, James focuses on the guilt many people feel because of it. Even though people will feel remorse, remorse, and other emotions because of this, James thinks that because this scene takes place within a deterministic universe, any remorse/remorse anyone feels is useless. Since this universe is on a fixed timeline, that murder was something that had to happen exactly the way it did and nothing could or would have changed it. These regrets, useless or not, ultimately lead us to James's definition of pessimism, the concept that the universe is not and does not act as it should, and even then, is as it should be (meaning the universe, while apparently doing the wrong thing is still a properly functioning universe). James thinks he can find a way to deal with this condition by completely eliminating remorse from the entire human experience. Removing regret from our experience is not without its downsides. By removing this from this "equation", the determinist in question is left with a slightly modified and different version than the one we started with. We seem to be left with a universe incapable of repentance, which once again points society in the wrong direction as no one would be responsible for whether or not their actions were beneficial. This problem has far-reaching consequences, one of which is the confusion between right and wrong. Regret is an important part of understanding ethical decisions that are made, and by lacking this understanding, people would end up weakening themselves. Without regrets, humans might as well be programmed machines that make these ethical decisions as this robs us of our humanity. James considers it a traditional seesaw, meaning that when one goes up, the other goes down. Which is fine for a playground attraction, but not when they're both supposed to be predetermined and looking for meaning in each other. The second part of the Dilemma gives us another term to unpack as it begins to talk about the idea of ​​subjectivity. His take on this, roughly speaking, is that the experience of something is much more important than the actual events that happened. Going back to the killer example, the literal experience for the people involved is more important than the actual event that took place because of how it affects them all. If people did not have the ability to feel remorse or regret, they would not have a full understanding of the horrific nature of the crime. Leaving people with regret/remorse, provides the only.