The Ancient Greeks

The ancient Greeks have contributed greatly to the philosophical realm of determinism. The first Greek philosophy to be examined is Ethical Determinism. Here, Socrates and Plato argue that Man’s actions are determined by what is seen as “most good” to him. However, they feel that this limitation on your choices is not necessarily a limitation on your freedoms since to be free is to choose what is good. When a person commits an evil act that is when his will is enslaved. Indeed, in his Republic, Plato expounds upon this and remarks that the murderous tyrant should be pitied since he is not free. And obviously, philosophers should rule since they know the best what “good” is.

It seems hard to argue that people purposely do evil acts, but this philosophy has met criticism over the intervening centuries. Plato’s protégée, Aristotle disagreed with his master. He felt that people can be aware of the poor choices they make, for example, getting drunk. Getting drunk is rarely the “best” action one can take. John Locke also disagreed. He believed that the theory revolved around whether one believed that one’s reason was subordinate to one’s desires. Did one do what was “good” or what one wanted to do, which may not be good? Spinoza, Hobbes and James took this a step further and pointed out that what is good? Could good simply be one’s desires, or what one thinks as good? If there is no universal measurement, then good is not a very useful determinant since it means nothing at all.

The Greeks also created Logical Determinism. It believes that a sign or statement about the future is right or wrong long before the event takes place. So, if one says that Bill will fail his piano exam next week, and Bill does, then Bill was always going to fail. No action could avert the same outcome. If the predictor was wrong though, then the prediction was always wrong. This theory was formulated by Diodorus Cronus. Since he believed that true and false are the only evaluation one can give a statement, he did not see why this did not apply to future occurrences. The theory is summed up nicely by the phrase tertium non datur (no third truth value). However, this is dated by the environment during its creation. When Cronus was alive, omens, signs from the gods, portents, etc were deeply followed.

A simple, clean theory one might think, but there were many detractors. Aristotle saw that men could “deliberate” before a decision was made. Thus, it is up to the man whether something would happen or not until the event actually happens. There is nothing concrete in the world, since men can make any decision. Thus, a prediction would only come true when the event happens, not before that. The Epicureans took this another step. They devoutly believed in free will so much that, even the omniscient gods do not know what a man may do. And this was said during a deeply religious time.

So, if Cronus believed that an action is predestined, and nothing can prevent the action from taking place, then there is little imperative for people to do anything. This is the so called “idle argument” proposed by the Greek, Chrysippus. For example, if one is sick, then either A, they will get better, or B, they will die. Since this statement is either true or false, it does not matter whether the person sees a doctor or not. This seems faintly ridiculous. Chrysippus proposed that some events are “codestinate”, meaning, several causes are needed for an event to occur, such as seeing the doctor.

The modern interpretation of logical determinism focuses whether the future is fixed or, whether human wills can provide infinite possibilities. This essay will show whether determinism or indeterminism makes the most sense in other sections. But, if the future is determined, then it is hard to see how an action that was predestined to happen when the universe was created can be avoided. But if humans do have a choice, then as Gilbert Ryle points out, a prediction is only fulfilled when the event occurs, not before then.

Physical Determinism has long roots, and it is still being debated today. Those plucky Greeks got the ball rolling again. The Epicureans believed in the theories of Leucippus and Democritus. These two heavily influenced the Greek materialists with their theories concerning the atom, which they theorized as tiny, indivisible particles that everything is made of. If that is the case, then we are no more than the sum of the movements of billions of atoms. Even our soul is made of atoms. The Epicureans, though materialists, wanted to fit in their cherished free will into the picture. What they thought of was remarkably similar to quantum physics. Those Greeks sure were ahead of the game. The Epicureans conceded that everything is made up of atoms, each performing their own action, each slave to physical laws, except that atoms are liable to “swerve” randomly at random times. This element of randomness makes a break in the cause and effect slavery that we are otherwise subservient to.

The “swerving” theory was mocked by most critics and largely forgotten. In the 17^th and 18^th centuries, thanks to advances in physics, new theories were being developed. With the discovery of Newtonian Laws, people began to believe that everything had to follow certain laws; the universe was a structured, orderly creation. Everything was made of tiny particles that each had to follow a cause and effect relationship. Thus, at the creation of the universe, all events were put into motion and we do not have any freedom. This was popularized as “billiard ball determinism”. In fact, it was widely believed, that if one had enough information on the movement of the particles, one could use mathematics to see the future. Free will no longer was a matter of God, or morality, but of physics. This view was widely held and impossible to debate against until the onset of quantum physics.

Hobbes, the great compatiblist, believed that determinism and free will could work together, thus influences many thinkers succeeding him, and gave comfort to the great unwashed. Logically, to Hobbes, it was ridiculous to believe that thoughts could be without cause, or come spontaneously, since everything needed a cause. But to have a cause does not mean one does not have free will. To him, freedom was twisted in linguistic confusion. He defined freedom simply as an “absence of all impediments to action that are not contained in the nature and intrinsic quality of the agent”. He compared humans to a rushing river, it is confined by the river bank, but it still flows freely. The other definition of free will did not make sense to Hobbes. To be able to do something but not meant that the conditions were such for an event that did not take place, a contradiction terms. Men can still make decisions however. Man’s thoughts are decided between “desires” and “aversion” and Man deliberates between the two before making his “last appetite” or final decision. His decision remains caused however, but if Man came to it on his on will, without any impediments, then he is still free.