Free Will
Eboni Jones
American Intercontinental University
Plato and John Locke had to opposite arguments about human understanding at birth. While Plato argued that human beings are born with an innate understanding of the ideal or forms, Locke theorized that human beings are born with a blank slate or tabula rasa. According to Plato, human beings have some ideas and information in their head at the time of birth, while the former stated that the minds of humans are “empty” at the time of birth, and knowledge is achieved later in life through experience (Wood, 2012). Of these two theories, the theory that I agree with is John Locke’s theory.
I do believe that humans are born with a blank slate, and learning occurs throughout life. This is the reason why our reasoning and understanding are usually different depending on the environment in which we are brought up in. The environments that we grow in determine our experiences, which influences our understanding and reasoning. Through our experiences, sensation, and reflection, our minds get to understand things in a better way than we did or things that we didn’t know (Pereboom, 2016). If we were born with innate ideas, it would mean that we have at least a “clue” about most concepts, which is always not the case. For instance, in the case of identical twins, when they are brought up in different environments, their reasoning and understanding usually differ. This indicates that they acquired the knowledge from their environments, and that’s why they reflect their experiences.
John Locke’s theory does not diminish free will while the other philosophy on innate ideas diminishes the free will. This is because if humans are born with innate ideas, it indicates that we do not have the freedom to auther our learning and knowledge from the start. It is indicated that we are not free to define our character because we are already programmed with certain kinds of ideas that we cant change. It is a kind of captive notion because the philosophy does not offer the room for adjusting to the environment and the changing factors. For instance, if we adopt the philosophy of innate ideas, it would mean that an individual who was born with a negative perception of mathematics will never love or understand mathematics easily. It is a kind of imprisoned thinking. However, this can be proven wrong as people change their perceptions and understanding of what they thought they initially were (Kane, 2005).
Last year I was working as an assistant accountant in one of the companies in my city, and due to the nature of my work, I was always alone at office balancing accounts and dealing with the transactions. I was conformable with the serene and mostly lonely environment because I like being alone or away from the noise, especially when I being busy. I also don’t like talking too much at work or being in groups and consider private life important, especially at the workplace. However, my manager was not happy with me being alone always and always said that I have “lone world syndrome,” which is dangerous for my health and for the work. I, however, knew this had no connection to the syndrome and would not at all affect my work nor my health as from childhood have always liked doing things on my own and alone. He, therefore, decided to bring a coworker to my office and instructed that we would be working together, sitting on the same table, preparing reports, and presenting them in the departmental meetings together. After a week, I approached the manager and informed him that its either I be allowed to work independently in my office as before, I resign the work to be done by my coworker. Luckily, he agreed that I should be working in my office alone and independently.
I think that my free will was compromised because, as a grown-up, I have the right to decide on what is good for me, what I will do what I don’t as long as my decision does not negatively affect others. By being alone and doing everything by myself did not affect anyone as long as the work was being done. I am naturally not much social and less vocal, and thus forcing another person into my office was a violation of my freedom. I have the right to choose which working environment I think is good for me.
The reason why I took the decision was that after my free will was compromised, I felt uncomfortable, and I could not continue to work in that kind of environment. I felt prompted to react to my right that was being violated. This is because I felt that the manager’s decision did not only compromised my free will but also dehumanized and demeaned me. As a human being and adult for that matter, I know what is good for me, and I know myself more than any other person, and therefore cant allow my life to be directed to a certain path and decisions that affect my personality imposed on me without question. To resolve the difference, I had to convince the manager that what was good to me was my independence, and by virtue of the differences in the manner in which we are wired, I would not be forced into the working environment, which is not comfortable to. My work demanded silence and concentration, and thus, I made him understand that for productivity, independence was important.
I think that people should consider the concerns of the affected parties when dealing with conflicting feelings. It is important that the affected parties sit together and come up with the solution that best satisfied the demands of both parties. In handling conflicting situations, decisions should be based on consensus rather than being forced. People should always agree on the best solution and where necessary third parties should be involved to help come up with the best solution to the conflict (Bowen, 2017).
References
Bowen, F. (2017). Innate ideas.—The the idea of God in the mind of man.
Kane, R. (2005). A contemporary introduction to free will.
Pereboom, D. (2016). Living without free will. Cambridge University Press.
Wood, N. (2012). Tabula Rasa, Social Environmentalism, and the” English Paradigm.” Journal of the History of Ideas, 647-668.