Phil - freedom and determinism

What are the central concepts in the debate about freedom and determinism? Describe briefly their interconnectedness?

A few concepts in the debate about freedom and determinism are circumstantial freedom, metaphysical freedom, universal causation, determinism and libertarianism. Circumstantial freedom means the ability and opportunity to perform whatever actions we choose, that is, freedom from external forces, obstacles, and natural limitations that restrict or compel our actions. Metaphysical freedom, however, is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action, that is, being free from internal forces or any limitations. Universal causation is the principle that everything that happens is cause by something else that happened before. Determinism is the claim that all events (including human actions) are the necessary result of previous causes. Determinists thus base their theory on the principle of universal causation and think that we do not have any metaphysical freedom. The feeling of "freedom" when it comes to choices is just an illusion. Circumstantial freedom is, however, possible, but not necessary (if we are in prison, we do not have the circumstantial freedom to go to the park). Libertarianism, on the other hand, is based on the concept of free will - we are free to choose and do whatever we want and we know that we could have done it some other way. Metaphysical freedom is thus necessary, but the principle of universal causation might cause some problems to libertarians. Circumstantial freedom is, again possible, but not necessary.

What does Freud understand with the unconscious? Give an example.

A part of one's mind that cannot be accessed by oneself, but only with psychoanalysis. Our motivational system is, as well, unconscious and is structured by antisocial biological urges, painful childhood memories, emotional conflicts, fantasies, fears, all of which have been repressed (repression is a defence mechanism - our brain "forget" unpleasant things, pretend they do not exist). Evidence for such unconscious part of our brain are neuroses (anxiety, phobias, obsessions, hysteria), slips of tongue, memory loses, addictions, dreams etc. For example, a person that is very stressed is given medication to help them calm down. They do not support nor like medicine where it's not necessary, and thus dislike taking this medications - however they still do, even though they think a vacation and a few days off would be a better solution. When talking to their spouse, they say "I need to take my meditation" instead on "I need to take my medication", for the unconscious part of their brain is wishing for that. Their tongue slips, revealing repressed wishes.

Explain how can social stability be reached in a mass society according to Bernays.

According to Bernays, two conditions need to be fulfilled in order to reach social stability in a mass society. Firstly, Ego and Superego must control the Id, and secondly, Superego must intake social values. This is done with great amount of goods available; these goods must awoke feeling that they satisfy the needs of every person in mass society. Two things a person wants are, after all, power and pleasure. This feeling is easily awoken in people living in such society, since pleasure providing things such as sofas, foods with a lot of sugar, self-operating cleaners etc. are available everywhere for decent prices. In the aspect of power, the market offers quite a lot of items as well - new phones, expensive cars etc. People tend to feel powerful possessing such things, which results in satisfaction and control over masses. All of this is irrational - there's nothing to understand, really, it is just a blind force leading individuals to act and feel the way they do.

What must an individual do in order to be authentic according to Sartre? Explain and illustrate.

According to Sartre, an authentic person must not live in the bad faith. Bad faith is the habit that people have of deceiving themselves into thinking that they do not have the freedom to make choices for fear of the potential consequences of making a choice. By sticking with the safe, easy, default 'choice' and failing to recognise the multitude of other choices that are available to him, a person places himself at the mercy of circumstances in which he happens to find himself. Since Sartre claims that the existence precedes essence, our choices makes us who we are, and each should be considered a value. If a person denies the fact that he is condemned to be free, he becomes more akin to an object than to a conscious human being (more akin to be a being-in-itself than to be a being-for-itself"). Each decision a person makes, makes him responsible for it, and one should live in this way. An example of bad faith (and thus non-authentic way of living) that Sartre gives is that of a young woman on a first date. The young woman's date compliments her on her physical appearance, but she ignores the obvious sexual connotations of his compliment and chooses instead to direct the compliment at herself as a conscious human being. He then takes her hand, but she neither takes it nor rejects it. Instead, she lets her hand rest indifferently in his so as to buy time and delay having to make a choice about accepting or rejecting his advances. Whereas she chooses to treat his compliment as being unrelated to her body, she chooses to treat her hand (which is a part of her body) as an object, thereby acknowledging her freedom to make choices. She is thus not authentic, for she places herself in the role of an object, leaving her hand there for no reason other than refusing to make a choice, not even realizing she had left it there.

Explain why can Kierkegaard be regarded an existentialist. Illustrate with an example which follows Kierkegaard's idea but is not exactly his.

An example illustrating Kierkegaard's idea is as it follows: a little child is playing on the meadow, with his mother watching over him. It happens that his mother has to go back in the house to check on the lunch she's preparing, and she tells him to not go further away from the house in the forest, and forbids him to climb any trees while she's away. Until so, the child did not even think about doing any of these things, but once his mother prohibits him from doing it, he realizes that he can do it (that is, he is free to do it), that he may do it (even though she said he shouldn't) and thus probably will do it. The emotion of dread/anxiety of the child when he confronts his own freedom shows that he does, in fact, have it. As long as he will be experiencing it, the dread won't go away. Kierkegaard thus talked about emotions, connected with facing freedom, and claimed that we are, in fact, free to choose whatever we want to. Hence, he can be regarded an existentialist.

Briefly describe Sartre's justification for the claim that man is freedom.

As Sartre claimed, "being is. Being is in-itself. Being is what it is." As soon as the person is thrown into this world, they are responsible for everything they do. To be a man means to be free, for no a priori essence exists in men and they are all defined only by their choices. This way, we are condemned to be free, meaning that we must interpret the facts in the world of facticity - and we are free in our choice of interpretation of facticity. Therefore, man is what he has done out of himself, since his choices and actions create who he is. This way, individual defines himself mainly through his relations with the Others (other people) - these relations with the others are determined through his real, that is, bodily activity. In this way, man himself is freedom. He chooses whatever he wants to choose, and nothing can stop him or take this freedom away from him, for he is freedom itself.

What does the example of young women who started smoking in public show according to Bernays? Explain.

As cigarettes were only allowed to be smoked my man in the days, they represented power, independency, and liberty. They were a symbol for a penis and sexual power, with which all kinds of privileges came; women were still oppressed and men had almost all the power there was. Women, of course, wanted that power, and Bernays claimed that if you can find a way to connect the idea of cigarettes with challenging the male power, then woman would start to smoke in increasing numbers. It would have been as if they had their own penises. As cigarettes were seen as "torches of freedom", meaning that you are powerful and independent if you smoke, Bernays started to encourage women to smoke, selling them this symbolic meaning behind the cigarettes. Mass media started to promote women smoking and it eventually became socially acceptable to do so, thus cigarette production increased. Young woman smoking in public thus wants to be seen as rebellious, independent human being, fighting for her rights. But knowing the story behind the mass manipulation of woman, it shows how, by using irrational forces in people (pleasure and power-seeking forces), one can manipulate them into doing things they rationally probably would not do. A young woman would probably not smoke if it wasn't "forbidden" and if she wasn't introduced to the symbolic meaning behind cigarettes.

Outline two sources of reasons in favor of the claim that all behavior is determined.

At molecular level, physical bodies do seem to behave according to laws of physics (chemistry, etc.) and to be predictable. Atoms of oxygen and hydrogen will surely bind in water molecules in given conditions - it does not seem as if they had "free will" of some sort to choose whether they will or will not react. Human beings are made out of these atoms and are thus physical bodies. It would seem reasonable to think that the law of universal causation is true in the case of human nature, since there is no evidential reason to think that people are anything but physical bodies (let's leave this debate to ontology). It is hard to believe that in one otherwise insignificant minuscule corner of a cosmos so large as to overwhelm the understanding there exists a feature (freedom) that may be non-existent elsewhere in cosmos. Secondly, human behaviour is very predictable and can be influenced how people will behave. Cause precedes an act of the will and following behaviour. This is, again, linked to previous argument and it strongly suggests determinism. We do not have any scientific evidence about libertarianism, whereas we do have evidence for deterministic picture of the world.

Why is bad faith so ubiquitous in human life according to Sartre?

Bad faith is the habit that people have of deceiving themselves into thinking that they do not have the freedom to make choices for fear of the potential consequences of making a choice. By sticking with the safe, easy, default 'choice' and failing to recognise the multitude of other choices that are available to him, a person places himself at the mercy of circumstances in which he happens to find himself. People tend to live in bad faith for they are afraid of the heaviness of responsibility for their choices and afraid to embrace the existential solitude, thus they deny it. It is simply easier to pretend and convince yourself that you were a victim of the circumstances and/or that you had no choice at all than to admit that you are afraid to be responsible for your actions and choices and (possibly) bad outcomes they might result in. People live in a non-authentic, passive way, not making choices and become more akin to an object than to a conscious human being (more akin to be a being-in-itself than to be a being-for-itself".) However, they are not bothered by it, for it is, again easier to deny the fact that they're condemned to be free.

What does Sartre understand with the concept of bad faith? Illustrate with an example.

Bad faith is the habit that people have of deceiving themselves into thinking that they do not have the freedom to make choices for fear of the potential consequences of making a choice. By sticking with the safe, easy, default 'choice' and failing to recognise the multitude of other choices that are available to him, a person places himself at the mercy of circumstances in which he happens to find himself. Thus, the person is more akin to an object than to a conscious human being (more akin to be a being-in-itself than to be a being-for-itself"). People may pretend to themselves that they do not have the freedom to make choices by pursuing pragmatic concerns and adopting social roles and value systems that are alien to their nature as conscious human beings. However, to do so is in itself to make a choice, and thereby to acknowledge their freedom as conscious human beings. An example of bad faith that Sartre gives is that of a young woman on a first date. The young woman's date compliments her on her physical appearance, but she ignores the obvious sexual connotations of his compliment and chooses instead to direct the compliment at herself as a conscious human being. He then takes her hand, but she neither takes it nor rejects it. Instead, she lets her hand rest indifferently in his so as to buy time and delay having to make a choice about accepting or rejecting his advances. Whereas she chooses to treat his compliment as being unrelated to her body, she chooses to treat her hand (which is a part of her body) as an object, thereby acknowledging her freedom to make choices. She lives in bad faith for she puts herself in a role of an object, leaving her hand there for no reason, not even realizing she had left it there.

What hidden forces are present in the human according to Bernays? Explain what the consequences are if they are unleashed.

Bernays borrowed Freud's theory about the hidden forces in the people; those are, as described, primitive sexual and aggressive forces deep inside the mind of all human beings. This forces lie in our unconscious part of our brain and are thus not accessible to us - they do, however, have an influence on our behaviour. Bernays used these hidden forces to control people (dangerous masses) - he used Freud's theories to manipulate the mass by manipulating their unconscious. In a society where we live today, these kind of forces must be controlled and restricted for some system we live in to work. They must be turned into other emotions and the society must give a chance to release them in a socially acceptable way to an individual. If those forces are not controlled and are unleashed, especially in a mass, this leads to destruction and chaos - society could not work if the sexual and aggressive forces in people would not be controlled. Everybody would just rape, kill and feast, a dystopian scenario of chaos.

Regarding what do hard determinists and libertarianists agree?

Both hard determinists and libertarianists agree that in order to be morally responsible, we have to have free will (we cannot be determined). This way, both positions claim that metaphysical freedom is a necessity for moral responsibility. Because of that, hard determinists that think we do not have any metaphysical freedom also think we are not morally responsible; liberterianists, on the other hand, think that we do have metaphysical freedom and thus are morally responsible for our actions. Hard determinists, as well as libertarianists think that even if we have circumstantial freedom when we act, we cannot be morally responsible for our actions if our will is not free of determining causes.

Explain the difference between indeterminism and libertarianism. Illustrate with an example.

Both indeterminism and libertarianism claim that determinism is false and that we do have freedom. However, they still do differ. In libertarianism, we have all the metaphysical freedom as well as the freedom of choice - we choose our actions, and always know that we could have done it some other way. We have control over our actions. For example, if we sit on the chair and decide to stand up and walk up to the window, this is our free choice. We know that we could have done it other way; we could have kept sitting, or stood up and walked to the closed, or the door, or the fridge instead. Indeterminists, however, claim that there are some random events, some uncaused events and some caused events that are not necessary events. To put it differently, there are random events that we have no control over. Heisenbergian principle of uncertainty is applicable here: if we an electron with known mass, location and velocity, we still cannot predict its location at the time x with certainty. It might move to point A or point B, even if there is a greater statistical probability of it moving to the point A. We are unable to predict the "fate" of the electron, it is a fact about the nature of the subatomic world. In this example, movement of electron to the point A or the point B from its initial position is an uncaused event or an occurrence that did not happen of necessity. If we stand up to walk to the window, but walk past our dog and trip over him, or if he bites us, or even if we do walk up to the window and there is a random brain process in our head, causing us to throw ourselves out of the window, these are all random events we had no control over. It is thus questionable whether we do have true freedom if indeterminism is true.

What is meant with circumstantial freedom? Illustrate with an example.

Circumstantial freedom is the ability and the opportunity to perform whatever action we choose, that is, freedom from external forces, obstacles, and natural limitations that restrict or compel our actions. In other words, if any of these things (external factors) prevent us to doing what we want to do, we do not have any circumstantial freedom, since the circumstances do not allow it. For example, if we want to go on the holidays to Sweden and someone is physically holding us down to miss our plane, or if we have no money to do so, we do not have circumstantial freedom. If we want to fly with nothing but our body, again, we do not have the circumstantial to do so, since our nature/physical body structure is not suitable for flying.

Explain why the modern Western political system might not be genuinely democratic if Bernays' activity had real impact on the society. Give the answer from the point of view of individual human nature and also taking into account how the society at large works.

Democracy, as defined, is a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state. Taking things that Edward Bernays did into account, it is questionable whether we can talk about genuine democracy in the modern Western political system. Bernays based his action on Sigmund Freud's theory about the unconscious part of human mind and the statement that people are driven by the irrational forces of the Id, the instant pleasure and power (aggression) seeking part of the people. Bernays figured that, if he wanted to control and regiment the masses according to his will without their knowing about it, it was necessary to appeal not to the rational part of the mind, but the unconscious. This way Bernays introduced a new way of public relations (simply, propaganda). He used different methods to manipulate the masses into changing their opinions, emotions, etc. People living in a democratic country did not know they were being manipulated, and were left with changeable opinions in the sea of products, services and everything other provided for them to give them a feeling of freedom, but in reality just messing with the their unconscious mind. This influenced people on individual, as well as on mass level. Individual, for their own freedom was, to some extent, taken away with manipulation, and on mass, for this manipulation of the individuals resulted in a system and society the leaders that manipulated with them wanted. All this reasons are more than enough to question whether the system was truly democratic, for people's will was altered by the leaders and other "people on the top".

Explain the difference in Descartes' and Sartre's assessment of the importance and role of the body as an element of the human condition.

Descartes, as a dualist, is talking about both body and mind, but gave bigger role to our mind. A mind could exist without a body, a body without mind. The essence of the human being is, that they are a "thinking thing", meaning that if you are able to think (which is, according to him, not a property of the body), this is your essence. In his point of view, one does not need a body, as much as it concerns the essence of what a human is. In Sartre's point of view, however, there is no a priori human nature, there are only facts. Man is condemned to be free, meaning that he must interpret the facts in the world of facticity - he is free in his choice of interpretation of facticity. Therefore, man is what he has done out of himself, since his choices and actions create who he is. This way, individual defines himself mainly through his relations with the Others (other people) - these relations with the others are determined through his real, that is, bodily activity. Sartre claimed that human essence is made through their body in action. "We are bodies in this world, and we must act".Looking at these, we can see that Sartre thought of bodies as of more important element of the human condition than Descartes did.

Explain the concept of determinism.

Determinism is the claim that all events are the necessary result of previous causes. Therefore, if the claim was correct, and if it were possible to have complete knowledge of the universe at the present moment, then we could predict every single thing that will happen in the future. Our choices, beliefs, desires and actions themselves are the necessary result of previous causes. This way, everything that happens in nature and in human behaviour is the inevitable outcome of the causal order. Determinists acknowledge that we have circumstantial freedom, but deny that we have metaphysical freedom. Roughly, determinism can be divided to hard determinism and soft determinism, also know as compatibilism. While hard determinists agree that we are determined and that, if we are determined, then we have lack of the freedom necessary to be morally responsible, and also that we are not morally responsible, compatibilists agree that we are determined and that, if we are determined, then we have lack of the freedom necessary to be morally responsible, but think that we are morally responsible.

How does indeterminism differ from determinism? Which physical theory opens "scientific gates" for indeterminism? Explain.

Determinism is the claim that all the events are caused by some other event(s) in the past. This way, an event A will result in event B. Even B will result in even C. Event C in event D, and so on. Everything was determined when the first atoms were formed (the big bang?), and neither people, neither any other being have any control over changing it. All of our thoughts, actions and even believes are determined. Indeterminists, however, claim that determinism is false. It claims that there are some random events, some uncaused events and some caused events that are not necessary events. To put it differently, there are random events that we have no control over. Heisenbergian principle of uncertainty is applicable here: if we an electron with known mass, location and velocity, we still cannot predict its location at the time x with certainty. It might move to point A or point B, even if there is a greater statistical probability of it moving to the point A. We are unable to predict the "fate" of the electron, it is a fact about the nature of the subatomic world. In this example, movement of electron to the point A or the point B from its initial position is an uncaused event or an occurrence that did not happen of necessity. A physical theory that opened "scientific gates" for indeterminism is quantum mechanics. This is a fundamental theory in physics which describes nature at the smallest scales of energy levels of atoms and subatomic particles. The findings in this field helped to explain some phenomena that classical physics (often used to prove determinism) could not explain. Taking this possibility of classical physics not being true into account, indeterminism has open "scientific gates" to prove its point.

In what aspect could a deterministic world and an indeterministic world be regarded as the same? Illustrate with an example.

Determinism is the claim that all the events are caused by some other event(s) in the past. This way, an event A will result in event B. Even B will result in even C. Event C in event D, and so on. Everything was determined when the first atoms were formed (the big bang?), and neither people, neither any other being have any control over changing it. All of our thoughts, actions and even believes are determined. Indeterminists, however, claim that determinism is false. It claims that there are some random events, some uncaused events and some caused events that are not necessary events. To put it differently, there are random events that we have no control over. Heisenbergian principle of uncertainty is applicable here: if we an electron with known mass, location and velocity, we still cannot predict its location at the time x with certainty. It might move to point A or point B, even if there is a greater statistical probability of it moving to the point A. We are unable to predict the "fate" of the electron, it is a fact about the nature of the subatomic world. In this example, movement of electron to the point A or the point B from its initial position is an uncaused event or an occurrence that did not happen of necessity. However, the "freedom" of indeterminism is questionable; do we really have freedom, if these random brain events can occur to us at any point? In this way, both positions are kind of the same with questionable freedom. Furthermore, both agree that the responsibility for our actions is bound to our metaphysical freedom. If we are determined, we do not have any responsibility, if we aren't determined, we do have the responsibility. For example, if we want to look out of the window, but fall over and through it, determinists would claim that that was determined, and that we are not responsible for it. In the same case, indeterminist would claim that a random brain event that caused to fall through the window occurred. We are, however, responsible for it, for it was our choice to walk up to the window in the first place.

Outline the deterministic picture of the human world as adopted by the Ancient Greeks.

Determinism is the thesis that everything that occurs happens of necessity. In Ancient Greece, in pre-Socratic tradition, it was concluded that every existing thing was composed of atoms in motion. These atoms would inexorably move along trajectories necessitated by the very nature of atoms and the nature of motion. A fragment of a old book, written by Leucippus says: "Naught happens for nothing but everything from a ground of necessity." Mostly, these view did not become dominant, because the science was only at its threshold and unlike today, this theory couldn't be supported by any evidence of scientific authority.

Explain the difference between deterministic and probabilistic laws of science.

Deterministic laws tell us that there is only one outcome, that is determined and cannot be changed or altered by anything or anyone. Everything was thus determined at the big bang, including all of our thoughts, desires and values. Atomic and molecular movement is and was determined from the very start of the universal existence and cannot be broken. All of the events are results of some past events; there was no "first" event, and there will be no "final" result. The chain of the events is endless. If there is an event A, it will surely end in result B. Probabilistic laws are the ones that claim there are more possible consequences, each with its own probabilistic chance of happening. We cannot claim which event will happen, we can only predict it based on the statistical data. If there is an event A, it might result in event B, C, D, etc. Even though there might be a bigger statistical chance of it resulting in the result (event) B, it could always end in the C, D, or any other as well.

Give an example of a metaphysical theory according to which the essence of man precedes his existence. Describe in outline the human condition as pictured in this theory.

Example of such theory is Sartre's existentialism. In Sartre's point of view, there is no a priori human nature, there are only facts. Man is condemned to be free, meaning that he must interpret the facts in the world of facticity - he is free in his choice of interpretation of facticity. Therefore, man is what he has done out of himself, since his choices and actions create who he is. This way, individual defines himself mainly through his relations with the Others (other people) - these relations with the others are determined through his real, that is, bodily activity. If people refuse to take the responsibility for their actions and are therefore passive, object-like being, they live in bad faith. Bad faith is the habit that people have of deceiving themselves into thinking that they do not have the freedom to make choices for fear of the potential consequences of making a choice. By sticking with the safe, easy, default 'choice' and failing to recognise the multitude of other choices that are available to him, a person places himself at the mercy of circumstances in which he happens to find himself. Thus, the person is more akin to an object than to a conscious human being (more akin to be a being-in-itself than to be a being-for-itself"). People may pretend to themselves that they do not have the freedom to make choices by pursuing pragmatic concerns and adopting social roles and value systems that are alien to their nature as conscious human beings. However, to do so is in itself to make a choice, and thereby to acknowledge their freedom as conscious human beings. Human living in bad faith is not authentic.

Explain the role of the emotion of anxiety according to Sartre.

For Sartre, there are four emotions which reveal the essence of man, that is, of human existence: aguish, anxiety, forlornness and despair. Anxiety reveals responsibility in the face of freedom; it makes us realize that our character and everything we are is a result of our choices, our decisions etc. There is not external force that will shape us but ourselves. Because of this, we are condemned to be free - we must make choices, and this lies a great responsibility upon us, for we are responsible for anything we do.

Explain the role of the emotion of despair according to Sartre.

For Sartre, there are four emotions which reveal the essence of man, that is, of human existence: aguish, anxiety, forlornness and despair. Despair is a realistic emotion which reveals the fact that an authentic person is without vain hope, meaning that he or she acts upon existing possibilities. It is the understanding that one cannot control someone else's actions. Other people are free-thinking and independent creatures, so there is no way to interact with someone else in a way that ensures any sort of certainty in our motives or actions. People other than ourselves will always be unpredictable and unknowable to us. Thus, we can only focus on our own concerns and possibilities because to do so for others is a waste of both time and energy that brings about despair.

Explain the role of the emotion of forlornness according to Sartre.

For Sartre, there are four emotions which reveal the essence of man, that is, of human existence: aguish, anxiety, forlornness and despair. Forlornness reveals the fact that there are no signs which would indicate what the right choices are. It is the realization that God does not exist and that it matters that God does not exist. Such a realization implies that there is no such thing as theoretical goodness and that pure goodness cannot exist either. Additionally, the non-existence of God implies that there is no one responsible for our existence, and thus all of our thoughts and actions have no justifications outside of our own free will.

Explain and illustrate the concepts of freedom of choice and freedom of spontaneity.

Freedom of choice and freedom of spontaneity are two concepts of freedom that differ in their meaning. Freedom of choice means the freedom to chose - it means that at any given moment, a person knows they could have done it in other way. For example, if one goes and buys strawberry ice cream, even though vanilla and chocolate ice cream were also available at the shop, it was his freedom of choice to buy strawberry ice cream. He could have bought vanilla or chocolate or none, but he decided to buy strawberry one. Freedom of spontaneity means that a human being itself determines his will. The impulse for our actions in therefore coming from within us, meaning that our decisions are not made just because some external factor forced us into it. Given example, to act according with God's orders and sacraments is a decision made from what's within us, whatever that is. No external force is put upon us to accept or decline God's existence and/or accept his sacraments and rules.

Why is Kant's concept of free will a variant of the freedom of spontaneity? Explain.

Freedom of spontaneity means that a human being itself determines his will. The impulse for our actions in therefore coming from within us, meaning that our decisions are not made just because some external factor forced us into it. In Kant's point of view, moral appraisal presupposes that we are free in the sense that we have the ability to do otherwise. Moral rightness and wrongness apply only to free agents who control their actions and have it in their power, at the same time of their actions, either to act rightly or not. These signals are not forced upon anyone, but are a result of individual's own mind processes. Choosing thing A or thing B is something that comes from within us completely. If, for example, girl at school asks a boy to hold her ice cream for her, it is his choice whether he will hold it or drop it on the ground and laugh in her face. He has this freedom of spontaneity, that is also compatible with Kant's idea about free will and moral decisions.

Describe in outline the fundamental elements of person as advocated by Freud.

Freud believed that personality develops through a series of childhood stages in which the pleasure-seeking energies of the id become focused on certain erogenous areas. This psychosexual energy, or libido, was described as the driving force behind behavior. An individual's personality has crystallized by the age of 5 years, One has no personal control over the formation of one's personality, yet everything that happens to an individual after the age of 5 will be responded to by this (completed) character structure. One's motivational system is unconscious, structured by antisocial biological urges, painful childhood memories, emotional conflicts, fantasies, fears, all of which have been repressed into the unconscious. EGO (councious self) is masking a ferocious struggle between the ID (antisocial animal self, wants it all now) and the SUPEREGO (irrational, nay-saying, guilt-spaning social conscience). Freud claims that all actions of a person are unfree. There is no responsibility. All of our behavior is unconsciously motivated. According to Sigmund Freud, the libido is part of the id and is the driving force of all behavior. The Id contains our primitive drives and operates largely according to the pleasure principle, whereby its two main goals are the seeking of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. It has no real perception of reality and seeks to satisfy its needs through what Freud called the primary processes that dominate the existence of infants, including hunger and self-protection. The energy for the Id's actions come from libido, which is the energy storehouse. The Id has 2 major instincts: Eros: the life instinct that motivates people to focus on pleasure-seeking tendencies (e.g., sexual urges) and Thanatos: the death instinct that motivates people to use aggressive urges to destroy. Unlike the Id, the Ego is aware of reality and hence operates via the reality principle, whereby it recognises what is real and understands that behaviours have consequences. This includes the effects of social rules that are necessary in order to live and socialise with other people. It uses secondary processes (perception, recognition, judgment and memory) that are developed during childhood. The dilemma of the Ego is that it has to somehow balance the demands of the Id and Super ego with the constraints of reality. The Ego controls higher mental processes such as reasoning and problem-solving, which it uses to solve the Id-Super ego dilemma, creatively finding ways to safely satisfy the Id's basic urges within the constraints of the Super ego. The Super ego contains our values and social morals, which often come from the rules of right and wrong that we learned in childhood from our parents (this is Freud, remember) and are contained in the conscience. The Super ego has a model of an ego ideal and which it uses as a prototype against which to compare the ego (and towards which it encourages the ego to move). The Super ego is a counterbalance to the Id, and seeks to inhibit the Id's pleasure-seeking demands, particularly those for sex and aggression.

Explain how could Freud be interpreted as a proponent of limited genuine freedom or limited libertarianism. Illustrate with an example.

Freud is, at the first glance, seen as determinist - his theories are based on what happened to a person in early childhood, he acknowledges that a lot of things is present in people because of their genetics, etc. However, Freud used psychoanalysis to help people resolve their problems, psychosis and negative feelings. If he would not believe that changing someone's mind was possible, for it was pre-determined, this would've had no point. Freud believed that we do have the power to make choices and change our lives, but we are too afraid to do it. For example, a person that experiences something unpleasant can, to a small extent, choose how they are going to deal with it; if they are going to repress it, face it, overthink it etc. If a woman gets beaten up by her husband, it is her choice whether she will call the police or stay silent - this choice will impact her unconscious parts and thus affect choices in future.

Explain the differences and similarities between hard determinism and soft determinism. Illustrate with an example.

Hard determinism claims that all out choices are determined and that we do not have moral responsibility for our actions. This way, hard determinists agree with statements "we are determined" and "if we are determined, then we lack the freedom necessary to be morally responsible" and disagree with the statement "we do have the freedom necessary to be morally responsible". They reject the third statement because it requires metaphysical freedom, which we, according to hard determinism, lack. Soft determinism or compatibilism claims that freedom is compatible with determinism. "I sometimes do what I want to do even if my will was determined according to deterministic people". It is the claim that we are both determined and that we have moral responsibility. This way, soft determinists agree with statement "we are determined", disagrees with statement "if we are determined, then we lack the freedom necessary to be morally responsible" and agree with the statement "we do have the freedom necessary to be morally responsible". How is this possible? According to soft determinists, if the immediate cause of your action is your own psychological states, including your will, choices, values or desires, then it is a free or voluntary action that your personality, motives and values are completely determined by previous causes. This way, they believe that circumstantial freedom is the only kind of freedom needed to be morally responsible. For example, if a person kills his friend, hard determinists will claim that he was determined to do it, but is not responsible for it for he has no metaphysical freedom. Soft determinist will agree that he was determined to do it, but will still claim that he is responsible for what he did, justifying this with the reasons above.

Explain how could Freud be interpreted as a soft determinist. Illustrate with an example.

Hard determinism denies any possibility of freedom and personal responsibility, as all the things (including out behaviour) are results of previous causes and in order to be responsible, metaphysical freedom is needed; hard determinist claim that we do not have any. However, Freud does not want people to feel responsible for acts over which they have no control, that is, most of the acts. But Freud still advocates a certain type of freedom. Freud talks about the Ego, when he speaks about a man who is acting and has a reason for what he does, and about Id, when he speaks about a person that is driven to do something.

What is meant with with the term 'Hospers's Freud'? Explain.

Hospers interprets Freud as a hard determinist, meaning that human has no free choice and that all of the events, including his actions, are just results of the past events. Man is only free to the extent that his behaviour is not unconsciously motivated at all, but most of our actions (behaviour) is not free - impulses, volitions, attitudes toward life, preferences - everything has its basis in the unconscious. Still, Hospers does not interpret Freud as a strict hard determinist, because he allows that some conscious decisions (that are not of great importance) may be caused by unconscious motives.

Why could the human be regarded as irrational if Freud's theory is true? Explain.

Humans could be considered as irrational when their behaviour is being illogical or unreasonable; in Freud's theory, human behaviour is not motivated by conscious reason, meaning that we do not choose what are we going to do. Everything we do, think or believe is motivated by the unconscious part of our brain and is thus not controllable by individual's reason, meaning that it is irrational. According to Freud, the libido is the part of the Id and is the driving force of everything we do. This driving force is based on either pleasure and satisfaction (Eros), or on need for destruction and death (Thanatos); as we can see, none of these two forces are rational, and we do not choose which one of them, when, and to what extent will put its impact on us. Considering all of this, the human does not have any rationality and could be regarded as irrational.

Explain why does a Freudian consider an illusion the idea of individual liberty as it is defended by the classical libertarian political philosophy.

Humans could be considered as irrational when their behaviour is being illogical or unreasonable; in Freud's theory, human behaviour is not motivated by conscious reason, meaning that we do not choose what are we going to do. Everything we do, think or believe is motivated by the unconscious part of our brain and is thus not controllable by individual's reason, meaning that it is irrational. According to Freud, the libido is the part of the Id and is the driving force of everything we do. This driving force is based on either pleasure and satisfaction (Eros), or on need for destruction and death (Thanatos); as we can see, none of these two forces are rational, and we do not choose which one of them, when, and to what extent will put its impact on us. Considering all of this, the human does not have any rationality and could be regarded as irrational. Freud thus deny the idea of individual liberty, for people should not be given the chance to unleash those irrational forces. If every individual would be given his liberty, everything would end in chaos and destruction.

Contrast Freud's irrationalism with Kant's rationalism when it comes to human motivation. Illustrate with an example.

In Kant's rationalism, we are motivated with respect towards moral law. This is a part of his essence and a priori - a human just knows, what's wrong and what's right. Kant's universal principles and maxims are a part of a priori. This way, our rational thinking and a priori knowledge about justice have the power over our motivation. In Freud's irrationalism, however, this is not the case. Our motivation does not emerge from a rational duty, but from libido. All the time, a person's libido points them towards pleasure (a force called Eros) and destruction (a force called Thnathos). It is questionable, how much ego can control Id; to what extend is pleasure principle compatible with reality principle? Therefore, Ego tries to tell id to delay the pleasure, since pleasure satisfaction isn't possible here and now. This is not a priori rationalism, since the motivational energy comes from Id, which is irrational. For example, to steal a candy from your sister is immoral because of the categorical imperative, according to Kant. This is rational. In Freud's case, Id must be controlled by Superego in order to not steal the candy (Superego's ideals - values are honest); if not, pleasure seeking Id will take the candy.

What does Sartre mean with the claim that there are no innocent victims in a war? Explain.

In Sartre's point of view, man is condemned to be free. Condemned because he did not create himself, yet is nevertheless at liberty, and from the moment he is thrown into this world he is responsible for everything he does. There is no reality except in action. One might have excuses for what happened, and might blame the circumstances for their actions, but for existentialists, the only thing that counts something is what one has done. Every choice a person makes defines them and is considered their own value. If one is mobilized in a war, this is their war that is a matter of choice and thus they deserve it. If they choose war and not, for example, death, which is also an option, they bear responsibility for the war. Who one is is this present person facing this present war and this defines them. The soldier's choice to kill himself, to become a deserter or to fight on might be hard and carry the matter of his life ending or not - it is, nevertheless, his choice, to keep fighting and he is thus responsible for it.

What does Sartre mean with the claim that existence precedes essence? Explain and illustrate.

In Sartre's point of view, there is no a priori human nature, there are only facts. Man is condemned to be free, meaning that he must interpret the facts in the world of facticity - he is free in his choice of interpretation of facticity. Therefore, man is what he has done out of himself, since his choices and actions create who he is. This way, individual defines himself mainly through his relations with the Others (other people) - these relations with the others are determined through his real, that is, bodily activity. For example, a baby that is born in the world is not determined to be kind or rude, but it is his choice what will he become. If a girl at his school asks him to hold her ice cream for her, it is his choice whether he will hold it or drop it on the ground and laugh in her face. He has no essence, his essence forms through his own choices that are, at the same time, values. Our values are thus created through our actions.

How does the essence of an individual human come into being according to Sartre? Explain and illustrate.

In Sartre's point of view, there is no a priori human nature, there are only facts. Man is condemned to be free, meaning that he must interpret the facts in the world of facticity - he is free in his choice of interpretation of facticity. Therefore, man is what he has done out of himself, since his choices and actions create who he is. This way, individual defines himself mainly through his relations with the Others (other people) - these relations with the others are determined through his real, that is, bodily activity. In this way, people's values, and thus their essence comes into being with every choice they make. For example, a baby that is born in the world is not determined to be kind or rude, but it is his choice what will he become. If a girl at his school asks him to hold her ice cream for her, it is his choice whether he will hold it or drop it on the ground and laugh in her face. He has no essence, his essence forms through his own choices that are, at the same time, values. Our values are thus created through our actions.

Compare and contrast the conception of values of Dostoyevsky's man from the underfloor and of Sartre.

In Sartre's point of view, there is no a priori human nature, there are only facts. Man is condemned to be free, meaning that he must interpret the facts in the world of facticity - he is free in his choice of interpretation of facticity. Therefore, man is what he has done out of himself, since his choices and actions create who he is. This way, individual defines himself mainly through his relations with the Others (other people) - these relations with the others are determined through his real, that is, bodily activity. Man from the underfloor, however, is rejecting rationality and prudence, and is deeply offended by the fact that people expect him to do things rationally, and furthermore, to expect him to do thing that are good for him. If he has bad liver, he is supposed to go to the doctor, etc. Thus he does things out of spite; he intentionally does things that are irrational and bad for him, even though he is aware that the only person that is getting harmed is himself. This kind of freedom is called perverse freedom. However, the man from the underfloor claimed that there is the most "advantageous advantage": man can, must and should choose whatever he desire, and that is a bigger advantage than all the "advantageous" things that he should do rationally (go to the doctor for the "advantage" of being healthy; but who says he has to be healthy?). This way, both Sartre and the Man from the underfloor value freedom and an individual should take an advantage of this freedom. For Sartre, values are formed with every action we choose, for the Man from the underfloor, the only value is true freedom (also the freedom to do things out of spite).

Explain which idea in Sartre's depiction of human condition could be regarded Kantian in nature? Illustrate with an example.

In Sartre's point of view, there is no a priori human nature, there are only facts. Man is condemned to be free, meaning that he must interpret the facts in the world of facticity - he is free in his choice of interpretation of facticity. Therefore, man is what he has done out of himself, since his choices and actions create who he is. This way, individual defines himself mainly through his relations with the Others (other people) - these relations with the others are determined through his real, that is, bodily activity. Each choice one makes is a value itself; unlike Kant, he does not ask himself if the thing he is doing is universalizable in order to be moral, but rather acknowledges that this choice defines his values and at the same time, we choose ourselves and the picture of human being in general. Thus we should ask ourselves whether a thing we're about to do is good for everyone.

Explain why Kierkegaard doesn't entirely fulfil Sartre's dictum that existence precedes essence.

In Sartre's point of view, there is no a priori human nature, there are only facts. Man is condemned to be free, meaning that he must interpret the facts in the world of facticity - he is free in his choice of interpretation of facticity. Therefore, man is what he has done out of himself, since his choices and actions create who he is. This way, individual defines himself mainly through his relations with the Others (other people) - these relations with the others are determined through his real, that is, bodily activity. We could argue that the human essence in Sartre is the freedom itself, but still, in general, there really is no a priori essence of what humans are. However, Kierkegaard claims that there is some essence in human beings. He talks about three phases of development; aesthetic, moral and religious phase. In the first one, we search mostly for pleasure, in the second one we try to follow out duty (Kant's theories). Kierkegaard claims that in those two phases something is missing, one is not calmed and satisfied with their existence. In the first one, the pleasure passes, in the second one it seems that we could have find a meaning. But the world is not made for Kantian morality, we cannot follow this rational duty at all times. Thus one must come to the third phase, finding God. As we can see, Kierkegaard does not completely agree that there is no essence and thus does not entirely fulfil Sartre's idea about existence preceding essence.

Does the man from the underfloor agree with Sartre's claim that man is condemned to be free? Explain.

In Sartre's point of view, there is no a priori human nature, there are only facts. Man is condemned to be free, meaning that he must interpret the facts in the world of facticity - he is free in his choice of interpretation of facticity. Therefore, man is what he has done out of himself, since his choices and actions create who he is. This way, individual defines himself mainly through his relations with the Others (other people) - these relations with the others are determined through his real, that is, bodily activity. We could argue that the human essence in Sartre is the freedom itself, but still, in general, there really is no a priori essence of what humans are. Man from the underfloor, however, is rejecting rationality and prudence, and is deeply offended by the fact that people expect him to do things rationally, and furthermore, to expect him to do thing that are good for him. If he has bad liver, he is supposed to go to the doctor, etc. Thus he does things out of spite; he intentionally does things that are irrational and bad for him, even though he is aware that the only person that is getting harmed is himself. This kind of freedom is called perverse freedom. However, the man from the underfloor claimed that there is the most "advantageous advantage": man can, must and should choose whatever he desire, and that is a bigger advantage than all the "advantageous" things that he should do rationally (go to the doctor for the "advantage" of being healthy; but who says he has to be healthy?). In this way, he does kind of agree with Sartre's idea that we are condemned to be free and should and must take advantage of this freedom.

Why are according to critics indeterministic processes not sufficient for freedom? Explain and illustrate.

Indeterminists claim that there are some random events, some uncaused events and some caused events that are not necessary events. To put it differently, there are random events that we have no control over. Heisenbergian principle of uncertainty is applicable here: if we an electron with known mass, location and velocity, we still cannot predict its location at the time x with certainty. It might move to point A or point B, even if there is a greater statistical probability of it moving to the point A. We are unable to predict the "fate" of the electron, it is a fact about the nature of the subatomic world. In this example, movement of electron to the point A or the point B from its initial position is an uncaused event or an occurrence that did not happen of necessity. Uncaused or non-necessary subatomic events can hardly be called free, but rather random events. Similarly, a human act based on such uncaused brain event would itself not be a free act but a random act. If we stand up to walk to the window, but walk past our dog and trip over him, or if he bites us, or even if we do walk up to the window and there is a random brain process in our head, causing us to throw ourselves out of the window, these are all random events and no genuine choices. We had no control over them, and the thing we wanted to do did not happen.

How and why do Skinner's critics challenge his usage of the concept of predictability?

It is impossible to certainly predict someone's behaviour. Influences may create certain tendencies to behave in some way, but their actual outcome is not perfectly predictable. For example, a religious upbringing of a child might have an influence on his present values, however, many people break with their parents' beliefs, so religious upbringing can influence but not determine that child.

What could be a modernised variant of the so-called Laplace's demon? Let your fancy fly and give a description.

Laplace, who was a determinist, imagined a genius, a "demon", who knows all the laws of nature and has complete knowledge and description of the universe at any given moment. Thus, he can predict all future events and retrodict all the past events. In this era, the modern Laplace's demon could, with a little bit of imagination, be found in multiple phenomena. For example, astrology is, or at least claims it is pretty close to Laplace's demon, even though it is not based on the same concept. Laplace's demon is based on completely physical things and molecular movement, whereas astrology is quite not. Still, astrologists claim that they can predict the future of individuals based on the time they were born into this world. Maybe the atoms (those composing stars and planets) were aligned in a way that has an effect on people born in that era, and is so in every moment. Atoms moving the planets might change enough to change a course of one's life in about a month, and that's why horoscope signs change about every 30 days.However, there are (obviously) a lot of critics of Laplace's demon, and it is impossible to find exactly such phenomena in real life. Horoscope is just an approximation of what Laplace had in his mind, but still, they both share some properties.

Explain the concept of metaphysical freedom. Keep in mind that there isn't a universal unanimous agreement about what meaning to give this expression. For example, use as found in Lawhead's and Palmer's textbook differs.

Metaphysical freedom is the power of the self to choose among genuine alternatives - this concept is often thought of as a synonym of "free will". It does not relate to external circumstances but to our internal condition. If we have this freedom (not all philosophers agree we do, since it is bound to fundamental human nature), then we could have made different choices in the past than the ones we did. Furthermore, having this freedom would mean that we are, of course, influenced by external circumstances and our personality, but in the final analysis, which of the alternatives we act on is decided by our free, spontaneous choice. For example, if I am about to hit a person and I'm in dilemma whether I should or should not do it, I will do it if I was determined to do it. If I was determined not to do it, I won't. In both cases, I don't have any metaphysical freedom. If I have metaphysical freedom, however, I will choose whether I will or will not hit them, and know that I could have done it any other way, no matter what.

Explain the difference between the concepts of pure volitional freedom and existentialist freedom (as described in Palmer's textbook).

Pure volitional freedom is total freedom only God could have. It has no limitations and it works in the following way: if someone with pure volitional freedom wants X to happen, X will automatically happen because I want it to happen. Or, for example, one with pure volitional freedom could say "let there be xy" and there would have been xy. This is the freedom God had to had when creating the universe; every wish and desire is, with no limitations, granted. Because of this, there couldn't be a moment in the existence where there would be two people, both with pure volitional freedom. Existentialist freedom means that one always have some alternative choice he could have chosen, beside the one he did choose. It does not mean that everything we want will happen at that instance, it means that even if we cannot do something we'd like to (because we lack circumstantial freedom, for example), there is always an alternative way to do something. For example, if someone wants to die and has pure volitional freedom, he will die at that moment. If he has existential freedom, he will find a way to die even if his gun is taken away from him (he will, for instance, hang himself). With existential freedom, there will always be alternative choice not to kill himself.

What role does predictability of behaviour have in Skinner's argument about freedom and determinism? Explain and illustrate.

Skinner is a hard determinist and thus believes everything that happens is a result of something that happened in the past - so past events. There is no free will and no choices, as Skinner says that every event, including our behaviour, is determined. He claims that behaviour isn't always predictable, not any more than the weather isn't always predictable, for there are often too many factors to be taken into account. We cannot measure them all accurately, and we couldn't perform the mathematical operations needed to make a prediction if we have the measurements. However, predictability is a clear indicator of determinism. Skinner wishes to replace teleological models of explanation with causal explanations (stimulus-response model based on Pavlov's dogs). He believes that Pavlovian model could be extended to the human sphere.

Why does Skinner drop the concept of prison and imprisonment? What does he propose as a replacement for prisons? Explain.

Societal control comes in form of punishments (paying the price for the crime). Skinner found punishments less effective form of behavioural control than positive reinforcement. He hoped that in the future society will use science of behaviour for creating machines for "behaviour engineering " that would improve our lives. People in society would be controlled, but they would be happy and feel free because they are controlled trough positive reinforcement. Most hard determinists claim that the criminal is someone with a psychological problem who should be treated the way we treat someone who has a physical disease. While removed from society, the criminal can receive therapy/behaviour modification that will change the psychological state that resulted in his act in the first place. Determinists do not agree with the punishment for punishment's sake or punishment that assumes the criminal had the freedom to do otherwise than he did.

Explain the difference between the causal and teleological explanation of behaviour. Which type of explanation is used by the behaviourists?

Teleological explanation of behaviour explains things in terms of goals, plans or intentions. For example, saying that I will go outside to walk my dog is a future intention which is not described with any kind of past causes. On contrary, causal explanations which are based on stimulus-response model explain things in terms of past causes. Saying that the tree fell because its roots were weak and harmed is an explanation giving cause-effect relationship and does not include trees intentions to fall. Determinists want to replace teleological explanations with causal ones, for in this way, their theory and everything determinism is based on would be given a great advantage. Behaviourists use teleological explanations - they take into account cognitive processes, like emotions and thoughts, but do not consider them empirical causes of behaviour.

Explain the meaning of the claim that at the end of the 19th century it was needed that the society shifts from needs to desires culture.

The 19th century was an era where slowly, all the shortages of things that are of life or death importance disappeared. Development in industrial production lead to over-production. People no longer needed to fight for survival and accordingly, new things that would be sold to them were needed. In this era, Bernays had to change people's mind-set from buying things they need to buying things that they want. He had to manipulate with the commodities, as well as with the people, to make a system in which desires were more important than needs. He linked products to people's desires and feelings - this way, it was easy to persuade them to behave irrationally. Objects that had only practical value and were needed for survival have become symbols of how one wants to be seen by others. For example, men buying new, expensive cars in order to appear powerful, rich, and masculine, people (especially young) buying clothes in order to 'express their inner self' and so on. This kind of ideas were carefully and slowly built in people's mind through advertising, media and constant manipulation.

Briefly describe the process of formation of values, ideals and morality according to Freud. Give one illustration.

The Superego's function is to control the Id's impulses, especially those which society forbids, such as sex and aggression. It also has the function of persuading the Ego to turn to moralistic goals rather than simply realistic ones and to strive for perfection. The Superego consists of two systems: the conscience and the ideal self. The conscience can punish the Ego through causing feelings of guilt. For example, if the Ego gives in to the Id's demands, the Superego may make the person feel bad through guilt. The ideal self (or ego-ideal) is an imaginary picture of how you ought to be, and represents career aspirations, how to treat other people, and how to behave as a member of society. Behavior which falls short of the ideal self may be punished by the Superego through guilt. The Super-ego can also reward us through the ideal self when we behave 'properly' by making us feel proud. If a person's ideal self is too high a standard, then whatever the person does will represent failure. The ideal self and conscience are largely determined in childhood from parental values and how you were brought up. For example, if Mary wants to punch Rick because he took her toy, even though her parents told her that punching is bad and that she shouldn't do it, it's the Id making her do so. If she actually punches Rick, the conscience of the Superego will punish her Ego through causing feelings of guilt. If she overcomes Id's calling to punch him, the Superego will award her Ego through causing feeling of pride and giving her an impression that she is kind etc. (things her parents told her she should be).

How does Freud explain mass behaviour in Nazi Germany? Explain.

To answer this question, we must take a look at Freud's theory about the hidden forces in the people; those are primitive sexual and aggressive forces deep inside the mind of all human beings. These forces are in the Id, part of the unconscious part of our mind and are thus not accessible to us - they do, however, have an influence on our behaviour. People are driven by this irrational forces (libido) of the Id, and if they are not controlled, this just might result in a disaster and chaos. In Nazi Germany, people were given the chance to unleash the primitive force of aggression, destruction and death, also known as Thanatos. With mass was propaganda, manipulation and war language, these forces were turned into irrational love for their leader, that is, Adolf Hitler, and at the same time, into hate towards other nations, especially the Jews. People did not ask themselves whether things they were doing were rational and/or right, for they were driven by the forces of the unconscious. This irrational love for the leader and one's country is one of the many irrational things people tend to do and are explained by Freud with the libido.

How do big corporation picture the relation between democracy in capitalism according to Bernays and as presented by Adam Curtis? Describe.

To answer this question, we must take a look at Freud's theory about the hidden forces in the people; those are primitive sexual and aggressive forces deep inside the mind of all human beings. These forces are in the Id, part of the unconscious part of our mind and are thus not accessible to us - they do, however, have an influence on our behaviour. People are driven by this irrational forces (libido) of the Id, and in this way, big corporations bring freedom to the nation. People tend to accept the consumerist culture, for the irrational forces of the Id strive for pleasure and power. Consumed commodities in this culture can guarantee both of these things, and thus satisfy Id; and such commodities come to the market from big corporations in the society. Through propaganda (public relations), commodities are presented and sold to the consumers and cause progress in the society - progress meaning delivering pleasure, power and freedom to the people. To put it differently, the progress happens when the amount of the pleasure is increased and the freedom (power) is given to the people.

What is the function of consumed commodities in the consumerist culture according to Freudian psychoanalysts? Explain and illustrate.

To answer this, we must take a look at Freud's theory about the hidden forces in the people; those are primitive sexual and aggressive forces deep inside the mind of all human beings that drive people and, if not controlled, cause disasters. Consumed commodities have a role in reaching and/or maintaining social stability in a mass society. In order to do so, firstly, Ego and Superego must control the Id, and secondly, Superego must intake social values. This is done with great amount of goods available; these goods must awoke feeling that they satisfy the needs of every person in mass society. Two things a person wants are, after all, power and pleasure. This feeling is easily awoken in people living in such society, since pleasure providing things such as sofas, foods with a lot of sugar, self-operating cleaners etc. are available everywhere for decent prices. In the aspect of power, the market offers quite a lot of items as well - new phones, expensive cars etc. People tend to feel powerful possessing such things, which results in satisfaction and control over masses. All of this is irrational - there's nothing to understand, really, it is just a blind force leading individuals to act and feel the way they do. Things have symbolic meanings and give people a part of new identity - a man that is thought of as a loser at work, unattractive by the girls he likes and is not liked by his colleagues will buy an expensive car. This car will make him feel more powerful, better about himself, even though the person he is still just the same. This way, the Id is satisfied, pleasure and power (thus freedom) is delivered to the man and stability is maintained.

Describe the essential properties of a citizen. Explain why a modern consumer isn't a genuine citizen.

To be a citizen is to have an identity for both being and doing; this way, a citizen has rights, but also responsibilities. Citizens are moral agents - they are the people who want to express their agency to the world by exploring their impact on others in all number of ways and understanding how that impact could be different. They are also comfortable with a degree of uncertainty; citizens own problems of society and accept that they exist and that they won't be fixed for them. The term "citizen" is connected to nation, to greater whole, and good citizens will always work in a way that will be most beneficial for society. Consumers, however, are the opposite of moral agents. They just want to do whatever is beneficial for them, regardless of well-being of society, and want to satisfy their needs for pleasure and power. Consumers do not accept any uncertainty and want everything to be fixed for them. Their only worry is how much and on what they can spend their money to maximize pleasure. The term "consumer" is rootless, linked only to the person and material goods.

Explain which position in the mind-body debate must be adopted by determinists if they rest the argument on the fact that laws of science are deterministic. Illustrate briefly.

To say that determinism is true, for we are, as well as everything else in this world, just complex creatures made out of nothing but atoms and that our actions are nothing but results of the past actions and events, one must adopt the materialistic stance in the mind-body debate. If dualism or idealism were true, such kind of determinism would not be possible; saying that the atoms of our mind are determined and that this is the reason we have specific believes, wishes and opinions is not logical, since mind has no extension and is not made out of atoms. In materialism, however, mind is nothing but brain events that we have no control over. The atoms and molecules align themselves based on the past events, causing our "mind events". This way, we can be determined - from the moment of the big bang, every atomic movement was determined, so it was also determined precisely what our brain will be like. Every thought we had had was the result of this. For example, we can say that someone was determined to kill his friend out of jealousy - it would make sense to say that atom movement made him do it and that he is thus not responsible for it. It would not, however, make sense to day that his non-extended mind was determined to do it.

Explain the concept of universal causation.

Universal causation is the principle that everything that happens is caused by something else that happened before it. This causality is universal; nowhere in the whole world can there be any phenomena that do not give rise to certain consequences and have not been caused by other phenomena. This way, we can speak of a world of cause and effect. An important feature of causality is the continuity of the cause-effect connection. The chain of causal connections has neither beginning nor end. It is never broken, it extends eternally from one link to another, meaning that there can not be any first (that is to say, causeless) cause nor any final (that is inconsequential) effect. Various causes may lead to the same effect, and same cause may have different consequences. A cause does not always operate in the same way, because its result depends not only on its own essence but also on the character of the phenomenon it influences. For example: sun might dry wet clothes, but also evoke photosynthesis in plants. At the same time, effect of heat might have various causes: sun rays, friction, chemical reaction...

What phenomena do speak in favour of the claim that all human behaviour is governed by destructive and irrational forces? Explain and illustrate.

We buy things we do not need, even if doing so destroys the environment and causes garbage piles of plastic to grow. Furthermore, people torture and kill animals beyond necessity, feeling happy and powerful (superior) by doing so - examples can be seen in meat and diary industry, leather industry and in animal cruelty we face in everyday life. In addition, people feel powerful by possessing things, like good cars and expensive phones, and in situations that give them control. Mass killing in war, as well as in the peace keeps repeating, even though we'd think people would "learn" from the consequences of starting/being in a war. People do irrational things that are at the same time destructive, and do not feel any need to explain why are they doing them. Things like that do not happen only on a personal level, but on a level of a nation as well. For example, in Nazi Germany, people followed Hitler blindly, not thinking rationally; their behaviour was governed by destructive, irrational force, that caused millions of dead people with no rational reason. A lot people did never question why or what they were doing - they simply enjoyed the feeling of destruction and superiority, not thinking rationally about anything.