The illusion of freedom
Are we truly free, or are we merely puppets on strings we cannot see? From the ancient Stoics to modern neuroscientists, the question of free will has haunted human thought. Do we shape our own destinies, or are our choices preordained, dictated by forces beyond our control?
Let’s begin with a simple question: did you choose to read this article? Or was your decision inevitable, determined by past experiences, your genetics, or the architecture of your brain?
There are three major philosophical positions on free will: determinism, libertarianism and compatibilism.
Determinism: A world already written
Determinism holds that every event, every thought, and every action is the result of prior causes stretching back to the dawn of time. The Roman poet Lucretius described the world as governed by “nature without will.” If the universe operates according to fixed laws, then every decision we make is simply the inevitable consequence of what came before.
Modern science reinforces this perspective. In the 1980s, neuroscientist Benjamin Libet conducted an experiment that shook the foundations of free will. He found that the brain initiates an action before we become consciously aware of deciding it. In other words, by the time you think you’ve made a choice, your brain may have already acted on your behalf. Are we, then, merely passengers in a vessel steered by forces beyond our control?
Libertarianism: Feeling free
Yet something within us rebels against this conclusion. We feel as though we choose freely. We deliberate, weigh options, and take responsibility for our actions. The philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that morality itself presupposes free will—without it, concepts like justice and responsibility collapse. If we are merely following a script written by physics, can we meaningfully be held accountable for our actions?
This is where libertarian free will steps in, standing in opposition to determinism. It suggests that human beings possess an intrinsic ability to break free from the chains of causation. Jean-Paul Sartre insisted that we are “condemned to be free,” burdened with the terrifying responsibility of shaping our own lives. Arguments for this stance are scarce, with the primary one being simply that we feel free. There is no scientific evidence supporting this theory—and yet, despite the lack of empirical grounding, it remains the most widely held belief. People feel free, so they believe they are. But does this freedom truly exist, or is it an illusion we cling to in order to avoid despair?
Compatibilism: Freedom within limits
Perhaps the debate itself is built on a false dichotomy. The Stoic philosopher Chrysippus believed that fate and free will could coexist harmoniously. This approach, known as compatibilism, suggests that our choices may be influenced by prior causes, yet we remain genuine agents in the decision-making process. Consider a river: its course is shaped by the terrain, but within that path, it flows freely.
Modern philosopher Daniel Dennett expands on this, arguing that free will does not require absolute independence from causality—only that we act in accordance with our own desires and reasoning. In this view, we are simultaneously products of our past and authors of our future.
So… Are We Free?
We stand at a crossroads, unable to answer with certainty. Perhaps we are bound by the laws of physics, yet still able to carve meaning from our existence.
But what do you believe? Are you reading this because you chose to, or because you could never have done otherwise? Either way… it seems you were always meant to ponder the question.
Sources:
Freewill vs Determinism In Psychology
Libertarianism (metaphysics) - Wikipedia
Libertarianism (metaphysics) - Wikipedia
On the Nature of Things by Lucretius
The Libet Experiment: What It Says About Free Will - Biology Insights
Liza Arshad
