1.

Insert name of first theory you find most plausible on first glance

When one investigates the link between the past and the future in terms of free will and determinism, one must first realize that in life, we do have the freedom to choose, although sometimes we are coerced and sometimes even forced toward a decision. This reasoning brings me to the most plausible theory in explaining this link. On first glance, it seems to me that the most plausible theory explaining the link between the past and future is the theory of Traditional Compatibilism. One of the reasons this theory seems to be the best, is because it compromises between the extreme of Hard Determinism, and complete free will (Indeterminism). Since both arguments have valid reasoning behind them, it seems entirely probable that we are free as long as we can do what we want to do, without being constrained by outside forces (Rauhut, 2011, p. 80). The conclusion of the theory of traditional compatibilism has a line of reasoning with logically possible arguments, which are as follows: 1. An agent is free (not constrained), if the agent would have been able to act on a different set of desires. 2. There is the possibility of constraints by outside forces, which come in a variety of forms. The first proposition is just a definition, and is necessarily true because it is true whether the statement is the case or not (p. 70), and justified a priori, since no empirical evidence or experience is needed to come to this conclusion. On the other hand, the second proposition is contingently true since its truth depends on how the actual world is (p. 69) and is justified a posteriori or from the latter (p. 69), since we need to actually experience this to ensure its validity. We wouldnt know if there are possible constraints by outside forces if we didnt

actually experience them first. As you can see, the first two propositions in the argument are logically consistent with each other, since neither claim contradicts the other. Assuming the premises are true, this leads to the deductive conclusion that we are free as long as we can do what we want to do, without being constrained by outside forces. This conclusion, as of the other theories conclusions, is of questionable validity since we do not know for sure that any of these theories are true or not, but I believe this one to be most plausible.

2. Insert name of theory you find least plausible on first glance On first glance, it is obvious to me that the least plausible theory is the incompatibilist argument of Hard Determinism. It is illogical to believe that the future is solely determined by the past, and that we have no free will. To what extent of free will is to be determined, but to claim that it is an illusion has very little validity. For example, I would claim that no past event has influenced my decision to eat an apple instead of a banana while writing this paper, since nothing I have done in the past has any relevance to my eventual decision. Hard determinists believe in causality, which states that the past causes the future, and this causal link determines what the future looks like (p. 82). This conclusion is offered by a deductive line of reasoning of questionable validity, also with logically possible arguments. They are as follows: 1. All our actions are determined by the past. 2. If all our actions are determined by the past, then we have no power to act other than we do indeed act. 3. If we have no power to act other than we in fact do act, then we have no free will.

The first proposition is justified a posteriori since we would have to experience our actions and conclude that they are determined by the past before we claim that proposition. It is also contingently true, since its truth depends on how the actual world is (p. 69). This proposition can easily be false, as I believe it most likely is. We come to the second proposition a priori, since we do not need to experience to come to that conclusion. The second proposition is a necessary truth since it is true whether the statement is the case or not (p. 70). The third proposition is also a necessarily true a priori justification as well, since we also do not need experience to conclude the proposition. These propositions are logically consistent with each other, since they also do not contradict one another. The last two propositions are just statements leading to the conclusion after claiming that all our actions are determined by the past. Assuming these premises are true, the conclusion is certain which makes this a deductive argument. Although many people buy into the Hard Determinism argument, I find it to be far from the truth, as it doesnt seem as logical as the argument for Traditional Compatibilism, which compromises somewhat between Hard Determinism and Indeterminism.

References Rauhut, N. C. (2011). Ultimate questions: Thinking about philosophy. (3 ed., p. 239).