PHILOSOPHY

Terms

1. Determinism: is the doctrine that every event is determined by preceding event and the laws of nature, determinism says that all events, including our choices and actions are produced inexorably by previous events, which are caused by still earlier events, which are caused by still others, the chain of causes leading back into the indefinite past.

2. Hard determinism: is the view that free will does not exist, that no one acts freely. Hard determinist accept these 3 propositions.

· Determinism is true

· Determinism and free will are incompatible: incompatibilism, determinism and free will are incompatible doctrines, they both cannot be true, that is, Is every free will exist, determination cannot be actual.

· We never act freely.

3. Compatibilist: is the view that although determinism is true, our actions can still be free compatibilist believe that:

· Determinism is true

· Determinism and free will are compatible

· We sometimes act freely. Compatibilism claims that although determinism is true, our actions can be still free because determinism and free will are not in conflict ( incompatibilism is false) it is possible for every event to be caused be preceding events plus the law of nature, and for us to still act freely. But how is such thing possible?

4. Libertarianism: (not political) is the view that some actions are free, for they are caused of controlled by the person or agent. They believe that :

· Determinism is false (indeterminism is true)

· Determinism and free will are incompatible

· We sometime act freely, they hold that indeterminism is necessary for free will, that the actions can occur only in a world where not all events are determined by prior events and natural laws.

Professor note: This looks very good !   Insightful and very well-written. If you can, I'd like you to add some reference to the various positions we've covered (and covered in the text): hard determinism, compatibilism, and libertarian (free-will) and apply it to Phil's decisions. I'm also curious to hear your own take on the free-will vs. determinism issue. 

Groundhog Day

Bill Murray (Phil Connors) is a meteorologist in the 1993 film "Groundhog Day." Founded on the feature film, Phil relived a childhood at Purusutawney, where he was assigned the heinous task of covering the annual Groundhog Day. Remarkably, the film indicated that Phil pursued a new pursuit in his life to the point that he knew that he would continue living the same lifestyle if he did not reexamine his approach to life. By rethinking his life, Phil could achieve parity in winning over Rita, her beautiful producer. As a result, it was clear that human beings are often exposed to various circumstances, which affects their capacity for decision-making. As a consequence, this can be due to the human capacity for free will. Substantially, the film Grounding Day attests to the topic of free will since it features a character who embodies how humans behave in the face of existential freedom.

Phil struggled with decision-making in everyday life, which involves reliving a single day: He was perceived to be making multiple decisions that were either incorrect or reckless (Mitchell, 2021). Additionally, if Phil made an incorrect decision, the day repeated itself. As such. It was worth noting that Phil had metaphysical freedom, all the more so since he dictated how he conducted his daily tasks. Consequently, he retained power over the events that transpired in his life, as Phil was capable of making any decision at any given time. This affected the results, as shown in the film. This could be attributed to the fact that, while Phil had metaphysical freedom, he was constrained by existential freedom, which robbed him of his free will to choose how he lives.

Centered on scenarios like when Rita and Larry observed Phil's body at the mortuary, it was clear that Phil lacked free will. Prominently, this occurred in a way that Phil's mind

desired to see the following day, but his body could not allow him to do so since he was dead. This results in the Supreme Being exerting control over human lives. God granted Phil free will because he did not influence what happened afterward in his life. Therefore, this illustrated the degree to which people are capable of metaphysical freedom. Particularly in the film, Phil made certain independent choices consistent with the concepts of free will acknowledgment. For example, the restriction of free will and recognition of free will were shown by the fact that if it were Phil's wilt, he might not have allowed the obstacles he faced, indicating that God exerts influence over human free will (Crocker, 2020). Additionally, this demonstrated the facets of determinism. His actions defied the law of nature, which was used to explain human behavior as dictators of the situations they encounter regularly.

The film depicted everybody revisiting the same days. Nevertheless, only Phil was aware of this reality, which raised the question of if people influence their behavior in life. Since this occurred to everyone in the movie, but others were unaware, it is worth noting that even Phil lacked free will.  The circumstance was not affected by his behavior but was entirely the result of someone else's existence. Comparably, this demonstrated that humans were occasionally aware of events that occurred around them but were powerless to control them, depriving them of their will to freedom. This demonstrated that Phil had no control, although he was cognizant that he lived the same day multiple times. As a result, his ambitions were steered toward resolving the crisis. As a result, it was possible to conclude that his life was affected by determinism, which emphasized that humans have little power over how events unfold. 

As a result, given that the film portrays Phil as constantly being wrong, it can be argued that metaphysical freedom is the creation of somebody else; in this case, God

provided metaphysical freedom to Phil. Chiefly, if Phil could control what happened daily, it would be simpler for him to make the correct decision. Furthermore, after realizing that Phil's decisions contributed to the undesirable outcomes, Phil's view of things changed. As a result, the ways things expressed themselves changed as well. This also led to the argument that maybe Phil's metaphysical freedom affected his existential freedom, granting him limited power over the events of his existence. After all, Phil was stuck in time before taking responsibility for his decisions and rectifying the situation. This demonstrated that humans could select what arises in their lives, as they recognize their duty to change their attitude to achieve the desired results.

It was not easy to describe the concept of free will since it encompassed the facets of human behavior that must occur based on the obligations people contribute. Thereby demonstrating to the society that humans have control over their lives by free will, while in the Grounding, determinism outweighs free will. This is because Phil affected the events, either indirectly or directly. Because everything in the film occurred in sequence, it was simpler to predict the consequences of various acts. It should be remembered that determinism means complete predictability, as the film depicts. For instance, based on the movie, not only do pre-Phil acts repeat, but they also recur as a result of Phil's influences, rendering all of the movie's actions deterministic in that they are completely predictable.

 In conclusion, the conflict between free will and determinism in Phil's behavior can be attributed to the fact that he made free will choices. Nevertheless, since that behavior decides the results, it was not easy to disentangle the free will and determinism in human actions as depicted in the movie. For example, Phil wished to coerce Rita into entering a romantic connection. Thus, Rita can be described as a deterministic character, meaning that Phil's behavior would affect their

relationship. And more so, Rita had free will to select whether or not to comply with Phil's behavior. As a result, it can be concluded that humans can choose what occurs in their existence. Even so, this free will is constrained in certain ways by humans' deterministic existence. Notably, the film demonstrated that the outcome of life could be fully anticipated from a decision viewpoint, with various choices mainly resulting in different results. It can be inferred that humans possess the capacity for free will.

References

Crocker, L. (2020). The Metaphysics of Groundhog Day. Philosophy Now, 141, 12-15.

Mitchell, W. J. T. (2021). Groundhog Day and the Epoché. Critical Inquiry, 47(S2), S95-S99.