Editing Determinism (section)

===With free will===
{{Main|Free will}}Philosophers have debated both the truth of determinism, and the truth of free will. This creates the four possible positions in the figure. [[Compatibilism]] refers to the view that [[free will]] is, in some sense, compatible with determinism. The three [[Incompatibilism|incompatibilist]] positions deny this possibility. The [[Incompatibilism#Hard incompatibilism|hard incompatibilists]] hold that free will is incompatible with both determinism and indeterminism, the [[Libertarianism (metaphysics)|libertarians]] that determinism does not hold, and free will might exist, and the [[hard determinism|hard determinists]] that determinism does hold and free will does not exist. The Dutch philosopher [[Baruch Spinoza]] was a determinist thinker, and argued that human freedom can be achieved through knowledge of the causes that determine desire and affections. He defined human servitude as the state of bondage of anyone who is aware of their own desires, but ignorant of the causes that determined them. However, the free or virtuous person becomes capable, through reason and knowledge, to be genuinely free, even as they are being "determined". For the Dutch philosopher, acting out of one's own internal necessity is genuine [[freedom]] while being driven by exterior determinations is akin to bondage. Spinoza's thoughts on human servitude and liberty are respectively detailed in the fourth<ref>"Human infirmity in moderating and checking the emotions I name bondage: for, when a man is a prey to his emotions, he is not his own master, but lies at the mercy of fortune: so much so, that he is often compelled, while seeing that which is better for him, to follow that which is worse." – Ethics, Book IV, Preface</ref>{{Full citation needed|date=March 2025}} and fifth<ref>"At length I pass to the remaining portion of my Ethics, which is concerned with the way leading to freedom. I shall therefore treat therein of the power of the reason, showing how far the reason can control the emotions, and what is the nature of Mental Freedom or Blessedness; we shall then be able to see, how much more powerful the wise man is than the ignorant." Ethics, book V, Preface</ref>{{Full citation needed|date=March 2025}} volumes of his work ''[[Ethics (Spinoza book)|Ethics]]''.

The standard argument against free will, according to philosopher [[J. J. C. Smart]], focuses on the implications of determinism for free will.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Smart |first=J. J. C. |date=July 1967 |title=Free-Will, Praise and Blame |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2251619 |journal=Mind |volume=70 |issue=279 |pages=291–306 |issn=0026-4423 |jstor=2251619 |oclc=9964495257}}</ref> He suggests free will is denied whether determinism is true or not. He says that if determinism is true, all actions are predicted and no one is assumed to be free; however, if determinism is false, all actions are presumed to be random and as such no one seems free because they have no part in controlling what happens.