é Mais Livre Quem Faz O Que Tem Vontade Ou Quem Obedece àquilo Que a Razão Determina?

The debate between free will and reason has been around for centuries. For some, it is more important to follow one’s desires and do what one wants to do, while for others, it is more important to obey reason and do what is deemed rational. This article will explore the differences between the two and discuss which is preferable.

Free Will vs Reason

Free will is the ability to choose and act on one’s own desires, without being bound by external influences. It is the idea that an individual is in control of their decisions and actions, and can choose to defy logic or reason if they so choose. On the other hand, reason is the ability to use logic and analysis to make decisions. It is the idea that an individual should make decisions based on facts and evidence, rather than on emotion or impulse.

Deciding What to Do

Ultimately, the decision of whether to follow free will or reason should be based on the individual’s situation and preferences. If an individual is confident in their ability to make rational decisions and has the knowledge necessary to do so, then it may be beneficial to follow reason. However, if an individual is feeling uncertain or overwhelmed, then it may be better to follow free will and make decisions based on what they want and feel.

Ultimately, it is up to the individual to decide which path to take. Both free will and reason can be beneficial in certain situations, and it is important to consider both when making decisions.

In conclusion, the decision of whether to follow free will or reason should be based on the individual’s situation and preferences. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, and it is up to the individual to decide which path to take. Ultimately, the goal should be to make decisions that are based on facts and evidence, while still taking into account one’s desires and feelings.

The ethical dilemma posed by the proverb “é mais livre quem faz o que tem vontade ou quem obedece àquilo que a razão determina” has been a source of debate since the precept’s conception. On the one hand, the call to follow one’s own will provides an avenue towards greater autonomy and freedom. But on the other hand, heeding the dictates of our reason reduces the burden of decision-making and does not expose us to the risk of impulsive folly.

The well-known 19th-century philosopher, Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, championed the freedom of the will and affirmed that societies should embrace the passions and desires of the individual. He argued that the only way to achieve a truly free society was to encourage people to follow their own will. According to Nietzsche, rationalizing every move was antithetical to spiritual freedom, as this blocks any possibility of outgrowing conventional morality.

While Nietzsche exalted the power of will, other theorists, like the Greek philosopher Plato, proposed that rationally governing one’s actions was more desirable. Plato suggested that we stick to what our reason can determine, leading away from impulsiveness, thereby preventing the individual from making rash decisions. Plato argued that reason acts as a shield, protecting us from our own impulses and enabling us to make sober choices.

When considering this ethical dilemma, it is essential to take holistic outlook. It is clear that both the power of the will and the rule of reason have their rightful place. Granting precedence to one or the other at all times would lead to a detrimental imbalance. Instead, we must strike a middle ground, merging the power of both approaches in our daily lives. In this way, we can benefit from the freedom that comes with following our inner impulses, while safeguarding ourselves against the consequences of excessive rashness. To gain our true freedom, we must embrace the two components – will and reason – in our quest for personal contentment.

More Like This