0

Adlerian Psychology: The situation is opposite to what one would naturally believe. In here, for e.g. my goal is not to go outside my home as a result I tend to create anxiety not to go outside. Thus, potentially changing my future by changing the circumstances (feelings here)

Deniel of Free Will: In here, everything is predetermined, that is whatever I do is already solution of some equations, uniquely determined by giving it initial boundary conditions. This tells me that I have no choice but to write this question to you to seek my answer. If this is true, then it was predetermined that I will write the question to you, and thus is not a result of my voluntary change of feelings of confusion on these two topics, as one says you can change your future and the other says you have predetermined future.

Is it possible to argue if one of them is true?

  • Good news! https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/compatibilism – causative Mar 22 '21 at 20:00
  • It is possible to argue anything, arguing persuasively is a different story. This is a perennial question about free will vs determinism, and it is not specific to Adlerian psychology, both sides have many ardent defenders and no conclusive arguments. As Balaguer put it, "*It is very likely that those of us who are alive right now will all be dead and buried before human beings can answer the question of free will with any kind of authority.*" – Conifold Mar 23 '21 at 05:06
  • Does this answer your question? [Is there a way to prove the existence of choice and free will](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/52108/is-there-a-way-to-prove-the-existence-of-choice-and-free-will) – Conifold Mar 23 '21 at 05:08

0 Answers0