Theories and free will

I agree with the theory that humans are born with innate ideas. This idea was best expressed by Plato (2010), who argued that “man must have intelligence of universals, and be able to proceed from the many particulars of sense to one conception of reason” (p. 417). Locke’s idea of the tabula rasa eliminates the idea of the transcendental—the one, the good and the true—that were at the heart of Plato’s philosophy. Plato argued that the soul had these ideals imprinted upon it from the beginning, as a result of the soul’s having passed before God. Innate ideas were what allowed one to “recollect” or acknowledge truth or goodness when it was encountered, for a sense of these things was innate or in the soul: “this is the recollection of those things which our soul once saw while following God—when regardless of that which we now call being she raised her head up towards the true being” (Plato, 2010, p. 417-418). While Locke’s idea may seem convincing at first because babies and children absorb so much of what is provided them and repeat and believe everything that is told them, the development of reason and the use of logic that children begin to display aligns more with what Plato suggests is the true state of humankind.
If man was truly a blank slate the transcendental ideals would have no connection to him: there would be nothing linking him to the higher planes above that Plato urges men to approach. For the ideal to be true, the soul of man must have a sense of them which can be developed regardless of what is written on one’s slate as one develops. The use of one’s natural reason will ultimately lead one upward, according to Plato—but not to Locke.
A social situation in which my free will was compromised occurred only once when I drank too much and lost the use of my reason while out with friends. I was not in a position to think rationally and thus had lost the ability to exercise my free will. As the use of free will depends upon the use of reason, one cannot have one without the other. That is the only occasion in which I can say that there has ever been a time when my use of free will was compromised. So long as one has the ability to think, one has the ability to make an act of the will. Even if one is forced to do something against his will, his will is not actually consenting to the act and thus is not compromised.
However, going back to my example, I did make an act of the will to drink on that occasion and the act of the will was used in drinking to excess, at which point the use of reason was lost and the will was no longer empowered. What led me therefore to make the decisions and take the actions that I took was the use of my will and reason up that point. In other words, I willfully gave over the use of my reason and will by drinking too much.
Perhaps I felt pressured into following social conventions and drinking more than I should have, but there was still a conscious decision on my part, however slight, to go along with what was expected of me. Had my will to do what was right been stronger, I would not have done so.
People in general should react to conflicting feelings about the actions to take in given situations by using their reason to guide their will. Only you have the power to give over your free will—and even if you are pressured or even forced to do something against your will, your will is what must consent and if you do not consent but are forced, you cannot feel like you are guilty. One’s will should always be guided by one’s right use of reason.
References
Plato. (2010). The Dialouges, vol. 1. Online Library of Liberty. Retrieved from http://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/111/Plato_0131-01_EBk_v6.0.pdf