FREEWILL AND DETERMINISM DEBATE: THE PHILOSOPHICAL PARADOX

There has always been the challenge to examine the argument that man is free, therefore, could be held responsible for whatever action he takes. On the other hand, it is argued that man is not free and his actions are often predetermined. This sets off a sharp contradiction or paradox. The challenge posed by this sharp dichotomy therefore, is that often times none of the philosophical schools of thought is prepared for a compromise. The main objective of this paper is to provide the need for a consonance by both positions. In most of the discourse on determinism and freewill, the emphasis has been on these divergent positions. Central to the discourse on freewill and determinism debate, this paper adopted the philosophical, sociological and historical methodological approach. The assumption therefore is that there is a significant dimension with respect to appreciating a compromise between the two concepts. It is recommended that both schools of thought should examine areas of convergence in order to reap the inherent dividends in their different positions.