#soft determinism

Privilege, I’m privileged. 

How to cease living privilege, and live, really?. 

How does one scape the determinists events of a particular reality and act; really commit an action by the self. 

I know that Miura makes effort to exaggerate causality throughout the story, but I never really hear fans going outside of that school and talk broadly about determinism and how it relates to Berserk.

I mean, since I hear some people are for the idea of the Eclipse being predetermined to happen with Griffith as chosen so there's no point in complainin' or hatin' about the outcome*, or in another scope, the Eclipse would have happened with or without Griffith's confirmation.

Basically, the whole arguments rounds down to the same old debate: whether Griffith should be morally responsible for his actions depending on if they were predetermined or not (by his choice or not).

This view says that we have freedom, but we're also restricted by past experiences, or other influences. Some of our actions are determined, but we are morally responsible for our actions. The approach is also known as compatibilism. 

Whether an act is free depends on how it is caused. It's free if it's caused by your own desires, and it is caused if it is forced, coerced, or compelled. 

James Rachels- "whether your behaviour is free depends on how it is caused. Your act is free if it is caused by your own desires rather than being caused by a mental disease or someone forcing you."

Hume was a soft determinist. He has his own post here. 

Kant said that we're influenced by things like our background, but we're not wholly determined by them. Applying reason to our decisions means we can transcend our determined past. The mind exercising freedom makes us free. The physical world is phenomenal- all is determined because that is the way we see if and the only way our mind can understand it [noumenal is a world of ideas- things as they are in themselves]. Kant said we're phenomenally determined but noumenally free. We may look at the external world and see it as determined, but we experience our own freedom. We work from 2 different, seemingly incompatible standpoints- theoretical [pure reason] and practical [practical reason]. Freedom is a postulate of practical reason. Our own self awareness forces on us the idea that we're free. We can, however, only make a moral choice if we are free to do so. 

This approach allows people to be responsible, but also allows us to acknowledge hindrances like mental illness and so on.It doesn't place too much emphasis on past  influences, either. 

Objections to Soft Determinism

I dove into research on Soft Determinism fifteen minutes ago to refresh my memory on it and came out a Hard Determinist fifteen minutes later.

Destiny: The events that will necessarily happen to a particular person or thing in the future. The hidden power believed to control what will happen in the future; fate.

Determinism: The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will.

These are both nouns and I know they are slightly different, but fundamentally the same.

As a person, do I believe in determinism (soft determinism specifically) or do I believe in destiny.

In a way, I feel as if destiny is the aesthetic word for determinism. When looking at artwork, poetry, music, mythology, literature, they all use destiny more often over determinism. Destiny gives this whimsical feeling and pretense to your life views.

In a way it's a downfall. When I was younger, if someone would tell me they believe in destiny, I would find them fool-hearted and starry-eyed. . .maybe even seeing the world through rose-tinted glasses. But if someone would tell me they believe in determinism (specifically referring to B.F. Skinner's views), I would respect that much more.