top of page

Five Existential Questions: Timeless Philosophical Debates

The search for wisdom through philosophy has paved the way for countless discussions that have lasted the test of time and continue to influence how we perceive the world. These philosophical questions remain and are still essential in our modern world, ranging from those concerning human nature to those concerning the existence of God and the moral consequences of our deeds. This blog will examine the timeless nature of five well-known philosophical arguments and how they still hold in the present.


Timeless Question: Are individuals primarily shaped by their inherent qualities, experiences, and environment?

Nature vs. Nurture


Timeless Question: Are individuals primarily shaped by their inherent qualities, experiences, or environment?


Nature vs. nurture is a long-standing philosophical and scientific debate that seeks to understand the primary factors that shape an individual's development. Philosophers have offered various perspectives on this issue, some emphasizing the importance of inherent qualities (nature), while others argue that experiences and the environment have a more significant influence (nurture).


Renowned philosophers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau held opposing viewpoints on the nature-nurture debate. Locke believed that people are born with "blank slates," implying that their experiences and environment shape their character and development. Rousseau, on the other hand, proposed the concept of the "noble savage," claiming that people are inherently good and that society corrupts them.

Renowned philosophers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau held opposing viewpoints on the nature-nurture debate. Locke believed that people are born with "blank slates," implying that their experiences and environment shape their character and development. Rousseau, on the other hand, proposed the concept of the "noble savage," claiming that people are inherently good and that society corrupts them. This philosophical dichotomy reflects the long-standing tension in human development between the influence of innate qualities and external factors. Advances in genetics and neuroscience in the twenty-first century brought back this debate. For example, studying identical twins raised in different environments allows us to better understand the roles of genes and environment in shaping individual traits. This debate is critical for comprehending intelligence, mental health, and criminal behavior.


The study of intelligence is an illustrative example of the nature-nurture debate. According to supporters of the nature perspective, intelligence is primarily determined by genetic factors, with cognitive abilities being inherited. Meanwhile, supporters of the nurture perspective argue that environmental factors such as education and upbringing play an important role in intellectual development. The interaction of genetics and environment in determining intelligence remains a complex and dynamic field, encapsulating the ongoing debate within the nature-nurture debate.


Timeless Question: Do humans possess free will, allowing them to make choices independently, or do factors beyond our control predetermine everything?

Free Will vs. Determinism: Navigating Choices in the Modern Age


Timeless Question: Do humans possess free will, allowing them to make choices independently, or do factors beyond our control predetermine everything?


The age-old philosophical debate between free will and determinism addresses the fundamental issue of human agency and the extent to which individuals have the autonomy to make independent choices. Philosophers throughout history have debated whether our actions are free or merely the result of predetermined factors. Some argue that free will is an inherent aspect of human nature, while others say that determinism shapes our decisions, influenced by factors such as genetics, environment, and societal influences. Famous philosophers such as Immanuel Kant promoted the concept of free will, claiming that individuals are capable of autonomous moral reasoning. Kant defines moral responsibility as the ability to make choices consistent with a sense of duty, regardless of external influences. On the other hand, determinists such as Baruch Spinoza and Arthur Schopenhauer argued that every event, including human actions, is determined by prior causes. They proposed that deterministic forces such as genetics, upbringing, and societal forces shape our choices in ways that are beyond our conscious control.


Criminal justice provides an excellent example of the debate between free will and determinism. A fundamental question in legal and ethical reasoning is whether or not people are accountable for their actions. Proponents of free will emphasize personal responsibility and argue that criminals have a moral obligation to atone for their actions. On the other hand, determinists might support a more restorative strategy, arguing that outside variables such as upbringing and socioeconomic status have a substantial impact on criminal behavior. Modern discussions of morality, ethics, and legal systems continue to present challenges in navigating the implications of this philosophical dichotomy.


Timeless Question: How can the existence of evil and suffering in the world be reconciled with the existence of an all-knowing, loving God?

The Problem of Evil: Divine Existence and Human Suffering


Timeless Question: How can the existence of evil and suffering in the world be reconciled with the existence of an all-knowing, loving God?


The permanent philosophical conundrum referred to as the Problem of Evil addresses the seeming inconsistency between the existence of an all-powerful, good God and the fact that evil and suffering are common in the world. The qualities of a loving and all-powerful god with the apparent suffering and injustice in the human experience have been the subject of in-depth discussions between theologians and philosophers.


Augustine of Hippo provided one classical response to the Problem of Evil. Augustine proposed that evil is a deprivation or absence of sound rather than a positive force. According to his theological viewpoint, God created a world that was initially perfect, and evil emerged as a result of humans abusing their free will. This theodicy emphasizes the importance of human choice in the existence of evil, arguing that God allows for moral wrongdoing by creating a world with free-willed beings. On the other hand, the philosopher and theologian Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz introduced the idea of the "best of all possible worlds." Leibniz proposed that the world is the best possible result within the bounds of divine perfection, even in the face of evil and suffering. He maintained that since God is all-powerful and good, He would choose to create a world that is as good as possible, even if that means permitting some evils to exist. According to this theodicy, we cannot fully comprehend the larger divine plan that allows good and evil to coexist because of our limited understanding.


Theological insights into the Problem of Evil continue to influence religious beliefs and philosophical debates, providing a range of viewpoints on the complex interplay between the divine and human suffering.


Timeless Question: What is the nature of the mind, and how does it relate to the body and the material world?

The Mind-Body Problem: Consciousness and Physicality


Timeless Question: What is the nature of the mind, and how does it relate to the body and the material world?


One of philosophy's long-standing mysteries, the Mind-Body Problem, explores the nature of consciousness and the complex connection between the mind and body. This question investigates whether the body and mind are separate entities or if some interconnection between them defies our sense of intuition regarding the physical world. Philosophers have put forth several theories to explain this complex relationship and solve the mystery of consciousness over the years. René Descartes, who introduced the concept of dualism, provides an essential perspective on the Mind-Body Problem. Descartes believed that the mind and body were fundamentally different substances, with the mind being non-physical and the body entirely material. He thought that the pineal gland mediated the interaction of mental and physical experiences. This dualistic framework has shaped philosophical discourse for centuries, sparking debates about the nature of the mind and its relationship to the physical world.


Unlike dualism, other philosophers have investigated monistic theories emphasizing the unity of mind and body. Gilbert Ryle, for example, criticized Descartes' dualism and proposed the concept of "category mistake," arguing that the mind and body should not be treated as separate substances but as distinct aspects of a unified human being. Materialist and idealist monists say that everything can be reduced to physical or mental components, respectively, challenging the idea of a distinct separation between mind and body.


The study of consciousness is an excellent example of how the Mind-Body Problem is addressed. Neuroscientists and philosophers are working to understand how subjective experiences, thoughts, and emotions emerge from the complex workings of the brain and nervous system. Exploring whether consciousness is an emergent property of physical processes or involves non-physical elements adds layers to the ongoing debate about the Mind-Body Problem. The quest to understand the nature of the mind and its relationship to the physical world continues to captivate scholars from various disciplines, reflecting the enduring fascination with the mystery of consciousness.


Timeless Question: How do individuals willingly surrender some freedoms for societal order and protection?

Social Contract: Individual Liberty and Collective Order


Timeless Question: How do individuals willingly surrender some freedoms for societal order and protection?


This enduring question investigates how individuals, in a hypothetical state of nature, band together and willingly give up certain freedoms to create a structured and protective societal framework. Throughout history, philosophers have contributed to the debate over the Social Contract, providing insights into the dynamics of this implicit agreement.


In the 17th century, Thomas Hobbes articulated a pessimistic view of the state of nature in which life was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Hobbes argued that individuals, recognizing such a condition's inherent instability and chaos, would willingly enter into a Social Contract to establish a powerful sovereign authority. People gain collective security and order in exchange for surrendering some individual freedoms. This perspective emphasizes the state's role in maintaining social cohesion and preventing the anarchy that would prevail without a governing authority. Unlike Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau's social contract theory, outlined in his book "The Social Contract," envisioned a more optimistic view of human nature. Rousseau proposed that individuals were inherently good in their natural state but that the development of private property and societal inequality corrupted them. In the Social Contract, he proposed that individuals voluntarily band together to form a collective body politic, agreeing to be governed by the general will. Rousseau's vision emphasizes the concept of a self-governing society in which individuals voluntarily give up certain liberties for the common good, resulting in a more egalitarian and participatory form of government.


An example illustrating the Social Contract can be seen in establishing legal systems. Individuals agree to abide by a set of laws and regulations in exchange for the protection and order provided by the legal framework. In democratic societies, citizens form laws through representative processes, embodying the idea of individuals willingly sacrificing some autonomy for the more excellent stability and well-being of the collective.


Philosophical debates persist throughout history because they address fundamental aspects of the human experience. As we navigate the complexities of modern life, these timeless questions about human nature, morality, and existence provide invaluable insights. Philosophy, far from being an ancient relic, is still a dynamic and relevant field that encourages us to critically examine our beliefs and values, providing a profound understanding of the human condition. Exploring these debates allows us to connect with the wisdom of the past while illuminating the path to a more thoughtful and informed future.






Travel, business, life hacks, and more.



38 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All
bottom of page