For discussing on free will,both Nietzche and Shopenhauer distinguished the traditional notion

of free will from their understanding of free will.Schopenahuer approached free will from an
abstract point of view as he claims that neccesity and consequences are interchangeable,that is
why a free will would be of a kind that was not determined by grounds.On the other
hand,Nietzche introduced two kinds of free will:desert free will and agency free will.Gemes
describes desert will by saying “. It will be helpful then to separate deserts responsibility, the kind
of responsibility which is a precondition of deserved punishment and rewards, and agency
responsibility.”(Geme,322) Nietzche rejects the desert free will as he says in the Human,all too
human “ one is not responsible for anything, not for his nature, nor his motives.”(Human,all too
human,324) By evaluating those descriptions they end up in twi different notion of free will.
I think there is sufficient explanation of the acts of willing in human persons. If one elude
herself from the traditional concept of free will which includes predominantly the freedom of
doing what one wills, then one would be enable to examine more than just physical freedom and
see if she is free in herself. That is what both Nietzche and Schopenhauer tried to do.
Schopenhauer claims that people have tendencies according to their characters and their willing is
strongly tied to their character. One can assert that she can will both X and the opposite of X at
the same time, then one must know that she is in an illusion.What drag along us to such thoughts
is our imagination which enable us to imagine doing opposite things.However,in reality it is not
possible. Because according to Schopenhauer, in order to will two contradictory things,one must
be other than herself which is impossible. Therefore, for Schopenhauer, a person who inclined to
commit a crime will be commit a crime under certain conditions. However, one would not even
know that he would commit a crime unless necessary conditions are arranged. I agree with
Schopenhauer that people have tendencies which stem from their character which is
inborn,individual,constant and empirical.
When it comes to Nietzche,he seems more open to exceptions and affirms the agency free will.
His exception is “sovereign individual which he describes as” ‘proud’, ‘quivering in every muscle’,
‘aware of his superiority’, ‘like only to himself ’, ‘bound to honour his peers’ “(Gemes,326) According
to Nietzche ” to have a character is to have a stable, unified, and integrated, hierarchy of drives”
(Gemes,327) and most of the people have no character as they are exposed to so many competing
forces both externally and internally that they lack of those qualities in themselves. However,he
also claims that one should give up this predetermined notion of personhood,soul or unity and be
aware of that one can create a new character by showing hard effort. Therefore, Nietzche claims
that one is able to distinguish herself from competing forces, see those imperatives from a
distance,organize her mind and create a new character. Even though, only a few selected can
achieve to become a sovereign individual “Nietzsche sets autonomy as a goal”(Gemes,337)
To conclude, I agree with Schopenhauer’s notion of free will that “whatever happens,necessarily
happens”(Schopenhauer,FW,79).