Sigmund Freud is a well-known psychologist and philosopher. He is widely known for his strange psychological reasoning and comparisons between children and sex. But for the purposes of this essay, the focus will be more on his philosophical view of determinism in his book Psychopathology of Everyday Life. Many philosophers see Sigmund Freud as a hard determinist. Most, however, consider him more of a soft determinist. To fully understand his views, you need to first define a few things. To make things work, you need to know what free will, determinism, and freedom really mean in the idea of ​​philosophy. Free will is the apparent human ability to make choices that are not externally determined. Determinism is the belief that all events are caused by things that happened before them and that people have no real ability to make choices or control what happens. Freedom is the quality, especially of the will or individual, of not being totally constrained or able to choose between alternative actions in identical circumstances. Freedom can be divided into three main degrees: libertarianism, soft determinism, and hard determinism. Libertarianism is the view that freedom exists. In other words, you have a choice in everything you do: you choose your destiny. A soft determinist (also known as compatibilism) is one who believes that determinism is true, but that freedom and responsibility can exist despite the truth of determinism, or that you have a choice about which path to take. A hard determinist is one who believes that freedom and responsibility do not exist, or in other words, that you have no choice over your destiny. Now that the main definitions have been eliminated, the journey to understanding Freud can continue. Freud stepped sideways into… middle of paper… something, or is made or driven to do something, speaks of the id” (Palmer 228). What Peters is saying is that Freud cannot make up his mind Freud tries to do the Ego and the Id at the same time when it doesn't work. Peters believes that only one or the other can explain something at a time. A person cannot be guided by animal instinct (id) and by conscious thought (ego). Peters makes a very valid point in this aspect he is a very confused man He wants an argument to work in two different ways, which is a very difficult thing to do. His thoughts about the unconscious are determined. while conscious is free will provides great points debunking Freud's thinking about how a person has a free and determined life outcome Some may think that Freud has no idea what he is talking about and should just stick to psychology.