Final answer:
Philosophical arguments for and against necessitarianism range from the libertarian perspective emphasizing human freedom to Leibniz's notion of the best possible world, with critics questioning the assumptions underlying these arguments.
Step-by-step explanation:
The debate around necessitarianism, the philosophical position that the world could not be otherwise, involves several arguments. Those who support libertarian free will posit that human beings have genuine freedom to choose and that our experience suggests this freedom is real. On the other hand, thinkers like Leibniz argue that from a divine perspective, the existing world with all its imperfections is the best possible world and, in this sense, necessary. The teleological argument for the existence of God similarly contends that the intricate design observed in the world implies a creator, presenting a form of necessitarian thought that the world is crafted with purpose.
Yet, criticism of necessitarianism exists, often highlighting the limitations of human knowledge and questioning the rational compelling nature of such arguments. Some leverage the concept of liberty to argue against a predetermined existence, suggesting true liberty involves freely striving towards the good without being necessitated by external or internal forces. These philosophical discourses are valuable as they prompt reflection and critical thought, altering our beliefs about freedom, determinism, and the nature of existence.