Introduction
Although this theme is somewhat of an old chestnut and
there is no real resolution, other than the rather obvious conclusion one needs
to live one's life as if we are free, it nevertheless offers plenty of
interesting group discussions.
The problem is there is such a wealth of information it becomes
difficult to decide just how much to include in this summary. For instance I
haven’t examined how the grand universe of relativity does not gel with quantum
theory as a mystery, to fuel the freewill camp. But this need not be cause for
concern as I have provided references at the end of the paper.
Accordingly, I have attempted a succinct summary of those
aspects that I think will invite discussion to illustrate differing
philosopher’s conclusions from pre-christian times in ancient Greece to
modernity.
But on the question of science a point to mention is
that for most of the history of philosophy it was inextricably linked to
science as it is only in recent times the two have become separated. But
looking back at the ancient Greek world, as the home of western philosophy, one
can reliably conclude most of existence was predicated on appeasements to the
GOD(s) so that to be in sync meant prosperity to exist in a harmonious state of
being. If not you are likely to feel miserable so you better sort that out with
Zeus, the sky and thunder GOD, who ruled as king
of the gods.
Hence, the idea of freedom was coupled with the idea to be in sync
with the gods to exist in a harmonious state. One’s emotion informed the
individual if that state of being was in harmony with the determined pathway or
not.
Zeus, as the chief GOD maintained order, with lesser
GODs believed to despise man’s greatness; so the idea took root of a sense of
impiety, a false pride which consumed individuals in what we might think of
today as hubris. The unjust were not always punished in their lifetime so that
legacy became part of heredity, guilt and vengeance. There was a strong
correlation to the idea of acting unethically brought with it retribution of
one kind or another.
But in the context of continued philosophical inquiry
and scientific knowledge to ponder the big questions of life, it was realized
some questions that lie outside of science led to the idea of meta- physics for
such subjects.
The originator of the idea of meta- physics was Aristotle
whose ideas still permeate modernity.
He was the first philosopher to attempt to resolve the
quandary of determinism versus free will by introducing the idea you can have
both incorporated in his idea of compatibilism.
Compatibilism holds the universal laws of nature are true but are not
compromised by the idea of a personal freedom to make moral choices. This
is often referred to as a soft determinism. Those who oppose this view are
referred to as incompatibilists. There are arguments for and against these
views I will examine in detail later on which continue today.
A tribute to Aristotle’s ideas is they remained virtually unchallenged for over a thousand years, remaining relevant in the Christian, Muslim and Jewish religions from a religious philosophical perspective. The idea of individual moral responsibility was a central theme. The point was made that if we are unable to alter the consequences of sickness or ill-advised actions, what is the point to life?
Aristotle was a major influence on the Abrahamic Religions, particularly during the 12th & 13th century when they became available in Latin. He was also a major Influence on Aquinas (1225-74) in respect to his idea that knowledge is gained from the reports of the senses.
In summary one needs to keep in mind in the western
tradition the underlying influence of the Jewish Christian tradition. The
New Testament parables and stories don’t mention the idea of free will or
determinism but instead mention matters of the heart. Early Christianity didn’t
involve any notion of free will except for the disputed passages of St Paul.
But, later on Christianity was influenced by the
Philosophy of the Stoics but in essence always sought to support the idea of
freedom to make moral choices.
Saint Augustine (354–430)
His authority
was far reaching and supplanted that of Aristotle’s, to be invoked on both
sides of the Reformation.
His ideas on
the problem of evil and on free will remain a reference point today.
According to
Augustine the existence of goodness must allow evil to exist, which is solely
the fault of humans.
But thereafter
medieval philosophers continued to talk about moral principles as "eternal
laws" which were classified as spirit-like objects.
Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) similarly argued for a form of freedom to underpin
Christianity which still remains relevant in the official theology of
modernity.
René Descartes (1596 -1650)
Descartes identified freedom with actions and rejected
the idea they are predetermined.
He identified the mind –body proposition (rejected
today) where the mind encompassed our thoughts whilst the body was a
representation of the material world.
The physical world was deterministic whilst the mind was
considered underdetermined.
His erroneous explanation for the freedom within the
mind to change things in the material world was because he thought this was
made possible by virtue of the pineal gland in the brain.
Descartes' proposition to attribute freedom to the mind
and determinism within the body was also reflected in Immanuel Kant’s
(1724-1804) philosophy.
His determinism for the material world was influenced by
Newton's deterministic laws of nature.
Kant had recognized the problem of
the human mind and provided a solution as to how we can escape from the
confines of our mind to discern a reality of an outside world physically beyond
it.
Kant’s solution posited that prior
known truths are insufficient to describe metaphysics but from prior knowledge
(which he called A priori) the mind is capable of joining up with analysis to
understand how to proceed.
Kant argued the mind gives objects some of their characteristics in accord with
its compliant nature to bring uniformity within its structured conceptual
capability.
Frederick Nietzsche (1844 – 1900) on the other hand, regarded Kant’s ideas to be fatally flawed. He thought his views did not reflect our existential reality, since he (Kant) relied too heavily on his invented universal A priori laws. Nietzsche's central themes of eternal recurrence and will to power might be regarded in some respects as deterministic, particularly in his rallying call to develop a love of fate. Therein he would seem to adopt a casual deterministic perspective.
Hegel’s dialectic (1770-1831)
Hegel introduced the idea of the dialectic which
presupposes a synthesis between two opposing views to lead ultimately to the
truth in the form of the thinking spirit. Hegel introduced this idea which
is referred to as his dialectic- as a reconciliation for opposing views into
the spirit's age of determined outcomes. Like Nietzsche he was also critical of
Kant’s philosophy.
Soren Kierkegaard (1813.-1855) was initially influenced by the work of Augustine who talked about the problem of evil in the world.
He regarded the idea of free will as a big
nothing but was concerned as to how we come to grips with the
reality of our tenuous existence. His synthesis was predicated
on the idea of anchoring the self to an unconditional commitment to GOD or
a cause to ensure one is able to live a spirituality
uplifting balanced life.
The synthesis talks about ensuring one maintains a
balance between freedom and necessity, the finite and the infinite and the
present versus eternal. He is regarded as the father of the existential
movement that began in the 1930’s and peaked after World War 2. Both
Kierkegaard and Nietzsche also contributed to Existential therapy, arising from
existentialism. Concepts such as personal responsibility and the will to power
realized psychological wellness and balance.
Existentialism embraced a number of influential
philosophers. They included Albert Camus and Maurice Merleau-Ponty in France
and Edmund Husserl in Germany.
Jean Paul Sartre enjoyed extraordinary success in the
40s, along with his life partner Simone de Bouvier, to create a cult like
following from the youthful intelligence of that era.
Types of Determinism
To reiterate in a general sense Determinism assumes
everything that happens in the universe and in our existence is by virtue of
various facts operating under universal laws.
Casual determinism is the idea that every event is as a consequence and
preceded by antecedent events and/or conditions, together with the laws of
nature.
For instance we might have different tastes for things as a consequence of prior
neural activity favouring one choice over another to give way to different
structures. That idea envisages those antecedents would stretch back in time to
creation.
Fatalistic Determinism suggests our existence and its outcomes are predetermined.
In a general sense one might propose certain things are fated to happen given
the way this has happened in the past, as in history repeats.
This does not in itself need to contradict deterministic natural laws, but
rather is a matter of discerning the way that history tends to be repeated.
Logical determinism doesn’t pay any undue attention to the content of the universal laws of nature but rather rests on the assertion of the repetition of truth that emerges as facts, even though we may not know the true propositions that give rise to those outcomes at the time. If one accepts this timeless proposition of truth then one's past present and future actions are governed deterministically in this way.
The argument then goes that one must by necessity make decisions as one does in the future in the absence of free will. The decisions might feel as if we are freely making those decisions but that freedom is illusory.
Summing up the determinists view.
On the macro level the deterministic can rest with the
certainty that indeed the laws of nature are unbreakable. It is a basic tenet
of modern day physics that this is so and that they are universal. One could
also argue the Christian tradition suggests those of devout intent, do so, to
lead lives in whom they believe, even though actualities of their lives
are other than that of their choosing. That implies a surrendering of free
will. Furthermore the more appealing notion of a mixture of freedom
and determinism (compatalism) to the hard determinist’s perspective is just a
bodge. In modernity some neuroscientists contend the brain and all of its outputs,
including one’s choices, are beyond one’s physical control. Hence they
believe the idea of free will is illusory, just as a computer is always subject
to its programing. That thinking applies equally to the future when
we start to use quantum computers, predicated on quantum
mechanics, since the output remains subject to programming or
programmed machine learning.
From a psychological viewpoint the argument is that abandoning the notion of freewill provides a release from the burden and agony of decision making. They claim, paradoxically, that it gives impetus to respond positively to their fate but still live a life to the fullest. People who believe in this way say they paradoxically feel free. But I think this is more of a matter of how one responds to outcomes, as in a way of coping. The way we respond also infers a degree of freedom, just as to decide not to make a decision, remains an alternative choice.
The middle ground – Compatibilism
To reiterate, you will recall I talked about Aristotle
who was the one to first introduce the idea of compatibilism to
philosophy.
The view is, notwithstanding the universal laws of
nature inclusive of probabilities that give rise to the truth of a
deterministic world, our minds aren’t subject to cause and effect and hence we
have a facility for free will.
The modern day thematic
Generally speaking the thematic for modern western
thinking is to embrace the idea of free will. The idea has become embedded
in our culture. After all our society and its justice system has evolved under
the Christian Jewish belief we have free will. In other words we are responsible
morally for our actions unless rendered insane. If one was to accept the
proposition this wasn’t the case wouldn’t that invite a chaotic outcome for
society?
But In most respects we accept one has varied choices
and we routinely revert to post action analysis to learn the lessons from the
past to help guide us in the future. In fact this might be viewed as the
getting of wisdom?
On the other hand determinism assumes those choices are
illusory. On one’s first impression determinism might appear on the face to
contradict common sense, but there is ample grounds to support this view or in
the writer's opinion the idea of compatibilism.
Summing up a few discussion points
The point I think worth debating is the question of how
we determine moral behaviours. For the free will advocates the proposition is
our world would collapse as no one technically could be held responsible for
their actions. In fact some studies have been carried out where students were
quizzed on behaviours assuming they believed in determinism when faced with the
opportunity to cheat in exams. Indeed the social experiments did prove the
group that identified as deterministic were more likely to cheat than those
believing in free will.
But I think we need to treat such social experiments with a grain of salt, as they are contrived and just because one determinist will cheat so too will the other who believes in free will.
Adherents to determinism such as psychologist Sam Harris point out society might become more compassionate and understand better how to protect itself from those who act immorally through pre-determined causes. Harris points out social experiments that posit out brain patterns predetermines decisions before we consciously think we are actually freely making such decisions.
The fact is we live our lives as if we are free to choose but in many ways there is evidence of a high degree of determinism or fate if you will that determines outcome. Having an open mind on the question may well lead us to a more compassionate view of others actions and society in general. Kierkegaard viewed freewill as a big nothing.
References
https://www.goodtherapy.org/learn-about-therapy/types/existential-psychotherapy
https://www.britannica.com/topic/problem-of-moral-responsibility
https://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/september/compatibilism-perry-philosophy-091511.html
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/basics/free-will
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incompatibilism-arguments/
No comments:
Post a Comment