The majority of people, for as long as they can remember, have been conditioned by society to make “wise choices.” We are taught from birth to follow the rules, we learn from nature to take care of ourselves, we are educated to make good life choices, and we learn the appropriate way to behave from our peers. When people do not adapt, society and the people around them grow and change without them. Despite the numerous choices people make in their lives, a surprisingly large amount of people, in some way or another, believe in destiny. If we must adjust to change in order to survive, are our lives and deaths predetermined, or do they depend on wise choices? If our choices are limited to fight or die, as Charles Darwin had theorized, or if they are made in our subconscious as Sigmund Freud had theorized, then is it really our choice? Our paths in life, individually and collectively, may not be planned out for us, but the decisions we make may not be made completely by choice either.
There have been many philosophers who have suggested that we have little to no control over our actions. One particularly spiritual philosopher, Baruch de Espinoza, a “God-intoxicated man,” is a well known determinist. He claimed to hold the same beliefs as ancient hebrews and “all ancient philosophers,” especially the stoics. It’s not hard to find the influence of stoicism on his philosophy, seeing that he believed everything happens for a reason. Because God is omnipresent, there is nothing that is not God and, therefore, nothing that is not under God’s control. This, however, conflicts with the questions raised by religious philosophers that existed long before Spinoza. If God does not want us to sin, then why does he predetermine that we sin? Spinoza would not be the only 17th century philosopher to disregard this paradox.
The founder of modern philosophy, Rene Descartes, elaborated that even our perception of reality depends on a higher power. In his third meditation, after he concluded that his thinking mind existed, whether or not the rest of his perceived reality did, he discussed certain ideas and elements that our minds understand which seemingly come from nowhere. Specific examples included feelings intense heat in the presence of fire and the idea of a specifically shaped stone that cannot exist until it is created. He reasoned that, while ideas may create more ideas, there must have been an original archetype that caused those ideas and embodied the perfection we strive for. To Descartes, human imperfection was evidence that there is a perfect being who would not misconstrue our perception of reality. In his 60th principle of philosophy, he affirmed that God has influence over all of our ideas. Although Descartes was more of a modern skeptic, this is not dissimilar to stoicism, except it seems Descartes embraces that if everything that happens in the material world is out of our control, so too is everything in the nonmaterial world of our mind and soul. His proof that God exists and that our thoughts are not all our own seems to rely heavily on the interaction between material and immaterial worlds, which, given their nature, cannot interact, and the assumption that there was an original idea.
Some philosophers held that the human capacity to choose may be limited by our physical and psychological needs. Minds like Freud’s and Darwin’s are usually considered more scientist than philosopher, yet they pose interesting questions. If we make decisions based on survival or subconscious desires, how are we in control of anything? What we know of our own brain is little to nothing and its inner workings remain a mystery. In the grand scheme of things, really these urges only rule over the fulfilling of our basic human needs. Of course we must drink when we’re thirsty and eat for sustenance, but humans do have a ability to make more complex and irrational choices. At the very least, if we are not completely in charge of our minds, we are definitely not above the human need to eat, sleep, and thrive in an environment.
The most common evidence for the concept that everything happens for a reason is just that; every event has a cause. It’s hard not to come to this conclusion. This was Karl Popper’s criticism of Freud’s psychoanalysis. It’s unfalsifiable. Of course our environment has a massive effect on the choices given to us, but there is too much inconsistency in the argument for fate to say that we can’t control which choice we make. Determinism, in many cases, attempted to answer questions about science and the universe, but it seems that even the most scientific explanation tends to contradict itself and raise more questions.
Works Cited
Wolfson, Harry Austryn. “The Casuality of God.” Philosophy of Spinoza: Unfolding the Latent Processes of His Reasoning, Schocken, N.Y. pp. 296 - 330.
Descartes, ReneÌ, and John Veitch. “Meditation III.” A Discourse on Method, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd., 1929, pp. 104–122.
Warburten, Nigel. A little history of philosophy.Yale University Press. 2011.
Nicely written.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if we'd do better to ask not whether free will is an illusion, but whether it's a continuum: unreflective people are least free (and, I suppose, least bothered by that), philosophers who face reality squarely and honestly are as free as can be. That's Spinoza's line, but of course his freedom was not freedom of the will. Is Stoic/deterministic/fatalistic freedom oxymoronic? It definitely appears to be paradoxical, and thus at the expense of more reflective people. So, on our continuum we'd better make room for laughter. Otherwise the joke's entirely on us.
But, there's also another helpful perspective: the pragmatic affirmation of free will as our "first act of free will"...
I definitely agree. Those who reflect are not nearly as trapped in the path laid out for them, yet not as content. It may just be that I prefer the idea of free will, but it seems like Spinoza's spiritual freedom is just freedom from freedom. I will definitely have to expand on pragmatism in my second installment.
Delete