Is Freedom to Choose an Illusion?
“A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants.”
As we’re well aware, even the smallest action sets off a ripple effect that resonates through time like waves. But the true essence lies in the control exercised over each action. Am I driven by whim, without any reason, or am I just a vessel driven by an intricate web of cause and effect? Arthur Schopenhauer put it this way: “A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants.” Could it be that despite our belief that we can make a choice, this belief is merely an illusion?
We don’t act without reason. Without a divine perspective that captures the whole picture, I am unable to fully comprehend the series of reasons for my actions. Yet there is an undeniable disinterest in such a search, and furthermore an acceptance of this truth. Any discourse on causality and free will inevitably raises the perennial question: “Does life lose its meaning if our freedom to choose is just an illusion?” This feeling often leads me to ponder whether our understanding of causality is inherently flawed, perhaps influenced by the negative connotation attached to it by religious doctrines.
Indeed, if causality operates smoothly in the physical world and the body is subject to this causality, it seems there is only one way to discuss free action: another realm of existence where laws beyond physics apply. Theistic religions resolve this situation with the existence of a spiritual entity separate from the material body, not bound by the rules of the physical world. This dualism allows for the accountability of individuals’ actions, facilitating judgment. However, without resorting to a spiritual second level of existence, we can reconsider this issue from another perspective, reminiscent of Baruch Spinoza. In his masterpiece “Ethics,” Spinoza asserts that acting without reason is not freedom. We must reevaluate our definition of freedom. If you’re thinking, “Are we changing the definition of freedom and deceiving ourselves into believing we’re not free?” No, that’s not what I mean. What suggests that free will is essential and that you lack it? Consciousness. But what does that entail? However, Spinoza argues that consciousness is not moral freedom; the mind is already part of the body, and thought and sensation describe the same thing in different appearances. According to him, it’s impossible for our bodies to be subject to causality while our minds are not.
Oscar Wilde shares a tale about free will:
Once upon a time, there was a magnet, and in its close neighborhood lived some steel filings. One day, two or three little filings felt a sudden desire to go and visit the magnet, and they began to talk about what a pleasant thing it would be to do. Other filings nearby heard their conversation, and they too became infected with the same desire. “Why not go today?” said one of them, but others were of the opinion that it would be better to wait till tomorrow. While they talked, they moved always nearer and nearer, without realizing that they had moved. Then at last, the impatient ones prevailed, and with one irresistible impulse, the whole body cried out, “There is no use waiting. We will go today. We will go now. We will go at once.” And then in one unanimous mass, they swept along, and in another moment were clinging fast to the magnet on every side. Then the magnet smiled — for the steel filings had no doubt at all that they were paying that visit of their own free will.
As the story implies, we aspire to believe that we act based on our free will, yet regrettably, this notion is untrue. However, Spinoza doesn’t approach this with a negative connotation that suggests a deficiency. According to him, true freedom is achieved when one becomes conscious of the necessary factors that determine their actions and comprehends them. Essentially, liberation from illusions entails this awareness. It involves recognizing the reasons behind our actions, which diminishes the power of compulsion over us. Admittedly, this doesn’t entail complete liberation from the influence of reasons; indeed, we may not even perceive most of them. The essence lies in understanding the determinants underlying our emotions and actions.
For instance, there’s a neurochemical explanation for what we term “love.” You experience love due to specific reasons in your brain, and if it’s not just anyone but a particular individual, it’s because of underlying reasons in your subconscious. If I were to provide you with a detailed breakdown, would you say, “Oh, alright, there are reasons, then this isn’t genuine love anyway, I won’t fall in love”? -No, you wouldn’t. Admittedly, there’s a determinism rooted in biological, cultural, and experiential factors. Without this determination, it would be random. Hence, the potential to perceive causality as something daunting, something to evade, resonates in Spinoza’s philosophy. Asserting that, apart from oneself, there exists free will in nature and that one can transcend compulsion is solely a human-centered egoistic viewpoint. It’s essentially self-deception. Perhaps it echoes an ancient quest, a yearning for divinity.
