Is Anyone Really ‘Free’?
Sartre vs. Nietzsche on Free Will
Introduction
The title for this article is a question which has concerned me for about six months now: Are we really free? and do we possess free will? At the beginning of these musings, the idea of us not having free will crippled me. I’d become severely unmotivated because, if I didn’t have free will, then what was the point of doing anything? This is a common existential question, a philosophy both Sartre and Nietzsche wrote on. I’ve now come to terms with these two ideas and opposing sides, and I can either accept that we do possess free will, or that everything has been predetermined.
Before beginning, I just wanted to give a heads up that this is a purely philosophical article. Although I will briefly mention science, I am by no means an expert in either of these fields (which may be apparent very soon). I’m just some kid studying for a commerce degree.
Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980)
Sartre was a French existentialist philosopher and the author of several novels, plays, and philosophy books such as Nausea, The Age of Reason, Being and Nothingness, and Existentialism is Humanism. Despite trying to decline it, Sartre was the winner of the 1964 Nobel Prize in Literature. His influence towards existential philosophy can still be seen today.
Sartre was quite famous during his lifetime. He was friends with the Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, and maintained a 51-year open relationship with Simone de Beauvoir (another prominent French philosopher) all the way until his death. He was a frequent amphetamine user and smoker, and also had exotropia. This contributed to his going blind shortly before his health took a sharp fall and he died.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900)
Nietzsche was a German philosopher who published many influential existential works in his short lifetime. Books such as Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Beyond Good and Evil, and Human, All Too Human, are among the most important and influential modern philosophy books. He influenced a variety of thinkers such as Camus, Heidegger, Jung, and even Sartre himself — most likely Freud as well.
In his later life, Nietzsche suffered from dementia, paralysis, and pneumonia, and frequently had strokes which ultimately led to his insanity and death. After his death, his sister — an antisemite — altered some of his work to reflect the antisemite sentiment popular in Germany at the time. Nietzsche’s altered work went on to fuel the Nazi and fascist regime of Germany that came later. He is often mislabeled and misremembered because of that.
Nietzsche is most famously quoted as writing ‘God is dead… And we have killed him,’ and created the idea of the Superman (not the hero), also known as Übermensch.
Definition of ‘Free Will’
Oxford Dictionary defines ‘free will’ as the power to make your own decisions about what to do, without being controlled by God, fate or circumstances. Merriam-Webster defines it as a voluntary choice or decision.
With these definitions, we can see that having free will means one is able to make their own decisions without intervention from a third party. But, if we consider influence as a third party, we see that lots of our decisions are based on routine, our parents, and what we hear. Are our choices still our choices then? Yes, we may be making the decision but a circumstance such as influence, or listening to what others say, completely alters the way we think — in a sense we are conforming.
What Does Being Free Mean?
We established that being able to make decisions without interference is free will. If we discount influence (parental, etc.) as a circumstance, then we’re on the right path to move forward.
So, what is it we’re trying to accomplish through free will? Simply the ability to be in full control of every decision you make? Having control over the outcome of each decision? Freedom? I would think the latter of the three: the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint, and, the state of being physically unrestricted and able to move easily as Oxford Languages describes it.
After a quick Google search and racking my brain, I chose three types of freedom which I thought were the most encompassing and important towards constituting freedom, and which may help us understand what freedom is.
The First Definition
Looking at the first definition, there are already problems to be run into. As an aside, this first definition seems the complete opposite of Orwell’s Oceania in 1984. But, bringing it to the real world, I think labelling it freedom of expression rounds it up nicely. There’s the surface level expression such as the way one dresses, and then, going deeper, belief and self-awareness. To get really deep into this, however, I think we have to include extreme instances as legitimate expressions of free will. Being able to strip naked in public as well as being able to make racist/derogatory comments, etc. (there are a variety of other things that could be mentioned here). Essentially, legality, morality, and self-awareness play a part in this. In no way am I condoning or suggesting any of this behaviour, but to look at truly being free, we must consider anything and everything.
There are hundreds of other things which could be classified as subcategories to freedom of expression, such as freedom of religion, the press, association, and belief.
So, if we ignore legality as being a constraint, and assume morality is a given, then we are able to move forward.
The Second Definition
Looking at the second definition, I think we could use the terms financial freedom and freedom of movement and account for it. Not having financial freedom restricts one’s ability to do things. It’s quite materialistic, but it’s true. In extreme cases, it can potentially mean being without shelter, food, or water — the basic necessities. One could say, however, that these basic necessities restrict freedom in some way.
Although it seems stupid, having to eat food and drink water technically restricts one’s free will. Is eating a voluntary decision. Not always. Your body forces you to eat at a certain point of starvation. So here it sounds like our body is somewhat holding back our mind. Again, if we discount the need for basic necessities as restricting our free will then financial freedom is accounted for. We’re starting to move into freedom from earthly desires here, common in Eastern Asian philosophy, but I don’t want to get into that.
Freedom of movement means being able to go wherever one wants whenever one wants with regards to the time it takes to travel. This is extremely key to freedom, as some people are not able to relocate due to the country they live in, or because they are glued to a job. Freedom of movement includes freedom from slavery and bondage.
Again, we’re kind of running into a dead-end here. Even if one were to check off these boxes — first of all, we’d most likely call them a nutcase, shun them, and they would probably get into social trouble—we still restrict ourselves from true freedom through thought and indecision, as well as through obeying legal and moral codes. In this section, I was trying to show that there are too many factors and things technically interfering with our freedom, and so there is no true freedom. But, even without the existence of true freedom, I believe one can still possess free will — to some extent.
However, not being what we considered ‘free’ in any of these areas could be a voluntary decision itself, and so not checking off these boxes could be an expression of freedom. Some consider this indifference as being truly free, and so we could start entertaining the idea of freedom potentially being a paradox.
As an example, to achieve financial freedom, let’s assume that one has to work hard. Once they achieve a point of financial freedom, they are still tied to the things that helped them attain that freedom. This person also had to undergo a period in which they were certainly not free, in which they worked hard to gain the capital — though this could be considered as freedom if the choice were voluntary. So, is free will tied to freedom? It may not be. Because, if one has free will, then one would have the option of choosing to be free or not. But enough with the technicalities and examination of definitions here, let’s get onto the main discussions on free will.
Sartre’s Free Will
Sartre believes in something called radical free will, meaning that we are free to do whatever we want. He believes that one is free because there are consequences resulting from the actions and that this responsibility is taken upon oneself. He also believed that one’s past directly had an influence on present decisions.
Part of the idea of existentialism itself is that we are free to do whatever we want (often this idea of certain freedom and lack of direction is what leads people towards having existential crises). Many find this freedom frightening, because an order is comfortable and generally without conflict, and I feel this is often the reason why many turn to existential philosophy.
‘Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does. It is up to you to give [life] a meaning.’
— Jean-Paul Sartre, from: Being and Nothingness
In Sartre’s novel The Age of Reason, the main character’s idea of free will seems to revolve around a lack of obligation and responsibility. He tries not to get himself too involved in other people’s lives, and, being a philosophy teacher, believes this to be his expression of freedom. But by not getting involved, he is also restricting his freedom in some way, though he doesn’t see the contradiction at the novel’s start. Of course, one could always make the argument that the character actually is possessing free will because he voluntarily chooses not to engage.
‘Freedom is what we do to what is done to us.’
— Jean-Paul Sartre
Nietzsche’s Opinion on Free Will
Nietzsche believes in eternal recurrence (also known as eternal return): that we have already, and will continue to, exist over and over again an infinite number of times. This idea is somewhat related to the first law of thermodynamics, stating that energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. Philosophy starts to more deeply intertwine with physics here (which I know absolutely nothing about) if one were to elaborate.
Nietzsche’s idea was inspired by Pythagoras (570–495BC) and several German predecessors, who all believed that things were bound to reoccur after certain periods of time. Nietzsche first mentioned this concept in his work The Gay Science (1882) and later expounded upon it in Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883–1885).
I find that this quote by Nietzsche sums up his opinion:
“Must not all things that can run have already run along this lane? Must not all things that can happen have already happened, been done, run past?”
— Friedrich Nietzsche, from: Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Nietzsche was so obsessed with the idea of eternal return that he believed humans would find greatness in amor fati (Latin for ‘love of fate’): a love in the idea that everything that has passed and has yet to pass, is set. It is believed this idea originated with the Greeks and the Stoics of Ancient Rome.
Do Theories of Time Have Any Merit in Regard to Free Will
Sartre
Sartre’s ideas aren’t directly linked to any one theory on time. I will make the connection, however, that his ideas on radical free will, and that our decisions/actions are made because of past events, to somewhat follow the growing block theory. The theory is centred around the idea that the future is not real, only the past and present are. It’s called the growing block because the block of what is considered real grows as time passes and as the present changes.
Nietzsche
Nietzsche believing everything is predetermined (thus, we don’t have free will) relates to a theory of time called fatalism. Fatalism is often linked to God and theology, but since Nietzsche believed God to be dead, I think it’s fair to say he believed in fatalism in the sense that fate occurs not as a result of a religious entity. It could also be said that Nietzsche believed in predeterminism (as I’ve used the word ‘predetermined’ several times), but the one big distinction comes with Nietzsche believing that fate guides us, and thus I think fatalism suits him better.
Borges
As I’m currently in the process of reading Labyrinths by the Argentinian great Borges, I stumbled upon a few lines in the first short story, Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius that I felt was relevant to this part of the article.
‘…it reasons that the present is indefinite, that the future has no reality other than as a present hope, that the past has no reality than as a present memory.’
— Jorge Luis Borges, from: Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius
Borges’s quote here represents a theory of time called presentism. If this were to be true, it would discount Nietzsche’s theory. Presentism believes that only the present exists and is real; things in the present can change, but we are still always in the present. This is somewhat like what Sartre believes, with the exception that Sartre believes that the past is directly relevant to the present.
‘Another school declares that all time has already transpired and that our life is only the crepuscular and no doubt falisified and mutilated memory or reflection of an irrecoverable process.’
-Jorge Luis Borges, from: Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius
Borges’s second quote aligns more with Nietzsche’s fatalism, describing that everything is already determined and that we’re just living through it; fated on a path that we may think we have control over, but which we are ultimately powerless to changing.
Answering the questions of if theories of time had to do with free will: I think most definitely so. The theories of time are linked to each philosopher’s idea on free will. The idea of whether time is predetermined, if it always becoming new, or if we are forever in the present, all help us to see each philosopher’s point of view.
To finish off this section I thought I’d include a quote by famed polymath Bertrand Russell:
‘Both in thought and in feeling, even though time be real, to realize the unimportance of time is the gate to wisdom.’
-Bertrand Russell, from: Mysticism and Logic, and Other Essays
The Big Bang Theory & Free Will
The idea of the Big Bang — and the idea of the universe working like a balloon — combined with Nietzsche’s eternal recurrence made me wonder: If the universe collapses in on itself again and expands, would everything turn out the exact same again? I don’t think there are any rules governing the creation of the universe and so thinking about this with an earthly mind doesn’t seem the right approach — I think some imagination may be needed.
Let’s assume that this does happen, and so the universe collapses upon itself over and over again. Even if the world were to be different, if the collapsing and reforming were to happen an infinite number of times eventually we would return to the exact same universe, and there would be no significant lapse (or no lapse at all) in time from our consciousness. But would our consciousness really form again? There’s no way to prove this (at least presently I guess) and so it is only in thought.
The biggest counter argument to this is what is known as the ‘heat death of the universe’ developed by Lord Kelvin. It involves the laws of thermodynamics and the maximization of entropy. Once the universe reaches its maximum entropy (which is always increasing), entropy will stop increasing and everything will come to a halt.
Other Ways to Look at Free Will
Albert Camus (1913–1960)
By digging a bit deeper, we can see that one of Camus’ most famous quotes from The Myth of Sisyphus is in itself an act of free will:
‘There is only one serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide.’
Although suicide is often avoided in conversation because it carries a negative connotation (rightly so, though I would argue that suicide is not inherently ‘bad’), having the option to commit suicide is an example of free will. I’m not encouraging committing suicide, I’m merely saying that having the option is free will.
Camus also considers achievement as prohibiting freedom to some extent. He wrote in a notebook of his:
‘An achievement is a bondage. It obliges one to a higher achievement.’
This second quote relates to what I was talking about before in regard to financial freedom. Being bound by achievement may be a good thing (or not), regardless, it still binds you into achieving more.
P. D. Ouspensky (1878–1947)
An author and esotericist, Ouspensky’s ideas aligned much with Nietzsche’s, except on one large point. Ouspensky believed in eternal recurrence — and that one would restart their life the moment after death — but he differed in his idea that the infinite loop of sameness could be broken (unlike what Nietzsche thought), and a new, different life could be achieved.
Ouspensky advocated for people to try and change their lives even though their life be set. Of course, if the idea of eternal recurrence were true, one would’ve already infinitely done the exact same things, but Ouspensky believed it could be altered through effort (plus, it’s uplifting).
Desire is when you do what you want, will is when you can do what you do not want.
-P. D. Ouspensky, from: The Fourth Way
I must say that I think Ouspensky’s point is a little contradictory —he is definitely not a fatalist like Nietzsche, more of a predeterminist with a twist — but his ideas are still valuable.
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)
Emerson deals with free will in a different way. He wrote about the idea of self-reliance. Self-reliance deals with not conforming to popular opinion or culture (which squashes free will to some extent). It also urges people to be confident in their own opinions, interests, instincts, which reiterates the point of not conforming. Based on just this, I would say that Emerson believes in free will, and he offers a slightly different perspective as compared to Sartre.
‘To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment’
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860)
There is one specific thing I wanted to mention about Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer looked at books almost the same way some of us look at screens today. He thought that by reading too much one may become stupid; relying too much on books for wisdom and opinions and then becoming unable to do it (similar to Emerson’s self-reliance). Schopenhauer also thought that one may become too arrogant about their knowledge (and knowledge is only knowledge, one may wonder what the point of having knowledge is if it isn’t practical).
This ties into free will in what I talked about earlier on with Emerson: being able to make your own decisions without external influence and pressure.
As a humble Socrates once said:
‘I know that I know nothing.’
Donnie Darko (2001) by Richard Kelly
This is a film, but I just had to add it in here. It deals with time travel and, spoiler, at the end of the movie, Donnie expresses his free will. Donnie is lying in bed and, having seen how things will play out over the course of the movie (he gets a glimpse of the future), allows the falling engine jet to crush him and thus expresses his free will through sacrifice.
Conclusion and My Opinion
So, to answer the question: Are we really free? There is no empirical or logical way (at least that I’m aware of) to come to a definite answer; it’s all in theory. I’ve thought about this for a while, and at the current moment the optimist in me says ‘yes, we have free will.’ But in all honesty, I feel like I side with Nietzsche in this, in believing not only in the idea of predetermined will, but in eternal recurrence as well. I must add though that Ouspensky’s idea of being able to change one’s fate along with Emerson’s self-reliance appeal to me greatly.
One must understand as well that these thinkers were working off the knowledge available in their time period, and so, although their ideas are still infinitely valuable, they are dated to that time period and ignorant to the advances in knowledge and the sciences.
Is me writing this an act of free will, or did fate lead me to it — to write these exact words?
Please let me know your thoughts and opinions on this topic by leaving a comment. Why do you think we have free will or do not? I feel like I know so little about this subject on the whole because it is so vast, and so I apologize if it feels incomplete or if something important is missing. I tried to focus strictly on the philosophical part and not worry so much about the science involved in it, which definitely limits the depth in which I can talk about this subject.
If you liked this article and want to read more click here and follow me. I post articles about books, philosophy, and movies — everything and anything that I enjoy talking about.
