Determinism tells us that everything in nature is the result of the cause and effect of preexisting causes. Since everything is predetermined, that is, mapped out for you before birth, then humans have absolutely no free will. With determinism fatalism exists, your death-day has been chosen and you can’t escape it, no matter what you do. In believing determinism, you support the idea of supernatural powers. You would also discredit personal responsibility, believing that if you are doing what you are destined to do, no matter how bad it is, it’s not your fault - you were born that way. Thinkers like Skinner and Freud were determinists. Indeterminism tells us that freedom and responsibility are interchangeable. That humans have the ability to size up a situation, look at the options and choose the one best for them. With indeterminism, the possibility of choice exists and the outcomes are always unknown. It proposes the idea that humans take responsibility for who they are, what they do, and how they live their life - that their life’s map is absolutely not drawn out ahead of time and that we are in the driver’s seat. Thinkers like Aristotle, Sartre and Ellis were indeterminists.
Belief in indeterminism is not for the powerless. It combines common sense and ownership in our lives, and offers a chance for humans to define themselves uniquely based off their individual experiences. It provides empowerment over self that determinism takes away. In contrast to determinism, Sartre proposed that every human is born a blank slate. Character, as he says, is a learned skill in which we gain through practice and study as we would for any subject in school. We choose actions that define our personality and thus determines our character. In simple terms, we are who we choose to be. Bad behavior is the result of someone who doesn’t train themselves to be better, similar to failing a class because you chose not to do any homework.
We must condition ourselves to be the best version of self as possible, and as Aristotle would argue, we are in control of our future regardless of past experience. Freud on the other hand would join the argument with a hard stance that we are not in control of our future. That the past is governing our future, particularly the first five years of a person’s life. He didn’t believe in Sartre’s “blank slate” theory. Freud says that everything we do is buried deep in our psyche and that the unconscious mind is often more powerful than the conscious. His idea of freedom, or lack there of, is based off the Id - deeply buried, irrational and powered by anger; the Ego - principles of reality, accepting limitations to actions in a practical way; and the Superego - where we judge actions as right or wrong striving for moral perfection. The ego, which is the part we show to the world, has defense mechanisms that distorts our reality. In some ways it hides the monster of the Id inside you and presents a more acceptable version of self with the help of the righteous superego. Their conflict could be considered the “voice” inside that we often hear when getting ready to make a decision - should I or shouldn’t I? With the constant conflict of the Id and superego, one an enraged warrior and the other a peaceful protester, we often feel anxiety as a result of the internal conflict. This is why he says that free will is impossible. We are reacting in response to conflict that has both distorted our reality and been decided for us.
Ellis would not agree with Freud. He believes that the mind, as a single vessel, governs emotion. That what we think determines how we feel. It’s not about an internal battlefield between parts of your personality, it’s about your thoughts, your fears, your likes, your dislikes. Your experiences have shaped who you are, not the other way around. Having control over what we do in response to an event is what Ellis would say gives us freedom. He proposes that we rid ourselves of the irrational beliefs that hold us back and replace them with rational ones. It will take effort and work, like acing a final exam, but Ellis would say that we are not predetermined by Freud’s Id, Ego and Superego and instead can change what, and who, we are.
Perhaps the most intriguing theory within the indeterminism realm is Sartre’s existentialism. With existentialism, as he says, existence proceeds essence. That our nature is determined by the actions we choose and that we are completely free at every moment. He suggests that we in fact live life our way, by our rules. As where Freud would say that someone does what they do because of an event that happened to them in their past, Sartre would tell him and if we don’t like something about ourselves that we have the power to change it. He would say that your life gets its meaning from what you do with it. That one of the worst things we can do is act in bad faith, that is, to tell ourselves that we have no choices and that we don’t have to make them. Possibly because Sartre did not believe in God, his theory is centered completely around you taking charge, not a God-like orchestrator.
I like Sartre’s take on freedom in particular. “There is no reality except in action,” our textbook offered as his stance on freedom. I have always felt that reality is what we make of it; our exposure to things, places, people and experiences. Although I am aware that there are social standards and laws that bind me to a social agreement, I like to think that I am free to choose how I will respond to such guidelines. Taking away my personal responsibility, to me, would feel like losing everything that makes me who I am. The idea that every step I take I was supposed to take, and that all choices I make are because I was supposed to make them, doesn’t sit well with me. I have been told all my life that I have a gift to go “where ever my heart takes me.” Perhaps this is why I like Sartre’s philosophical reasoning. At the age of 17, I moved out of state against my parents wishes but with their blessing. I have always had a need to discover and explore, but no matter what has happened I’ve always taken responsibility for where I am, what I am doing, and who I am doing it with. My choices have been my own, often against the suggestion of others, but always because I felt they were the best for me. Without even knowing it, I have been living the way Sartre says we should; if I don’t like something in my life I change it. This has led me to live in several states, has facilitated exotic vacations, has crossed items off my bucket-list, and has created more stories than I could write in a book. And I feel that I personally made all of these things happen. No one knocked on my door and handed me a screenplay of my life, I am writing it myself.
Sure, my exposure growing up with two amazing parents who are supportive and good-natured helped shape who I am. I don’t totally disagree with Freud when he says that childhood shapes adulthood. But what I do disagree with the idea that we can’t ever change what we are. I get frustrated when someone says that they don’t do something because of a bad experience in the past. I get it, we’ve all had bad experiences, but where Sartre got it right is the ability to identify the problem and not use it as a crutch to excuse yourself from ever doing it again. To me, Skinner’s behaviorism, observable events and genetics, doesn’t answer all the questions it provokes. For example serial killers. There have been those that come from “good” families and who have respectable parents and siblings. Assuming that the serial killer and siblings were treated equally and shared experiences, then how do we explain the serial killer? They certainly share genetics with the other members of the family that are not serial killers. Maybe Freud would suggest that the serial killer’s Id overpowered the Superego. I prefer empiricism, that knowledge comes from sensory experiences. In such, Ellis would offer that the serial killer developed their own perceptions based off their own thoughts, shaping their reality with irrational ideas about why they must kill. The serial killer had the freedom to choose, as did the other siblings, and Aristotle would say that the serial killer chose different characteristics that changed their perception of their reality.
Choices and possibilities do exist and that’s why I don’t think determinism is true. If determinism were true, the universe would be fixed - offering no alternatives to anything. There would be one of everything with no other option. Like a salad bar with no toppings. There is always toppings - choices - and we make them all the time, every day. Spontaneity exists, so does responsibility and freedom. Since determinism diminishes these which I do believe in, then I CHOOSE indeterminism.
No comments:
Post a Comment