I consider my outlook towards life to be largely in line with the existentialist European philosophy of the 19th and 20th century. One of the enduring themes of nearly every interpretation is the immense (burden of) freedom that is placed on the individual. Initially, this line of thinking is attractive. But as I read more into the hard determinist’s views, I have a difficult time denying that the mind/brain is not subject to cause and effect. More and more neuroscience and neuropsychology reinforce these notions.
On the other hand, what Sartre and others are saying, with their ideas of how we define ourselves through each and every action that is freely chosen, is appealing. I can’t help but feel that the idea of human freedom is antiquated and idealistic given advances in the study of the brain.
" Freedom is not a reaction: freedom is not choice. It is man’s pretence that because he has choice he is free. Freedom is pure observation without direction, without fear of punishment and reward. Freedom is without motive; freedom is not at the end of the evolution of man but lies in the first step of his existence. In observation one begins to discover the lack of freedom. Freedom is found in the choiceless awareness of our daily existence and activity. "…Krishnamurti
I’m a complete causal determinist and also an existentialist. I think recognizing that we have no true free will doesn’t actually change anything because not having free will means we can’t actually do anything about it. One can not logically attempt to change their behavior based on their belief that they have no control over their behavior. Instead, we are still put in the position of making decisions, we are just aware there is no real “us” making them. I would suggest reading The Myth of Sissyphus by Camus. It’s not about free will specifically, but about being aware of all our limitations, and revolting against them despite knowing the futility of it.
You’re not really an existentialist then. You’re claiming that something outside of yourself defines you and causes you to take your actions. An existentialist would never make this claim. That’s ungenuine. I don’t see how existentialism is compatible in any way with determinism. What you actually are is a determinist that is forced by circumstance/genetics/experience/what-have-you to consider themselves an existentialist.
To the OP, if you can’t help but think that human freedom is incorrect, then you’re not an existentialist. You’re someone who likes to read Sartre. You’re trying to be a positivist and existentialism is a rejection of positivism. It’s like trying to be a Christian while rejecting the existence of God. They are fundamentally at odds view points. You could try to reconcile them, but then it would no longer be existentialism, but something completely different.
I disagree. I think the freedom refered to in existentialism does not refer to free will, but to being free of the constraints of values imposed externally. I don’t think it makes any metaphysical claim, except that meaning does not objectively exist, or at the very least we do not have access to it. So, even though I don’t believe there is any meaningful me making decisions, I still am in a position to feel as though I am and in that capacity my view is existential. I do not believe there is objective meaning, I do not look to god or peers to determine the path, I realize meaning is only created in me and holds no other value. This fits in the mold of the revolt. To know your life will end, to know value comes from no where but within, to know that all actions are ultimately futile, and to act against and despite this futility. Acknowledging causation fits right into this theme.
To verify my definition of existentialism, you’ll note that wikipedia’s entry doesn’t refer once to free will, causation, or determinism. It only refers to freedom in the sense of how one should try to live their life.
I’m not sure we should be using Wikipedia as our source of philosophical knowledge, but I digress. Existentialism is merely freedom from external values? I think not. That’s merely moral relativism and only a subset of existentialism. Existentialism is the crushing realization that there is nothing either external or internal that imposes on us. The consequences of all of our decisions are ours and ours alone to bear. What did you think existential angst was? If you have no choice, if your actions are predetermined, there can be no angst because all of your choices and their consequences are not yours.
Sartre himself was completely anti-determinist. If I may quote Sartre from Being and Nothingness, “Either man is wholly determined (which is inadmissable, especially because a determined consciousness–i.e., a counciousness externally motivated–becomes itself pure exteriority and ceases to be consciousness) or else man is wholly free.”
Your problem is that you think that the appearance of acting is itself acting, but no. In a deterministic setting, it is not ‘you’ in a meaningful sense that acts against futility, but rather a series of events that forces you to act against them. There is no such thing as revolt from a determinist. All that you are is the sum of a series of causes stretching back to the beginning. You can’t revolt, you’re acting exactly as you must act. You become a slave. This is bad faith in its purest form. When you attempt to foist the consequences of your actions onto an external cause, you are the very definition of Bad Faith. I can see no middle ground on this.
I would disagree. Sarte is not the whole of existentialism. The futility of having no free will is the same as the futility of having no objective meaning, of having no verified knowledge. Just like the meaning existentialism says you must make because it does not already exist, just like the beliefs that you must hold though you can never validate them, so are the decisions I must make despite believing there is no meaningful me making them. You can’t change any of these conditions, yet we should fight against them.
I agree they are predetermined and the consequences are not truly mine, yet I still must feel and act and seemingly make decisions as long as my brain is still conscious. Even choosing to end my life would be a demonstration of this illusory feeling of free will.
I am well aware it is not me, I have said so myself many times. The problem is, I am still here talking to you like it is. This situation can not be avoided. Just because I know its not me, does not take me out of the position of seemingly making decisions.
There is no such thing as a revolt from an empty cold objective reality. You creating meaning does not validate it. You believing in something does not validate . And like wise, me seemingly making decisions does not actually validate it. And yet, here we are doing all of these things, attempting to create something where we know it is not and never can be.
I do have to act. I hate to quote rush here, but “even if I choose not to decide I still have made a choice” (which oddly enough is in favor of free will). The only way I can’t choose is to not be conscious. The illusory act of decision making exists and can not be avoided. And so despite me believing that I have no choice, I still must act as though I do whether I want to or not. And in that, I live existentially. “I” (as much as “I” can) decide my own path without outside influence swaying my illusory opinion and "I"take illusory responsibility for my actions(which is also logical even in casual determinism). “I” even have illusory feelings of angst from beleiving “I” am illusory.
That’s my point, it’s illusory. You are saying that your actions are not yours to make. They are an illusion. You are not accepting any responsibility for your choices. You are claiming that the choice itself is already made by some external invisible hand. The central tenet of existentialism, that upon which all else hinges is the idea that our existence precedes our essence. You’ll hear it a thousand times in existentialism. The idea is that man is at first without definition. We are not born to be carpenters or mailmen or depressed or happy or anything. Through choices, we shape what we become. A determinist says that I will and must be a certain thing. A determinist says that before I’m born, I could chart out all of the causes that go into my creation and determine that at 4:32 EST on Feb 20th, I will be typing a certain message on a certain message board. This is our essence preceding our existence. It’s completely counter to existentialism. I’m not seeing how you don’t grasp this.
That’s my point exactly, you couch your choices in the word ‘seemingly.’ It is not you making the choice. You’re denying self and embracing the exterior. That’s not existentialism.
Here’s the thing, for a determinist, it is not ‘you’ acting . It is causes beyond ‘your’ control that are acting. You are saying it yourself. You are laboring under the illusion that you’re an existentialist. You pretend to make decisions based upon your idea of existentialism, but you are not making those decisions. You are not even making the decision to pretend to be an existentialist. You don’t take responsibility, you take the illusion of responsibility. In the end, you ‘know’ you made your choices based on causes beyond your control. That isn’t taking responsibility, that’s pushing it off on ‘other’. You even couch the word ‘I’ in quotations as though “I” doesn’t exist. That is completely counter to everything existentialism stands for. “I” is the sum of existence, not some byproduct of it.
We are repeating our arguments. I can responsd to each of your posts the exact same way I did before and you could reply to me as you did before. Let me approach this a little differently…
Lets look at the consequences of my belief in casual determinism:
If I am correct in believing in determinism, than by your definition existentialists do not exist because no one would be truly in control of their actions.
If I am incorrect, than by your definition I would have the same control and responsibility that you would, and we could live the same exact lives, making the same exact decisions, taking the same exact actions, holding the same exact beliefs except for the single belief in determinism and you would be an existentialist and I would not.
We are refering to a metaphysical belief that I hold that does not change the way I live my life. It is simply an acknowledgement of the state of existence. Logically I know that if I don’t have free will, that believing I do or don’t does not change that fact I don’t. Logically as well, I know it makes no sense to try and change my actions based on my belief that I can’t change my actions. So there is no reason the knowing that there is no free will should change the way I decide to live my life and it doesn’t. Whether there is free will or not, I will still be living to the furthest extent possible as an existentialist. In whatever capacity that all people hold to make decisions I too make decisions. And I base them on my own values, not gods, nor peers. In whatever capacity that all people can bare responsibility I too bare responsibility. I do not try to avoid consequences and responsibility because of peer pressure, circumstances, or determinism. I simply know that determinism is the case, I do not use it as a scape-goat, and I do not use it in calculating the way I live.
I’m not arguing that if determinism is true then existentialists do not exist. I am arguing that they would be incorrect.
Similarly, if existentialism is true, then determinists still exist, they are just incorrect.
In your example, you are saying that you would live like an existentialist and make your decisions as an existentialist would, but still believe that those decisions are not actually yours to make. It would be like me saying, “I live like a Muslim, I make all the same decisions a Muslim would make, but I don’t believe in Allah, I believe in Buddha.” Well, I am not a Muslim then. I am a Buddhist who acts like a Muslim, or maybe some third thing that is neither Buddhist nor Muslim. The belief in free will is an inherent part of existential philosophy. All else hinges upon this. To deny it is to cause the rest of the cards to collapse.
Let’s look at the main tenets of existentialism. Do you agree that they are true? If so, how do you reconcile them with a deterministic world view.?
The absurd. According to Camus, the absurd is what happens when our desire for logic and order collides with the inherent randomness of the real world. A determinist says there is no randomness in the real world, so there is no collision and thus no absurdity.
Reason as flawed. Reason is our attempt to place structure upon our world, but our world is fundamentally irrational and random. A determinist would say that the world is very rational and a series of causes and effects, so reason is not flawed.
Existence preceding essence. We’ve already discussed.
Existential angst. Angst is caused by the awareness that we are free to make our own choices and abide by their consequences. A determinist says our choices are already made and their consequences set in stone, thus our angst is at most illusion.
The question I ask you is: Do you believe in the above? If so, then you don’t believe in determinism. If you don’t believe in the above, then you don’t believe in existentialism. Notice that I’m not saying that you don’t act like an existentialist, you just don’t believe it.
These are inherent parts of existential philosophy. Without them, there is no existentialism, yet they are fundamentally opposed to the deterministic worldview.
I don’t question that you read Camus and are fascinated by existential thought. It’s that you don’t believe it to be true. You may make decisions as though it is true, but as a determinist, you by definition deny the validity of existentialism. The only compatible view I could possibly be willing to entertain is if you deny logic and stand on the claim that you can be both existentialist and at the same time not existentialist, but I think as soon as you deny logic, the determinists would throw you out of their boat.
I guess this is where we depart. I don’t believe free will is an inherent part of existentialism. I believe existentialism is simply about approaching life. Existentialism only refers to metaphysics in terms of not being able to find meaning and value externally. Existentialism doesn’t define what it metaphysically means to be human or what it metaphysically means to make choices or what it metaphysically means to feel angst, it simply deals with the condition we find our selves in. Free will or not, we exist, we feel, we make choices and existentialism suggests that those choices not be swayed externally because there is no objective value from a god or anything else.
That is incorrect. Camus does not say the absurd is when logic collides with randomness. He says that absurd happens when our desire for absolute truth runs into that which is logically unresolvable and unverifiable. Infact, Camus says repeatedly that one must not abandon rational thought, but that one must hold onto their reasoned beliefs while knowing and accepting their limitations. To search for truth despite it never being proven, to search for meaning despite it only coming from within. It would be inauthentic to deny determinism when all the evidence led one to think that it’s true.
This is incorrect for several reasons. First, they are not saying that reason(as a method) is flawed. They are saying that reason has limitations. Afterall reason is how they are arguing their points and how we are communicating intelligently at this very moment. Second, determinism does not make claim to the functions of human reason. Determinism simply says that everything has a cause, it does not say that human reasoning can determine full knowledge of the world or more importantly create objective meaning.
This refers to there not being a purpose to us until we exist because there is no god or objective meaning to provide it and we must therefor create it. This doesn’t conflict with determinism because determinism does not provide meaning or purpose, it is simply the state that we exist in. Belief in determinism doesn’t provide reasons to live one way over another, where as belief in a god or objective meaning does provide a reason to live a certain way.
Angst exists whether determinism is true or not. They do not define the metaphysical quality of angst. Determinists can feel the same angst that you do, infact they can feel the angst of determinism itself.
I disagree with this for all the reasons given above. I think our only method for reconciliation rests in academic definitions and existential authors specifically refering to free will as a part of existentialism. I have yet to personally read any existential writings that make reference to it. As well free will, causality, and determinism doesn’t appear in any of the definitions I have looked up. If it was an inherent part of being an existentialist than it would be required of any accurate definition.
Read “3.1 Anxiety, Nothingness, and the Absurd” it says:
“As a predicate of existence, the concept of freedom is not initially established on the basis of arguments against determinism; nor is it, in Kantian fashion, taken simply as a given of practical self-consciousness. Rather, it is located in the breakdown of direct practical activity.”
That means that free will is not a prerequisite of existentialism and that it refers to freedom in the sense of our practical condition.
it goes on to say that:
“For Sartre, the ontological freedom of existence entails that determinism is an excuse before it is a theory: though through its structure of nihilation consciousness escapes that which would define it — including its own past choices and behavior — there are times when I may wish to deny my freedom.”
If I read this correctly Sartre denies determinism only in the sense that it is used as an excuse to deny responsibility for ones actions. Even if read Sartre incorrectly, the first quote means that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy specifically verified that one can be a determinist and an existentialist. I think this is the smoking gun.
We’ve been over this, you keep claiming that you are making the choice, but it is not you at all. It is an illusion of you. You can claim that you’re accepting responsibility for your actions, but at the same time you’re saying that your actions were controlled. This shifts the burden of your actions to an external source, i.e. those things that went into your making the decision. Every choice a determinist makes is swayed by the external. Let’s say I pick up a pen, did I make that choice, or did circumstance force me to take it? An existentialist would say that circumstances don’t force us to do anything.
If all the evidence points to determinism being true, then it points to existentialism being false. Camus though says that the world by its nature is unknowable. You can attempt to rely on reason, but you’re fooling yourself.
I think it’s fairly obvious that Kierkegaard felt that reason as a whole was flawed. My goodness, the entire existentialist movement arose out of a reaction against rationalism. To try to claim that it was in fact rationalistic corrupts its entire purpose.
Essence is not just purpose and meaning. Essence is the sum of your being. Determinism says that in the beginning of the world, it is predetermined that I exist and think and act a certain way. This is abhorrent to all forms of existential thought. Rejecting inherent meaning is only moral relativism and existentialism encompasses so much more.
That’s true, but a determinist would not say the source of the angst is the realization that we have crushing freedom.
I actually gave you a quote from being and nothingness earlier about Sartre’s views on determinism and you merely responded that he didn’t represent existentialism. Since you like Stanford, here’s a portion of their entry on Sartre, “Thus, the claim “that’s just the way I am” would constitute a form of self-deception or bad faith as would all forms of determinism, since both instances involve lying to oneself about the ontological fact of one’s nonself-coincidence and the flight from concomitant responsibility for “choosing” to remain that way.” We can also quote Beauvoir in The Ethics of Ambiguity, “As we have seen, my freedom, in order to fulfill itself, requires that it emerge into an open future.” A determinist has no open future and thus Beauvoir has no freedom. If you need more proof, read Camus’s “The Guest” It’s all about freedom of choice and its consequences.
I’ve provided you with the article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that unequivocally says that determinism is compatible with existentialism. I also provided multiple definitions from major reference sources of which none mentioned free will, causality, or determinism as being any part, much less a requirement of existentialism. My argument could not be much sounder. You have to realize that existentialism makes no claims about free will. The freedom refered to in existentialism is of a practical nature, not a metaphysical one.
I didn’t notice this second post, but you’re taking your first quote out of context. It is merely stating that the proof of freedom is not based upon an argument against determinism, but rather in experience. This does not mean that determinism is acceptable to existentialism, merely that proofs for existentialism aren’t based upon it.
For the second quote, Sartre is saying that determinism IS an excuse and thus incompatible with freedom and existentialism.
No, I am positive I have taken it correctly. “The concept of freedom is not initially established on the basis of arguments against determinism” That means: that their freedom was not against determinism. This is further confirmed when they say “nor is it taken simply as a given of self-consciousness”. Which means: nor is their freedom self evident in experience. “It is located in the breakdown of direct practical activity” it exists in that people still need to make choices(just as I had described in previous posts).
Saying determinism is an excuse does not disavow argument, it disavows intentions and there are clearly more reasons to believe in determinism than just having an excuse to live un-existentially. Therefor he can’t be negating determinism itself, only its improper use as an excuse. I believe I have interpretted him correctly.
And you still have not addressed the fact that we have found not one formal definition of existentialism that includes a belief in free will. If it is a requirement of existentialism as you say it is than it would be required in defining the term and yet we get no mention of it. Don’t you think its odd that supposedly something so inherent to existentialism goes without mention?? Don’t you think it is possible that the freedom they refer to is the same freedom refered to in everday langauge, and not metaphysical freedom.
"The existentialists conclude that human choice is subjective, because individuals finally must make their own choices without help from such external standards as laws, ethical rules, or traditions. Because individuals make their own choices, they are free; but because they freely choose, they are completely responsible for their choices. The existentialists emphasize that freedom is necessarily accompanied by responsibility. Furthermore, since individuals are forced to choose for themselves, they have their freedom — and therefore their responsibility — thrust upon them. They are “condemned to be free.â€
For existentialism, responsibility is the dark side of freedom. When individuals realize that they are completely responsible for their decisions, actions, and beliefs, they are overcome by anxiety. They try to escape from this anxiety by ignoring or denying their freedom and their responsibility. But because this amounts to ignoring or denying their actual situation, they succeed only in deceiving themselves. The existentialists criticize this flight from freedom and responsibility into self-deception. They insist that individuals must accept full responsibility for their behavior, no matter how difficult. If an individual is to live meaningfully and authentically, he or she must become fully aware of the true character of the human situation and bravely accept it."
To be.
If identities were forged from internal facets solely, you wouldn’t have an identity. Can such a thing (identity) be exhibited without any filters.
Peel these identities and you will be.
Then you will be free.
That’s not a rebuttal. I clearly acknowledged it being about freedom, I question whether that freedom was meant in general terms or metaphysical. The definition above says nothing of free will, causality, or determinism. Infact it describes it in terms of “such external standards as laws, ethical rules, or traditions”. Which is the same kind of general terms I described in my previous posts. That description only provides me with more evidence. It describes freedom the way I suggested it was being used, and does not acknowledge metaphysical freedom at all.
“The Existentialist conceptions of freedom and value arise from their view of the individual. Since we are all ultimately alone, isolated islands of subjectivity in an objective world, we have absolute freedom over our internal nature, and the source of our value can only be internal.” http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/sartreol.htm