Every now and then I take a trip down memory lane and revisit my old university email inbox, usually in a half-assed attempt to catch up on any articles that I told myself I would eventually get to, but never did.
On my most recent scrolling session, I was reintroduced to Harry Frankfurt's article about free will that was featured in the 68th volume of The Journal of Philosophy (ah, yes, that one) - a very important paper that I never made an effort to fully digest.
With a bucket of tums and some time to spare, I finally came around to tackling Frankfurt's ideas surrounding free will. I also realized how much I had been missing out on!
Not only are his ideas refreshingly keen, they are arguably essential to being able to appreciate all of the super fun challenges of human freedom. I bring this up because, in a previous article featuring the concept of free will, I played with the optimistic idea that an existentialist appreciation of our own freedom could be revived in such a way to excite the average person in our modern world.
I suggested that it could be treated as a desirable topic of casual conversation in every day life, comparing the potentiality of existentialism becoming popular again with the current status of astrology. I commented on how this particular cultural trend is more generally celebrated by younger generations these days than, say, western religion.
Now, I admit that the tone of my article was somewhat sarcastic and seemingly disparaging toward astrology - but as someone who can't help but remain open to the possibility that my star sign has some sort of impact on my behavioural tendencies (no wonder I'm such a neurotic, productivity-obsessed bitch), I wish to clarify that existential thought neither eradicates nor invalidates this possibility. It is a totally different thing altogether.
To restate my own words following the argument that we are all responsible for our own actions: "This is not to say that we cannot be heavily influenced by external forces, but that we are ultimately in control of every choice we make for ourselves, despite and considering their influence. This is an important truth because it reveals the infinite possibilities granted to us by our free will. It is both utterly refreshing and terrifying."
The point is actually this: I realize now that there is more to be said about these ulterior influences, as I fear that my use of the words "external forces" here might be misleading to some. Thus I hope to clarify exactly what I mean by this passage with the help of our boy Frankfurt.
Clarifying my intentions should help establish a more definitive, unpretentious explanation of what it means to have a will that is free, and why, I think, it is so desirable.
Free Will? Again?!
The reason I am so obnoxiously adamant about exploring the deeper implications of free will is because so many of us take its value for granted, or, we're never made aware of it in the first place! This is unfortunate since free will (without sounding too corny) is what allows us to have hopes and dreams. It grants us nearly infinite possibilities in life to experience anything we desire, even if it feels like we have to work so damn hard sometimes to actually fulfill those desires.
We shall therefore explore the structure of the will according to Frankfurt, since it compliments the idea that existentialism is an empathetic philosophy; one that acknowledges the fact that, although we are always technically in control of our actions, some of us do seem to have a bit more trouble than others when it comes to feeling decisive or motivated enough to get what we want in life.
It is also pretty obvious that none of us have total control over our desires, which can often be detrimental to our wellbeing. Too many of us know what it's like to not want to go out drinking in the evening, but somehow we end up feeling more hungover than we ever could have anticipated the next morning. We tell ourselves, "if only I was strong willed!"
It's as though living is made more challenging for some people than others, and the primary solutions offered by existentialists to those less in tuned with their ability to cultivate their will can come off as a tad belittling, and ultimately unhelpful. Advice like, "just be authentic!" or "take responsibility for your actions!" offers little to no real benefit to those who haven't any clue what true authenticity or accountability looks like.
While it is true that everyone has the potential to have the will that they want - preferably one that is free - sometimes it takes a lot of mental work to even believe in ones own capability. The saying that "things are easier said than done" is not just a saying. It is a reminder that actually doing something because we seriously want to do it, often requires multiple arduous attempts. Thus making the decision to change what we want to do, or the type of person we want to be, can be a very discouraging task indeed.
The Concept of a (Very Special Kind of) Person
Putting an emphasis on persons, as opposed to humans in general, is not purely a game of semantics. In the article, "The Structure of The Will and The Concept of a Person", Frankfurt asks what it is that makes a person a person, rather than a mere human which can be grouped in with the likes of other animals.
Basically, since both humans and animals have desires and motives, Frankfurt decides that persons need a little something extra that is unique to them, and makes them philosophically interesting.
Animals of different species, for example, have a kind of free will in the sense that they can choose this action or desire over that action or desire. Thus what separates persons from everything else, is the structure of a persons will.
Frankfurt is especially fascinated with the essential differences that make up the structure of a persons will, and therefore what allows certain persons with certain wills to thrive distinctly above all other creatures, no matter human or animal.
This instinctual one-up that these special persons hold above other creatures comes from their ability to form what Frankfurt calls second-order desires, and most importantly, turn them into second-order volitions. First-order desires then, are shared by many animals and humans, and must be accurately differentiated before anything else.
Why does a meticulous distinction between first and second-order desires matter? It matters because it relates to what I deemed earlier as the various "external forces" that influence a persons will. These are the things that tend to make life so apparently difficult for so many of us. By taking the time to understand them, it becomes easier to control them, which means (to make a bold statement) having better control of your overall happiness.
While your freedom may have something to do with the stars or other physical barriers, exercising your freedom has everything to do with how you handle your first and second-order desires.
Attaining that true feeling of freedom can take more time and effort depending on the person, but it's worth the trouble for those aspiring to live a life they can be proud of. And really, who doesn't want that?
A Sufficient Distinction Between First and Second-Order Desires
According to Frankfurt, most people are capable of wanting to have different desires. They could want to either1) have, or 2) lack, certain desires.
Take, for example, the phrase "A wants to X". It may sound straightforward, but it has the potential to mean something totally ambiguous, meaning that it could represent a whole range of different feelings toward doing something.
It's possible that A's apparent prospect of doing X has zero emotional motivation behind it, or it could be the case that A has no firm understanding of the fact that they even want to do X, or, A might be trying to convince themselves that they want to X when in fact they don't.
It could also very well be that the action that A wants to do is to seriously refrain from doing X. Or, A may want to Y instead of X, but they feel they don't really have a choice, so their desire sticks to X.
Now read all of that over again until your head stops hurting and we'll continue to the point.
The issue here is that the notion of wanting to do something can hold an array of conflicting implications, and it's not always so easy to decipher what is truly meant by these types of claims made in real life.
That is because, normally, when a person says they want to do something (when A wants to X), we assume that their inclination is being led by a plain motivational factor. We should have no reason to question the sincerity of their motive. In everyday life, it makes perfect sense not to suspect that the person who says they want to X is lying. There is nothing eerily implicit about a friend's professed desire to go to the gym.
But of course, not everything can be as simple as wanting to do something and then doing it. That is why Frankfurt makes a very important distinction between these less complex desires, and those that have a much higher chance at causing frustration.
The former are first-order desires and the latter are second-order desires.
As we have already sort of alluded to, first-order desires are those in which our motivation is clear and easily attainable. We know that we want to do this thing and we have no trouble following through with it.
In other words, first-order desires are those which require little or no further convincing to be literally carried out. They are simple and straightforward.
Then we have second-order desires. Second-order desires are those which help make persons totally distinct from anything else; from some humans, animals, or any other creature that can also make rational decisions.
A second-order desire is much more complex than wanting to do something and then doing that thing. To have a second-order desire is to want to have a particular first order desire.
Therefore, when you have a second-order desire, you are actually having the desire to have a whole other desire that you do not currently have, namely a first order desire.
Consider the hypothetical scenario where you say that you want to stay in and refrain from drinking, but you end up going out and getting drunk with your friends anyway. You state over and over again that you want to stay in, but what you really want is to have the first-order desire to stay in.
To reiterate, this implies that you do not yet have the actual desire to stay in. You merely wish that you truly felt that way, that you didn't have this urge to go out and get drunk.
If you take a second to reflect on this phenomenon, you might be able to recall some second-order desires that you experience in every day life on a pretty regular basis. Things like, having the desire to not desire that whole tub of ice-cream, perhaps paired with a bag of hot Cheetos... We've all been there, right?
Now, what makes this distinction so fantastic (between having the first-order desire to eat a whole tub of ice-cream and having the second-order desire to desire to not want to eat a whole tub of ice-cream), is that one desire always has the potential to beat the other. But to do so, the person cannot merely think about wanting to have that certain desire. They must also want for the desire to succeed and become a reality.
This additional desire for a particular desire to succeed is what Frankfurt calls a second-order volition, and it is this very thing that determines which of our desires shall become our will.
Hold on. How the Hell Can a Will be Free?
If you're wondering how the hell it makes sense to say that we get to decide our will, and that this is all so stupid and frustrating and a huge waste of time, then congratulations! You're a normal person. I asked myself the same question and took longer than I'd like to admit to comprehend this notion of picking and choosing what our will shall be.
It is extremely counterintuitive, but in order to fully grasp this ability, we must first recall how our effective desires are not always automatically carried out.
For example, having an effective desire to eat healthy one day is not going to have the same level of ease on every other day during which that same desire is present --- even though it always ends up being effective. According to Frankfurt, "it is the notion of an effective desire-one that moves (or will or would move) a person all the way to action. Thus the notion of the will is not coextensive with the notion of what an agent intends to do."
In this particular case, we might say that the first-order desire that A has to X is what motivates her to do X, but this notion is not A's will, because her will is simultaneously dealing with other conflicting desires. Thus what makes A's will so confusing is that it is so similar to her effective desires, but it cannot be described as being synonymous with her initial intention, or even her final action.
Then what is it identifiable with? More importantly, what is a free and therefore supposedly desirable will identifiable with?
By returning to the power of second-order volitions, I promise we shall continue to break down and eventually build an efficient, though still confusing, definition.
Second-Order Volitions, Or, The Desire to Will What One Wants to be Their Will
To quickly recap, mere first-order desires are simple desires. Humans and animals have them. An example of conflicting first-order desires might be the desire to be healthy, versus the desire to drink copious amounts of alcohol.
Second-order desires are expressed desires to have a certain desire. "I wish I wanted to stay in tonight", is one.
A second-order volition is a genuine desire for a particular second-order desire to be truly effective. It is what makes persons so special; the person who seriously wants their desire to "stay in tonight" to turn into a reality, has the chance to strengthen their will and do what is necessary (they make some popcorn and put on a movie, as opposed to getting dressed up) so that they can get closer to a sustainable form of happiness. They don't let their simple desires get the best of them. Rather, they exercise their freedom and do what serves their true desires, addressing and hopefully conquering their other annoying ones.
In other words, a persons will is free when the particular desire they wish to motivate their action actually ends up being the one that motivates it.
Still, final outcomes of action are not always detrimental to the overall freedom of a persons will. What makes a persons will free is that it allows for them to ultimately change their desires by taking advantage of their ability to rationalize and contemplate which desire they want to succeed, and then making sure that eventually, it does, preferably on their terms.
It is the fact that, no matter the external constraints or outcome, a person can always change their reason for action, through the potentiality of their will. Again, this process can be very tough.
Frankfurt puts it like this: "It is only because a person has volitions of the second order that he is capable both of enjoying and of lacking freedom of the will. The concept of a person is not only, then, the concept of a type of entity that has both first-order desires and volitions of the second order. It can also be construed as the concept of a type of entity for whom the freedom of its will may be a problem. This concept excludes all wantons, both infrahuman and human, since they fail to satisfy an essential condition for the enjoyment of freedom of the will."
Well, there you have it.
The freedom of the will is that part of existence that wrestles with its desires, that may eventually come to realize that happiness is largely determined by the genuine accomplishment of these efforts, and then does everything in its power to try to change them accordingly. It is not always succesful.
In true existentialist fashion, a will that is free is a will that suffers.
The Choice is Yours!
Inspiration and self-doubt seem to be pretty fundamental to human existence. In order to optimize our freedom, I suggest that we confront our will when we experience these feelings, and ask it what our ideal life looks like. It is important to engage in strenuous dialogue with it so that we may benefit from the fruits of our own head-ache inducing labour.
Indeed, we can't help that we have endless desires clashing and complimenting each other all at once, and that it is not always obvious which ones we want to see triumph. Luckily for us, a will is something that can be encouraged to be free once we figure some of that real meaningful shit out. It can be cheered on and strengthened to help us attain our own unique goals through the choices (and mistakes) we continue to make.
After strongly considering the idea that freedom of the will is the ultimate power of anyone excited enough to test the boundaries of life, ask yourself, "Am I ready to be a person? Or will I remain controlled by my first-order desires?"
The choice, like most things in life, isn't easy.
But at least it's yours.
Comments