In a culture where astrology practically dictates our personality and presupposes the types of choices we might make, I can’t help but wonder why the topic of free will isn't brought up more casually in everyday conversation. Is it not a bit strange that so much of what we do or say can be justified by our date of birth, yet we don’t typically excuse people's shitty actions with cosmic interference?
What I would really like to know is if we are entering a time where free will has a viable chance of becoming a serious part of popular culture in the same way that astrology is - as a typical conversation starter to be used in almost any setting, or perhaps as a desirable theme for a relatable meme page.
And even if it can be proven that free will is a topic worthy of encouragement amongst both avid Instagram users and those too good for social media, can we really trust them to hold a totally mutual understanding of its most rudimentary functions within ordinary life?
I doubt it.
It is, however, possible to re-establish an understanding of the meaning of free will to fit the current mentality of the modern world. Thus a proper inquiry shall reveal its significance, as well as its benefits, which will hopefully inspire those willing to answer the question, “what's your sign?" with a more purposeful one - that being, "what about free will?"
Well, what about free will?
When I first decided to write about the concept, I asked a few of my friends and some people I wanted to annoy what it means to them. Many of them gave answers related to their inescapable fate determined by some higher power despite being able to choose one action over an other; a type of supervised freedom providing them with a feeling of security. Others expressed a strong dislike of the concept since it undermines those who cannot fully exercise their freedom due to physical or mental limitations.
(To the latter remark, I am reminded to reflect vaguely on the idea that certain limitations bred by social barriers might actually be impossible to overcome for some, granted these limitations are implemented to enable distress and prevent growth for certain marginalized groups. This, however, is a much more complex topic and does not function as a valid argument against the importance of understanding free will. Thus I would like to briefly insert a hypothetical defence that engaging in philosophical contemplation and advocating for its significance is not to overlook the importance of continuously addressing systematic oppression - especially since philosophy is so diverse and can act as a practical field aiming to eliminate prejudice!)
Overall, I received a multitude of different answers, reassuring me that a new way of looking at free will is definitely needed. Indeed, not because their opinions are incorrect, but because they are missing some key elements of the concept altogether.
One of the most accessible ways of looking at free will so that we may improve our understanding of it is through the phenomenological theory of consciousness, or more specifically and less pretentiously, by way of existentialism.
Existentialism is the first branch of philosophy I was ever introduced to. In fact, How to Be An Existentialist, written by a witty philosopher named Gary Cox, was the very book that initially introduced me to philosophy as a genuine field of study. I say this to make a point that existentialist philosophy is not difficult to grasp, as I am living proof that everyone, even those who have never heard of philosophy before, has the ability to do so.
Since Cox has a great way of explaining it, we'll use him as our main guide. Let us begin with a short summary he gives in his introduction in the book I just mentioned:
"Existentialism, as said, is all about freedom. At the heart of freedom is choice and at the heart of choice is action. Action, then, is at the heart of existentialism, just as it is at the heart of human existence. 'To be is to do' says Sartre, [the father of modern existentialism,] summing up just how important he considers action to be. If people know only one thing about existentialism it tends to be the maxim, 'To be is to do.' The first I ever heard of Sartre and existentialism was when a friend told me this awful but accurate joke: 'To be is to do' - Jean-Paul Sartre. 'Do be do be do' - Frank Sinatra."
Here, Cox has gifted us the foundation of existentialism along with a horrible joke to tell on a first date.
But what does it mean to say that action is at the heart of existentialism? According to our guide, it has a lot to do with "the existential truths of the human condition according to existentialism.” To elucidate the implications of this relation, I've organized a cohesive list (god, I'm such a Capricorn) of the three main truths of existentialism:
First, that "none of us are fixed entities like chairs or stones, but indeterminate, ambiguous beings in constant process of becoming and change."
As unfixed and continuously growing beings always changing and capable of creating change, this indicates that "we are all free and can't stop being free."
In other words, we are unfixed beings with free will - to do this thing and not that thing, to stop being inauthentic and become a more authentic person. I would like to add that if you do not think you are free, you totally have the freedom to do so! But do not forget that it is because you are free to choose to believe that you are not free that you may believe that.
This leads to the second main truth, which is that "we are all responsible for our 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 third main truth is that "our lives are fraught with desire, guilt and anxiety, especially anxiety about our being-for-others. That is, our anxiety about what other people think of us. This leads us to suffer such irksome emotions as guilt, shame and embarrassment."
How lovely. Just as the Buddha furtively professed, life is always changing, full of suffering, devoid of meaning, and utterly absurd - and there is no way of getting around it!
Yet existentialism is surprisingly positive. It introduces the idea that due to the first two truths of existentialism, you may face the third truth defining human existence, making further use of each truth collectively as a means to be happier - or at least happier than if you falsely believed that life is meant to be easily understood and conquered, or that being completely happy and totally fulfilled all of the time is possible.
With that, we have reached the basic significance of free will. It is a means to the means of being in control of one's own happiness; real happiness that is fluctuant and fleeting, always in company of suffering, but real happiness nonetheless.
How then, shall free will assist the transformation of the three truths of existentialism so that we can remain as genuinely happy for as long as we can, or at least be able to have a laugh when we start feeling an ineffable sense of helplessness that is too often bound to such attempts?
In existentialism, there is a helpful maxim outlining the view that each person exists without any initial meaning or purpose, only being granted any meaning or purpose once they strive to and actively do so themselves. ”Existence precedes essence“ is the phrase, and Cox describes it even better; "A person's essence is to have no essence other than the one he must continually invent for himself."
Therefore the role of free will is not only to permit us, but also encourage us to continually invent our essence: to change the way we think and react to situations, as well as to practice new habits that improve our wellbeing. It reminds us that although it may be difficult to take one course of action over another, obstacles do not render our responsibility for our actions obsolete. We are therefore constantly granted the capability to better our circumstance, even if only by forcing our thought processes onto a more positive and productive route.
This is where things get tricky.
In order to properly benefit from the power granted to us by free will so that we can live authentic lives, it is absolutely necessary that we recognize our ineradicable responsibility for our actions.
But of course it can be extremely difficult to change certain habits, and sometimes it feels as though you have no control over your desires, especially when they seem to dictate your immediate happiness. Nonetheless, to pretend that your desires literally control you and not vice versa is how you put yourself in bad faith.
The concept of bad faith must be addressed because it is the existentialist's worst nightmare. It is the epitome of inauthenticity. According to Sartre, it is more specifically an attitude that a person takes when they try to lie to themselves by hiding the very truth that they hold while simultaneously denying that this is so. The truth that they are trying to hide from themselves is their own freedom to choose. However, one cannot truly lie to oneself about the truth that they already know. It simply cannot be done.
This is an extremely important point because it once again confirms the first and second truths of existentialism: that we are always free and responsible for our actions. By pointing to an important relation that bad faith has to negation (and more precisely the negation of authenticity), we can see how this is so.
Not to be mistaken with the false pretences of self-deception, it is the negative choice of a person that maintains their position in bad faith. After exposing and defeating this urge to negate our choices, we get one step closer to authenticity.
To illuminate the meaning of this “inner negation”, we may turn to Sartre's example of a young women who agrees to go out with a man, fully aware of the sexual implications of the date. After the man takes hold of her hand, she is automatically faced with a decision. She knows the connotations of this action, yet she chooses to dismissively leave her hand where it is and ignore the decisiveness of the situation. Through the negative choice of trying to deny the relation she has to her hand and presenting herself as a being that has transcended her situated self, the young woman is maintained in bad faith.
Cox says that in this way, "bad faith is more like a project of self-distraction or self-evasion than self-deception." I like this definition the most because it emphasizes the impossibility of deceiving oneself, fully anointing the subject in bad faith to take responsibility for their attempt to distract or evade their responsibility in the first place.
It is also empathetic toward the fact that humans are, as the third truth of existentialism highlights, utterly doomed as anxious and impulsive creatures. However it mainly emphasizes that in spite of this fact, humans are intelligent enough to make their own choices that challenge their unwarranted emotions. This is the most overlooked benefit of understanding free will. Not only does it force oneself to recognize how often they place themselves in bad faith, it also grants a special kind of empathy to be felt for the rest of humankind when it comes to the reality of the difficulty of escaping it.
If, then, it is so difficult to avoid not only falling into, but also getting stuck in bad faith, how are we supposed to become truly authentic? What does true authenticity even look like?
I had mentioned that inauthenticity is maintained through the negation of authenticity with negative choice, or rather, by making the choice to remain in bad faith. Therefore, if failing to be authentic is the failure to face the reality and responsibility of one's situation, Cox states that "the authentic person not only recognizes it, he strives to come to terms with it and even to treat it as a source of values."
This is a paramount claim. When treated precisely, such recognition allows for anyone to start being true to themselves so that they may exist as the person they truly want to be - not by identifying with preset character traits that are written in the stars, but by taking direct action (and taking responsibility for these actions).
The ultimate value of understanding free will is therefore the gratification of a newfound freedom. Though not easy to persistently acknowledge, it is a form of freedom that is always under our own individual control.
But again, why not choose the path of inauthenticity if being authentic is so much more complicated and difficult to uphold? The answer is not so obvious.
Either way you will be making a choice, and an attempt to deny the freedom that comes with existence is hardly even the opposite of exercising freedom, as it is a form of demonstrating ones freedom by executing the very freedom of action by trying to deny it.
At least authenticity has something valuable to offer since it aims to cut the bullshit, and as we all know, bullshit tends to make life less bearable. By reminding us of the reality of the bane of human life in order to provide us with a means to make it more enjoyable, I'd say it's worth the extra effort.
So the next time you're at a party you were forced to go to, you can try pairing your beer with an existential lens. When someone asks what your astrological status is, you can respond by satisfying their demand, following it up with an inquiry into how often, as a Leo or a Gemini or whatever, they think about free will. When they ask what it is, you can inform them of how an article explaining existentialism has informed you of how absolutely absurd existence is, and why they shouldn't fret because this is actually a very good thing. Due to their free will, they can choose to follow your advice to strive for authenticity as opposed to pretending to be confined by life on their journey toward death.
Or not.
Commentaires