WHAT IS MEANT TO BE 'FREE' AND 'DETERMINED'?
The problem of free-will and determinism is discussed within Philosophy, by academic theologians, religious believers and non-believers. The debate as to whether we are free beings is intense. Interestingly it also attracts the attention of scientists.
When we speak of being free, what we mean is that we have a choice as to how we behave. We have the freedom to take action A instead of action B. We are responsible for whatever actions we take, in other words, we have 'free will'. When people speak of determinism, they mean that all events are subject to scientific laws and are theoretically predictable. In other words, we can predict what events will take place. It thus has the implication that we are actually being driven by impersonal laws, that even if we experience ourselves as free, this an illusion. All actions are 'determined'.
Before we discuss it further, it is important to survey what key thinkers had to say about free-will and determinism.
Before we discuss it further, it is important to survey what key thinkers had to say about free-will and determinism.
BACKGROUND TO THE DEBATE
 |
| Democritus (c.460-370 BCE) |
The first thinker to consider the issue was the Greek philosopher Democritus (5th Century B.C.E). He was an 'atomist', meaning he believed that everything consisted of atoms in space. Objects exist independent of our observation of them, and in theory it was possible to predict how each and everything would behave. He also argued that atoms are eternal, and that they grouped together to form more complex objects which were constantly changing. The implication of such a view is that you have a material world, which is eternal, in which all that is experienced is a collection of atoms. The universe is seen as a single, determined mechanism, operating on impersonal laws, and that we to are temporary, composite creatures. This obviously creates problems for human freedom and purpose, for what purpose do we have if our behaviour is driven by impersonal predictable laws?
 |
| St Augustine of Hippo (354-430) |
This problem was given religious significance by St Augustine, with regards to the traditional problem of evil, that we cannot accept the claims that evil exists, God is all good, and God is all powerful; accepting two claims negates the third. Augustine believed that evil was a sign that humankind had fallen, but God gives us free-will and the responsibility for our actions. However, Augustine maintained that God is also all-knowing, so he argued for predestination, that God knows who is to be saved and who is to be damned, and we cannot change this. If we accept this, are we really free? Should we be held accountable for our actions?
 |
| Isaac Newton (1643-1727) |
With the rise of science from the 17th century onwards, Newtonian physics suggested that everything in the world may be described by laws which operate with mathematical precision. If we knew what the laws of nature were, it would be possible to predict exactly what would happen in each and every situation. Thus, everything is determined. Science thus assumes that everything has a causes, or a large number of causes, which determines the outcome. This has implications on the freedom and determinism debate, and an unexplained event is not put down to divine intervention, rather an unexplained law. The issue is, if science is able to explain everything in terms of causes, is there any room for freedom and choice?
LEIBNIZ- GOD'S CHOSEN WORLD
 |
| Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) |
The philosopher and mathematician Gottfried Leibniz saw God as an eternal and infinite mind who saw and determined everything in the world and who had chosen to make the world exactly as it is. A change in any one individual thing in the world would require that everything else be changed as well. There maybe a number of possible worlds, in which things are different, but in this world everything has to be as it is. Since he believed that it would have been possible for God to have created any sort of world, since God chose to create this one, it must be the best possible one.
We cannot predict what happens in this world since we do not have God's mind. It follows that, not knowing we are completely determined, we actually experience ourselves as free. Freedom maybe defined as
not knowing all the reason why we behave in certain ways. God would also be the creator of this world, because Leibniz argued that a world with freedom but evil is better than a world with little freedom but no evil.
However, another problem arises: there is still a difference between what is experienced (freedom) and what is actually the case (a world totally determined, in this particular case by the mind of God). Can they be related without conflicting? The German Philosopher Immanuel Kant tackled this question.
DETERMINED BUT FREE-KANT
To understand Kant's view, two terms must be defined:
 |
| Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) |
1. Phenomena- Things as we experience them
2. Noumena- Thing as they are in themselves (we don't need experience to know them)
According to Kant, our minds understands Phenomena by means of the concepts of space, time and causality. Our minds are organised to assume that everything experienced is an effect for which there is a cause, and this is how we understand Phenomena. However, I know I am free to act. I experience freedom, although I cannot detect in the phenomenal world. Kant thus saw humans as Phenomenally determined but Noumenally free. What is experienced may be determined, as our minds are organised to perceive things that way, but we experience our own freedom- it is one of the presuppositions of every choice made.
In other words, the world that we experience maybe determined, but we are free as humans; freedom is Nominal, to use Kant's term.
In the next part of the post, scientific determinism, the role of quantum physics and also how viewing a complex situation either from a reductionist or a holistic point of view impacts on the free-will and determinism debate.
Ramakrishna Paramahamsa once said that man is endowed with both freewill but some elements in life may be pre-destined - like where you are born. Ramakrishna characterized the relationship between Prarabdha & Freewill as that of calf on a rope Once born in a particular that prarabdha karma is exhausted. Other elements in life may be amendable to certain amount of karma.
ReplyDeleteThe best e.g. for this Ravana's kidnapping of Sita. The story Ravana once attempted to molest Vedavati. She killed herself, but before dying she said that she will be reborn and will cause his death. Reborn as Sita - Ravana even though he kidnapped her had a choice to give her back to Rama. The advice of Mandodari, Sita, Hanuman (his own Ishta devata in a different form), Vibhishina, Angada proved futile. Thus his exercise of freewill led to a certain destiny - death.
An interesting view indeed. It may well be that we have free-will, but there are fixed circumstances that will influence our decisions and maybe our destiny.
DeleteYour concise format to answer some of the enduring philosophical questions and the philosophers who dabbled in these respective spaces is commendable. However, it is quite disappointing that you only focus on western philosophy. Why don't you discuss these deeper questions from Indian/Dharmic philosophical perspective. Dharmic philosophical systems and categories are deep and sophisticated and are deduced from the wisdom, attainable only through adhyatma vidya. It is a sad reality that Indians, especially, the academic types, only bring up western philosophers and their work, whenever they discuss philosophical questions. Sri Rajiv Malhotra articulates this topic very well in a seminal book called "Being Different" (www.beingdifferentbook.com). According to him, most Indians, especially academics in the humanities and other secular intellectuals, seem to suffer from "difference anxiety from below" (inferiority complex) and for them staying closer to all things western is the only way to redeem themselves for having born in this "backward" Dharmic civilization. I am not saying you are like that. It could be that you only wish to present the western philosophical point of views to these deeper questions on this blog. May be you could say so in the title of your blog--"only from the perspectives of western philosophy." That would do justice to those who come to this blog seeking explanations from the more sophisticated works of Dharmic philosophers. What bothers me is that, when there are enough westerners to promote and propagate western philosophical point of views, why shouldn't our Indian intellectuals promote Dharmic systems of thought/frameworks/categories, so that world could be richer having exposed to a non-western epistemology/philosophy and a different point of view. Diversity of knowledge systems will truly help human evolution and mitigate the threat of "homogenization" aka, globalization of ideas using western universalism. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment and interest. Of course, I will come to Indian/Dharmic philosophy (you did not specify which of the six schools). It will come to me or I will come to it when the time is right.
DeleteRegards,
Jagmaan