There is No Such Thing as Freedom
I would appreciate a refutation of this position:
There is no such thing as freedom because everybody is enslaved to either ego or conscience.
There is no such thing as freedom because everybody is enslaved to either ego or conscience.
Comments (63)
Quoting Piers
Quoting Piers
No they ain't.
Thinking can stop. In the silence of the mind is the freedom to respond, and in that responsibility is the creative freedom of the artist.
Thank you for your response. So what is this thing called "Free Will"?
Seems to me that free will is the ability which everybody has to choose
how to serve their Master, whether ego or conscience. Still enslaved.
Like other human conditions, there is no absolute freedom - only relative freedoms from various possible kinds of bondage, confinement, restraint, constraint, limitation and disability.
Quoting Piers
This does not follow. People may be enslaved from outside, by other people, circumstances or inside by personal commitments, as well as addictions, passions and obsessions.
Quoting Piers
A mythological concept regarding man's relationship with his creator deity, or a sociological theory regarding man's control responsibility for his actions, or a psychological idea of man's control over his own instincts and impulses.
Quoting Piers
There is no Master. There are imperatives of survival, social organization, natural, canon and civil laws to govern the range of choices each person has in each situation. These choices are always limited by various factors - never just one thing.
Homunculus fallacy "ego" and "conscience" are constraints on, or conditions of, volition and not agents which can "enslave" (i.e. act as masters). "Freedom" minimally restricted state-of-affairs or phase-space is not unconditional and to that degree, at minimum, 'agents are free'. See compatibilism¹.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism ¹
One cannot be both his own slave and his own master.
Financial freedom - The freedom to buy what you want without risk of harm.
Freedom of speech - The freedom to say what you want without being stopped.
Freedom of choice - The freedom to choose an action despite others opinions that you shouldn't.
People in Gaza have the freedom to ride APCs and wield AKs. Do the Danish have that?
Only an idiot can't tell won't admit the difference between a territorial concentration camp and a self-governing, cosmopolitan city.
Do they?
Do they have the freedom not to get killed? There's no evidence for this.
How is this even contentious?
@180 Proof
:ok:
I can't believe I'm still surprised, but it still happens.
Freedom exists, but within varying parameters.
Good point. We are what our mind is -- which includes conscience and ego. So, we really can't say we are imprisoned by our own mind. That is our essence. The lions in the wilderness are said to be free. They're not trapped in their lionness.
The only way we can assert freedom in this sense is to use the rational deliberation of our actions. The likes of Aristotle, Kant, and Mill argue for this kind of freedom. Even if one is physically imprisoned in a cell or shackled by chains, they can still think rationally.
Consider insults, for example. Insults are effective at causing pain to some but not to others. Some people couldn't care less about what was said about them. They are free of the pain caused by the words directed at them.
And this is really the gist or the point of talking about lack of freedom. If we have no freedom, for example, how does that affect us negatively? Are we locked up in a cell unable to do what we wish or need to do? Then we don't have freedom.
Oh, we're not locked up and chained? Then we are talking about a different kind of freedom or the lack thereof.
Au contraire, one cannot be his own slave without at the same time being his own master. A slave must have a master.
It's an extension of freedom of the will. If you are in a war zone, your freedom is severely hampered. Sure, one could say that people have a choice to try and stay alive or they are free to walk to areas they know will be bombed and choose to die.
Unless they deny free will, in which a person has no choice but to live or die.
But, I do take this to very basic levels. Suppose you don't have free will. Ok. What's the point is trying to let people know about this? You can't change what they think and if they do change based on what you say, then there is freedom to choose based on reasons.
If someone really believes that we do not have free will, then why do anything at all? Just stay in bed. Why bother doing things? Unless you suspect that there is something more than being forced all the time to do whatever circumstance dictates.
Less than a month of activity on this forum seeing your "contributions" provides enough evidence to turn the claim into an axiom, troll.
Quoting Manuel
The discussion is about control over mental operations, not about the electromagnetic force inhibiting your freedom to phase through walls or a valley hampering your freedom to bike to the neighbouring city. Social/physical freedom are not the same as metaphysical freedom. If you wanna make the opposite point however, I am open to hearing it. Otherwise, you are completely missing the point of the thread to take the opportunity to talk about modern politics.
Quoting Manuel
The utility or meaning of something bears no importance on its truth.
One day the server where this website's data is hosted will come apart and your comment will be lost at best 10 people will ever read your comment. What is the point of making comments?
If you don't have metaphysical freedom, the freedom to move an arm or choose to get up now and read a book or not or any other trivial thing, how can you have any other freedom? So no, I certainly do not buy the notion that metaphysical freedom is opposite any other freedom, in fact, it presupposes it, as do the laws in the societies we live in.
Quoting Lionino
Yeah, and Newton's discoveries will fade, and we will all die.
It bears just enough meaning to merit arguing we don't have it ...
What is the point in saying we don't have it, if all of us, including the most die-hard determinist lives as if they do have free will?
The point of coming to this site, is to discuss issues pertaining to philosophy - if people read great, if not, fantastic. But plainly you are making an effort which could be used for something else to attempt to convince people we don't have something we very much seem to have.
One point is suggested by this excerpt from the Amazon blurb on Sapolsky's Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will:
Quoting Manuel
It's not simple to change the way people think, but we certainly do effect each other's thinking, and we have fields such as education that would make no sense apart from an understanding that people's thinking can be changed. Perhaps your paradigm, for understanding changes in human thinking, is a bit unrealistic?
Sure, we change our minds all the time, we thought we knew X and discovered something we didn't know, and now we believe Y. The deeper a belief is entrenched the harder it will be to change one's mind, but if it's not something deeply held, it can be done without much difficulty. Beyond that, it is very hard.
But that quote you provided by Sapolsky looks like what others who deny free will say, especially the phrase:
"its very hard, and at times impossible, to uncouple from our zeal to judge others and to judge ourselves."
In other words, he lives and judges people as if we had free will (because if we really don't then how could we judge? It would be an illusion.), but then says we really don't have it.
So, it becomes a kind of game of sorts, we don't have free will, even if almost all of us act as if we do, but then this could lead (the belief that free will is false) to a society in which people are more cognizant of that fact and hence we would have less severe laws for crime, we'd understand other people's faults better and so on.
I agree that we can still be nicer to each other regardless of free will or not. But, if we act as if we have it, then I don't see how an argument against it, carries much force.
I haven't read Sapolsky's book, so I can only speculate on the case he makes. However, I'd say that we judge because evolution endowed us with instincts which are adaptive for members of a social species in maintaining the benefits of social living.
We do have natural impulses to see others and ourselves as blameworthy, and as the quote says, because of the instinctive nature of those impulses we can't be totally free of them. However, with a more accurate understanding of our own nature we can become more cognizant of that nature and develop skill at seeing beyond our kneejerk monkey-mindedness.
So suppose blameworthiness is an illusion/projection and we have rationalized our view of each other as free willed agents, because although simplistic, it fits with the monkey-minded ways we tend to interact with each other. Wouldn't there still be value in recognizing our proneness to such illusions, and in developing skills at seeing through such illusions. I personally find it valuable to have at least some skill at that.
Anyway, I recommend checking out what Sapolsky has to say, because I'm sure his case is a zillion times better than what I am able to say about it.
I mean, sure I can read Sapolsky but I prefer to see your arguments, reading we do in our own time this place is to discuss ideas.
Quoting wonderer1
That's fine - yet I think we already have instances in which people do not automatically go with kneejerk reactions. Compare the Nordic justice system with the US'. They are just night and day, one of them is much more humane, the other is just punishment or mostly based on more primitive notions.
But, as I understand it - especially the Nordic one - which is extremely little, is that both of them are based on the notion of freedom of the will, what changes is the way society reacts.
Quoting wonderer1
Let's suppose it is an illusion. What changes? Not much. People will be prone to knee-jerk judgments and others will not. You could say that those who are more rational don't think free will is real, but then one would need evidence for this. I strongly suspect that even those who are less judgmental would not all fit into the camp of determinists, not that you are claiming this, I know.
Either way, we need data for this.
We can still aim for more humane treatment of people who commit crimes, irrespective of the belief in freedom of the will. Because you then have to attempt to explain the other side of the problem:
A criminal will say I had no choice but to do what I did. But then the judge will reply, I have no choice but to condemn you as I will.
Something is off here.
Sure. There are many ways that humanity has culturally come up with, to deal with our innate tendedncies in a more prosocial way. Religions provide some such tools, for example Christianity and Buddhism. I wish I was more knowledgeable about the roots of the more enlightened Nordic perspectives, but I haven't looked into it and am open to reading recommendations.
Quoting Manuel
The extent to which people are educated, to have a more accurate perspective on human nature and how to deal skillfully with having a human nature, might change. I think this is a reasonable hope that Sapolsky and I share.
Quoting Manuel
Right, and the data would require a book length treatment to lay out well.
Which is merely to say that everybody is enslaved to themselves. It seems hardly worth while to consider, let alone refute, such a claim.
Thank you for your response. S o what is this thing called "Free Will"?
Seems to me that free will is the ability which everybody has to choose
how to serve their Master, whether ego or conscience. Still enslaved.
I have no faith in being able to change the way people think. I simply try to offer a new way of thinking, that might and might not appeal to people. People are enslaved either to Ego, glorifying themselves, or glorifying Creation, Conscience.
Everybody is enslaved to either the self or to the Truth itself.
Nice illustration of the fact that folks are either lumpers or splitters. You're creating numerous selves such that our true self is "enslaved" to a lesser self, therefore everyone is enslaved ie not free. That's not an unreasonable way of looking at things, but not superior to others who view the same situation and lump your "ego" and their true selves into a single entity that is "free".
"Ain't"?
Do you know what Ego is? Do you know what Conscience is?
Who's this "self" anyway? As for the Truth, I thought it was supposed to set me free.
If there is free will and you live as a slave to ego and conscience, then that is tragic.
If there is no free will and you live as if there is, then you could not have done otherwise.
I suppose it depends on how you define "ego" and "conscience." It would seem to me that saying, "people are not free because their actions are dependant on their self and their moral sense," is sort of getting things backwards. We are free precisely when these things determine our actions when the self determines how it shall act, i.e. it is "self-determining." We would be unfree to whatever extent we are "enslaved to,"/"determined by," things other than the self and our moral sense.
That is, this seems precisely like an inversion of most definitions of reflexive freedom.
That said, there is a sense in which we might be said to have developed a "false" or "inauthentic," sense of self. Many philosophers write on this sort of thing, particularly in the existentialist tradition. But this would seem to be more a problem of the self being constrained by external forces, cultural preferences, etc. than really a problem with the self lacking freedom because its actions are determined by ego/self.
After all, freedom cannot be when our actions are determined by absolutely nothing. If that was the case, freedom would simply be arbitrary and random action, no course being more likely than any other. Following one's conscience, what one really considers to be good, seems more like the fulfillment of freedom than its absence. Ego is important here as well because we can easily be divided against ourselves. We can have conflicting desires, etc. Only a unified self can thus act freely, which is sort of Plato's argument in the Republic.
You were talking about freedom; now you are talking about free will.
Quoting Piers
I think they are ideas that come to dominate the mind. Ideas always function by division and opposition, and that is why one part of the mind looks at the other as other and calls it 'master' or 'slave'.
There is no freedom in thought, only this division, and no freedom in choice, which is just conflict, and no freedom in will, which is determination itself. But putting all that aside, in the silence of a mind that is alert and responsive there is freedom, because the division and conflict is ended.
Yes, me too on the Nordic angle, have seen a few decent documentaries on YouTube, heard stories from reliable sources, but I'm sure there are books on the topic, which is very interesting, quiet removed from the US justice framework, which is on the whole, too harsh.
Quoting wonderer1
Sure - education is a never ending process which offers everybody plenty of benefits, we create better societies and the like.
Now, there's something that's been indirectly tackled, does your view on us not having free will, include, say, that you are forced to reply (or not) to this sentence here and does that include the ability to merely lift a finger as well?
I'm unsure if Sapolsky would agree that there is felt (perhaps illusory) difference between lifting one's finger right now, and then have someone tap your finger such that it raises out of reflex. This is important.
Quoting wonderer1
Agreed.
Even without metaphysical (free will) freedom, there is such a thing as freedom as determined by the laws of physics (the freedom to phase through a wall). But even if I grant that to you, which I am willing to, you make a point about freedom existing because people in Copenhagen have more freedom than in Palestine. I show that this does not depend on metaphysical freedom and so much so that it is completely relative (Palestinians have the freedom to bear arms, Danes don't). Your point about modern politics is therefore completely unrelated to the discussion.
Quoting Manuel
Because, as I said, the point or meaning of a proposition is separate from whether it has truth value or not. You are doing what some other users here do and basically saying "Ok but so what?/Who cares?" in reply to a discussion topic. That is not philosophy.
In any case, the OP is short and poorly formulated, it does not even fulfill the requirements to make a thread as put in the rules.
Well, there is an issue of whether I would have remembered to reply, which I'd guess I likely wouldn't have if @Vera Mont hadn't subsequently replied in this thread, making Vera part of the causal web that resulted in this reply. :smile:
I don't have strong objections to compatibilist notions of free will, as a matter of pragmatic necessity for beings as complex as we are. I just see a lot of value in awareness of what a compatibilist free will needs to be compatible with.
Quoting Manuel
I'm sure Sapolsky would recognize the difference, and perhaps would go into detail about how the reflex finger raise was a result of a chain of events that didn't go beyond nerve paths between brain and spine. Whereas in the case where the finger raise resulted from someone having written a post on TPF, the causal path was vastly more complicated. It seems clear to me that Sapolsky understands that most of us model the world with our thinking playing a starring role in what we do.
Wait what? The freedom to phase through a wall? That's not freedom, it's a fact about wat physics says can or can't be done, but either way it's not about choice and consequence in any relevant sense in which those words are used.
If we have freedom to go to the left as opposed to turn to the right, if we have the freedom to say a sentence or not say a sentence, then political freedom of course follows.
But let's put that aside, since you think it's entirely irrelevant.
Quoting Lionino
That happens, given the frequency of people posting similar questions, most times people are nice enough, sometimes they're not, that's normal.
Sure, several threads don't meet the criteria asked here. If the discussion is decent, it's tolerated, though a better phrased OP would surely lead to a better discussion.
By the way, I didn't say "who cares", I am asking the determinist to tell me what consequences follow from this belief, which is an appropriate question.
That's fair enough.
Nevertheless, keep in mind that the best theory we have in physics, quantum mechanics, suggests probability, not determinism, unless you follow someone like Sabine Hossenfelder.
Quoting wonderer1
Ah, ok. That is a step forward.
Yes, I brought that up a couple times. That is freedom, a freedom determined by physical facts. The freedom of Danes or Scots or Russians or Palestinians or Chinese are also ultimately determined by physical facts; that was ultimately my point as to why your original comment about modern politics is irrelevant here, and now you seem to agree.
I don't feel like you are actually paying any mind to what I am saying and my original comment was just made in jest as a little criticism, so I am calling it for this thread it should be deleted anyway.
Religion, well, there is little to no hope for traditional religions particularly of the West. Political freedom is understandable with or without free will, we just do not want to be oppressed and abused by others. Perhaps we might replace religion and free will with rationality, the direr enemy of religion, again, Western religions. In the absence of free will one is in touch with the proper way of being in the world. The world being the cause of all our reactions, and in turn our reactions become the causes of change in the world. One way or another one is subjugated by nature and/or human societies, for autonomy and morality are mutually exclusive.
Firstly, it is incredibly important to define what one means by freedom in philosophy of free will: I suspect this definition of 'freedom' is toto genere different than contemporary definitions. For me, as a compatibilist, I would say that 'free will' is 'the ability to choose in accordance with one's will'.
Secondly, ego vs. conscience is a false dilemma--e.g., my conscience could force me to be egoistic and my ego could compel me to follow my conscience and, not to mention, I could be driven by neither.
Fourthly, even if one was forced to either follow their 'ego' or their 'conscience', then it depends on what exactly one means by that whether my definition (above) of free will is compatible with it or not. If you just mean that they are abiding by their own will, which happens to be to follow their conscience or to be super egoistic, then I see no reason to accept, even if it weren't a false dilemma, that free will does not exist.
The self can be slave to ego or conscience, or the self can be master of ego or conscience. You have provided insufficient support for your claim that the former is necessarily the case.
The will is our instinct for security: physical, emotional and spiritual. The will is our master instinct.
Substituting "the will" for "ego or conscience" changes nothing.
The self can be slave to "the will" [s]ego or conscience[/s], or the self can be master of "the will" [s]ego or conscience[/s]. You have provided insufficient support for your claim that the former is necessarily the case.
You keep making the same unsupported claim using different terms. Repeating the claim will not make it true nor does it persuade.
Where is your argument?
Now everyone is enslaved by "the will", which you have also left undefined.
You are simply repeating the same claim using different terms.
Where is your argument?
I greatly appreciate the concise, stark gauntlet you've laid down. I'd rather not be forced to play the adversary and refute your words, but in your spirit of directness and shear clarity, I humbly proceed on your terms.
The clearest way to refute "there is no such thing as freedom" would be to demonstrate there is such a thing as freedom. I'll just look at this assertion here as the question "Is there such a thing as freedom?"
The real content of your assertion is "everybody is enslaved to either ego or conscience."
Let's break this down. "Everybody is enslaved." This, to me, restates we are focused on freedom, but in this case, we call it enslavement or a determinate not-freedom. So it's just an inverse restatement of the question. "Is there such a thing as freedom or are we enslaved?" (In a way you've sort of created a tautology, where you said "no such thing as freedom...because everybody is enslaved" which means the same as "everybody enslaved because no freedom", but that is why I just see all of this as the question.)
The real, real content, then, is "enslaved to either ego or conscience."
I have a real problem refuting this because I would say, I agree that, we are enslaved, thrown in a deterministic world of efficient necessity. I'd rather use different pivots than "ego" or "conscience" and simply say I agree that, because we become what we become, we are enslaved to either this or that. Always in chains, to either this, or that.
I agree with "we are enslaved to either or."
However, the "either or" seems to create a place for freedom. Maybe I am not free, and whether I "choose" this or I "choose" that, I am choosing this or that enslavement. But then is there really an "either or" at all? There is not this versus that, when there is either enslavement or enslavement. If instead I carve out a space where "either or" does exist, am I not forced to admit I've created a space for freedom at least?
Freedom is a noun. You made it a thing, and called it freedom. You said, "There is no such thing as freedom." Freedom, the will, a choice - these are stagnant things.
To see whether "everybody is enslaved" (an act) I think we should look at what is happening (an act) at the moment we think we might be acting freely.
I look for freedom in an act of consent, consenting to whichever enslavement. We aren't necessarily freely choosing the things we choose, but we can give our consent to the choice anyway, and this consenting is the act of freedom. We are not free, we are free anyway, when we consent to this or that.
The free act doesn't come from my will. I don't know what a will is. Freedom doesn't exist over there in my closet and sometimes I grab some freedom when I act, sometimes I don't. Freedom is created during the moments I am consenting to whatever else is, be that enslavement or something else. I consent anyway, and thereby am freely acting, (and thereby, I am). This consent creates the consenting subject who is then immediately chained back to its enslavement.
It might be that moving to a new word, "consent" is just smoke and mirrors. The real either or in this discussion is: am I free to either consent or not consent? And we are really back to square one.
Here is where the word "consent" is better than simply freedom. It does not matter if you are free or not, you can still create your own consent. This is where freedom might be.
I think a surfer creates a perfect picture of where I think freedom lies. Picture yourself on a surfboard, riding a wave. You are not free to run, or maybe even sit down. Really you have limited options now.
In fact, riding along, in total command, you are actually just carried along by the wave, pretending you are taming the wave while you ride at best; if you stand rigid and stiff the wave takes your balance and you are carried along by the wave; if you want to stop surfing and you dive off your board you are carried by the wave. Nowhere in this picture do you really have a choice if you seek to avoid the wave. There forever is the wave and the ocean enslaving the surfer. But while on this ride, for a few seconds or maybe a minute, the surfer is distinct from the wave. Only for these brief moments might there be freedom. During this time the surfer can admit "I know where this is all headed, just as I know how I'm going to get there (the enslavement of the ocean waves), but I consent to ride the board, or see how long I can sit on the board, or dive, each and either or being a rejoining oneself to being carried along by the wave carrying you all along with your consent, with you consenting.
Those fleeting moments where we might give our mere consent to the next enslavement, be it even my own ego or conscience (riding the wave of my psyche), that is such a thing as freedom.
I haven't really analyzed "ego" or "conscience". So I haven't really refuted anything . Or maybe my little surfer story caused a total 180 in your thinking and you think there really is such a thing as freedom now. I can't decide which is more likely (or can I?).
Is it my imagination or are you just saying that people either think everyone is free or some are free, and just ignoring the idea that no people are free in the hope that no-one notices that it may be no more appealing than the other two options?
However, I probably agree to an extent. We are free only to the extent that we begin to be agents that are struggling with how things are (rather than say recognizing how they are or being completely transcendent to them): no-one is completely free, not unless you want to dilute the meaning of that to something smaller than may be its intent.
One may be "enslaved" by a lot of --and much more important and powerful-- things besides ego (in the sense of personal drives) and conscience (in a moral sense). These may influence a person's decisions, actions and behavior in general. But this doesn't mean that they limit a person's freedom.
There are two kinds of freedom: freedom from and freedom to.
My fears, prejudices, inhibitions, conscience, etc., are obstacles in my acting freely. If I can I get free of (from) them, I can act more freely.
Abiding to rules, my rights and those of the other people, having the necessary means to do something, etc., restrict my actions in a similar way. The more I have and the better I use them, the more a can act freely.
Freedom is absence of obstacles.
And, if you had said "There is no such thing as absolute freedom" I would totally agree. There simply cannot be. There are always obstacles, which lead us to talk about our relative freedom. And we do have plenty of it! :smile:
Thats quite a claim, if the definition is absence of obstacles.
Surely you mean to say, I, or philosophy, cant conceive of absolute freedom.
Thanks, Javi.
I know what you mean. But see, obstacles is something quite general and relative. E.g. on a road empty of other cars (no obstacles), you can drive freely as you wish. On a road with a few cars (i.e. few obstacles) your driving is restricted accordingly; there's some loss of freedom. And in a traffic jam, you are totally immobilized; there's a total loss of freedom.
Your freedom is restricted according to the number and importance of the obstacles you encounter. And because all this is relative, freedom is also something relative.
In other words, the expression "absence of obstacles" is indicative. It doesn't mean "total absence of obstacles".
For example, someone who meditates seeks to disengage with obstacles. To achieve a state in which he/she is free of obstacles. When they achieve this state they are entirely free of obstacles and no less free than they were before they began meditating. A state of samadhi is entirely free of obstacles.
So stillness is entirely free of obstacles and therefore entirely free.
Very interesting interpretation! And a very good example.
... And I was wondering ... where are those in this medium who have even the least interest in Eastern philosophies?
You are a brave person. I normally avoid bringing up that kind of stuff in this medium! :smile:
:up:
Quoting Punshhh
I like your argument. It reminds me of Nirvana, but I don't want to mix or confuse your points.
The translation of Nirvana into English is literally 'liberation' or 'freedom' and it is the state of mind that we achieve when we get rid of the disturbing mental elements. I think it goes the same way as your example.
Generally, most of the Buddhist or Hinduism disciplines and practices want to achieve exactly that: freedom of mind obstacles.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Me too. I am scared of bringing these topics here and getting rejected - or even disrespected - because East philosophy, religion and culture are not really appreciated here... :confused:
This is why I miss some users as @T Clark. He was very committed with East thought and he even started a Tao thread where we exchanged views and opinions for months...
Please dont feel you will be rejected if you bring up eastern philosophy on this site. There are a handful of people here with an interest. I am one of the resident mystics, one might say.
Although if you start a thread, unless you find some like minded people to respond, it often stalls as the majority of posters tend to lose interest.
Quoting Punshhh
That's precisely what worries me the most. A large number of users lost interest in both philosophy and religion but they spend a lot of time and energy discussing about Trump.
I started some threads about these topics in the past, and they did get a brief attention. After one or two weeks, they disappeared in the deepness pages of the forum.
I remember specifically this one: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13200/why-does-religion-condemn-suicide
It was a very interesting thread, focusing on the differences between religions about suicide.
It ended up in a debate on what would have happened if Hitler killed himself before the Third Reich... :roll:
Back to freedom. I said that there is no freedom because we are all enslaved to either ego or conscience. But, I believe in Free Will. We all have free will when it is defined as your ability to choose how to serve: Either your ego or your conscience. Piers Woodriff