Free-dom
What should I do today? A typical question some of you might ask on any given day. But am I really free to choose what I end up doing today? I, as many have done before our time, wonder if I'm in the drivers seat calling the shots or in the passengers checkin' out the scenery.
Will or will not? Arguably "to be or not to be?".
There are two main arguments to this long debated question. Are we really in control of what we do and choose, or are actions simply reduced to a physiological/biological response? Most behaviourists and evolutionists aim to flood us with studies that demonstrate the associations between our nervous system, brain and our actions, all of which are not completely without grounds. However, opposing persons throughout the times have continued to fight for the individual and this mysterious concept of will, or even free will.
Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) was the first to believe that not only did mind and body exist (prior to this the mind was responsible for interpreting sensations and used for introspection and philosophic endeavours), he thought them to be inseparable and were intertwined in all of our being. Mind, body and spirit were all in one, they simply offered different explanations for our nature and experiences, provided us with a framework that could explain more about humans. Oddly enough, despite his mission to enlighten us with "a way of life that is both ethically correct and personally satisfying" (Hergenhahn, 2009), he denied the concept of free will. Spinoza's explanation lies in causation. He believed everything we do is determined by a cause. This means not that motivation is the answer, but rather that we do things because something, someone or circumstances "cause" us to.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who lived during the Romantic Period after the Dark Ages that set us back, believed that for civilization to exist humans have to give up a certain amount of their primitive independence, otherwise known as our animal instincts. But Rousseau also wanted to identify how we could still be as free as possible and live in harmony with our basic human tendencies. He introduced the term "general will" in order to describe the state of community and how it worked to keep us in balance. This separated our tendency to be selfish and helped us act in ways that were generally beneficial to the whole community. Others, like Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) coined the term "will to survive" which was part of the individuals unknown force for self-preservation, unlike the more conscious effort of general will as described by Rousseau, it remained more subconscious.
Thus the debate continues. Is will a choice or is it part of the human mechanism?
Since some people believe that we must determine all things in the universe and that everything must have an explanation, whether scientific, mathematical or they need to see it to believe it, to them free will does not exist. What they do today will be because of something, anything that made them do it.
To others, who rather think that humans are free to choose their own type of existence must attribute its behaviour to a subjective reality. These people wish to believe that humans are more than machines and don't need every sensation or action to have a logical or rational explanation to describe them. This means that what they do today is unrelated to anything, but their ability and desire to do everything they want does exists.
Will or will not? Arguably "to be or not to be?".
There are two main arguments to this long debated question. Are we really in control of what we do and choose, or are actions simply reduced to a physiological/biological response? Most behaviourists and evolutionists aim to flood us with studies that demonstrate the associations between our nervous system, brain and our actions, all of which are not completely without grounds. However, opposing persons throughout the times have continued to fight for the individual and this mysterious concept of will, or even free will.
Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) was the first to believe that not only did mind and body exist (prior to this the mind was responsible for interpreting sensations and used for introspection and philosophic endeavours), he thought them to be inseparable and were intertwined in all of our being. Mind, body and spirit were all in one, they simply offered different explanations for our nature and experiences, provided us with a framework that could explain more about humans. Oddly enough, despite his mission to enlighten us with "a way of life that is both ethically correct and personally satisfying" (Hergenhahn, 2009), he denied the concept of free will. Spinoza's explanation lies in causation. He believed everything we do is determined by a cause. This means not that motivation is the answer, but rather that we do things because something, someone or circumstances "cause" us to.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who lived during the Romantic Period after the Dark Ages that set us back, believed that for civilization to exist humans have to give up a certain amount of their primitive independence, otherwise known as our animal instincts. But Rousseau also wanted to identify how we could still be as free as possible and live in harmony with our basic human tendencies. He introduced the term "general will" in order to describe the state of community and how it worked to keep us in balance. This separated our tendency to be selfish and helped us act in ways that were generally beneficial to the whole community. Others, like Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) coined the term "will to survive" which was part of the individuals unknown force for self-preservation, unlike the more conscious effort of general will as described by Rousseau, it remained more subconscious.
Thus the debate continues. Is will a choice or is it part of the human mechanism?
Since some people believe that we must determine all things in the universe and that everything must have an explanation, whether scientific, mathematical or they need to see it to believe it, to them free will does not exist. What they do today will be because of something, anything that made them do it.
To others, who rather think that humans are free to choose their own type of existence must attribute its behaviour to a subjective reality. These people wish to believe that humans are more than machines and don't need every sensation or action to have a logical or rational explanation to describe them. This means that what they do today is unrelated to anything, but their ability and desire to do everything they want does exists.
Comments
Post a Comment