Blog

1. Conscious Human Action
TOPIC Compare Freedom with Lawful Necessity The traditional idea about ourselves is that we are free to decide what we want to do and then do it, at least some of the time. This naive belief in free will is not normally questioned, even though spiritual leaders, philosophers and scientists have warned us about the illusion of freedom. "Is a human being free in his thinking and action, or compelled by the unyielding necessity of natural law?" TPOF 1.0
Human Freedom Freedom: Is a human being free in his thinking and acting? Moralists declare freedom an obvious fact, because without it there can be no moral responsibility.		Lawful Necessity Necessity: The human being is compelled by the unyielding necessity of natural law. Science says we are a part of nature, so we too are subject to the universality of natural law just like the rest of nature.
Compatibilism Many distinctions are made to explain how freedom can be compatible with determinism in nature.
STEP #25 Freedom Of Indifference (1.1) Compare Freedom Of Indifference with Determined By Reason
Freedom Of Indifferent Choice Freedom: To arbitrary choose, entirely at will, between two courses of action without preference. An indifferent choice is free of lawful necessity because it is made without being determined by any reason.		Determined By A Reason Lawful Necessity: The freedom of indifferent choice is an illusion. We learn about cause and effect in elementary science. Research indicates there is always a cause, a specific reason  ―whether we are aware of it or not― why a person carries out one action from among several possibilities. Also, when the choice is ‘indifferent’, it is not a factor in determining the moral value of human conduct and character.
Conscious Action The question of freedom requires much more than the superficial conclusion that there exists a reason for why we act. Deeper research is needed.
STEP #26 Freedom Of Choice (1.2) Compare Freedom Of Choice with Determined By Desire
Freedom Of Choice Freedom: Freedom of choice is not to be indifferent, but to choose according to your own preferences.		Determined By Desire Lawful Necessity: The essential principle concealed in the dogma of free will is that our choices are determined by our desire. An analysis of consciousness shows we are not at liberty to desire or not to desire as we please. Therefore we are not free.
Conscious Action If there is always a reason for why we act, the deeper question becomes what is this reason?
STEP #27 Free Expression (1.3) Compare Free Expression with Determined By External Causes
Free Expression Of One’s Nature Freedom: This view believes freedom is not located in free decision, but in the necessity to express yourself. If we know our self, and exist and act solely out of the necessity of our “own” nature, we are free, even though we exist in a necessary way. We must remain true to our nature.		Determined By External Causes Lawful Necessity: Everything is determined by external causes to exist and to act in a fixed and exact way. Human nature is both inherited and the result of environmental conditioning. We strive to the best of our ability convinced we are free, but what we express is merely our conditioning. Because a person is only conscious of his action, he falsely looks upon himself as the free originator of it.
Conscious Action A person is not just conscious of his action, he can also be conscious of the causes that guide his action. Human actions are not all the same. There is a profound difference between knowing and not knowing why I act. A motive of action fully known to me, compels in a different way than the urges of nature.
STEP #28 Character (1.4) Compare Freedom Of Character with Determined By Character
Freedom Of Character (free of external causes) Freedom: People who are different act differently when they encounter a situation because willing depends on two main factors: motives and character. Before we act on an idea given to us from the outside, it must first meet the approval of our character so that the idea arouses in us a desire to act. In this way a person is motivated from within, and free of outside influences.		Determined By Disposition Of Character Lawful Necessity: Even though we must first adopt an idea as a motive, this is not done arbitrarily. An idea is turned into a motive of action according to the necessity of the disposition of our character. We are anything but free.
Conscious Action Here again, the difference between motives is ignored. There are ideas given from the outside that I accept only after I have consciously made them my own. There are other ideas I follow without a clear knowledge of them.
STEP #29 Conscious Motive (1.5) Compare The Knower with The Doer
The Knower Freedom: The question of free will needs to be linked with the question of whether we are conscious of the motive. The conscious motive will result in an action that must be judged differently than one that springs from blind urge.		The Doer Lawful Necessity: If we are conscious of the motive we have a reason to act. But people are normally split between knowers and doers. The knower may know what to do, but does not act. While the doer may not know what to do, but acts anyway.
Conscious Action A deeper investigation asks, What does it mean to have a knowledge that results in action? The one that matters most is the knowing doer, because he acts out of knowledge.
STEP #30 Rational Decision (1.6) Compare Rational Decision with Rational Necessity
Rational Decision Freedom: A person is free when their reason rather than animal cravings control their action. Or freedom means to determine one’s life and action according to purpose and deliberate decision.		Determined By Rational Necessity Lawful Necessity: The real issue is whether reason, purpose, and decision exercise the same compulsion over a person as their animal cravings. If, without my involvement, a rational decision occurs in me with the same necessity as hunger or thirst, then I must obey it. My freedom is an illusion.
Conscious Action Nothing is gained by assertions of this kind if we are not actually involved in the decision.
STEP #31 (1.7) Compare Ability To Do with Strongest Motive
The Ability To Do Freedom: Freedom is not found in our will, since our will is always determined by motives. Instead, freedom occurs when one has the ability to do what one wishes. Freedom depends on having the right external circumstances and technical skill to successfully carry out our idea of action.		Determined By Strongest Motive Lawful Necessity: Our motives vary in strength, with some being stronger than others. The will is determined by the ‘strongest’ motive from among the others, so it is not free. And if I am forced by the motive to do something I find unreasonable, I will even be glad if I am unable to do it. This is not freedom.
Conscious Action The question is not whether I can carry out a decision once made, but how the decision comes about within me.
STEP #32 (1.8) Compare Spontaneous Will with Invisible Cause
Spontaneous Will Freedom: Just as spirited horses run free across open plains, the spontaneous human will is free. The cause of the horse running, with no sense of restraint, is the unconditioned will; it is an absolute beginning. It is the same for spontaneous human action.		Determined By Invisible Cause Lawful Necessity: The causes that determine the horse’s acts of will are internal and invisible. The horse is not free and neither are we. We do not perceive the determining cause, and so believe it does not exist.
Conscious Of The Reason To Act Conscious Action: Here too, human actions in which there is consciousness of the reasons is ignored. There are actions, not of the horse but of the human being, where between us and the deed lies the motive that has become conscious. What distinguishes humans from all other living things is rational thinking. Activity we have in common with other creatures. Seeking analogies for human action in the animal kingdom does not help to clarify the concept of freedom.
STEP #33 (1.9) Compare Know The Thought with Know The Origin
Know The Thought Freedom: Obviously, an action cannot be free if the doer carries it out without knowing why. An action is free when the reasons are known. The moment our conduct rises above the satisfying of purely animal desires, human motives are always shaped by thoughts.		Know The Origin Of Thought Lawful Necessity: This leads us to the question: What is the origin of our thoughts and what does it mean to think? When we have a general understanding of what it means to think, it will be easy to see clearly the role thinking plays in human action.
Conscious Action It is thinking that turns what is common to us all into individual spirit. This is why it is thinking that gives to human action its characteristic stamp.
STEP #34 Heart (1.10) Compare The Heart with Empowered Thought
Driving Force Of Heart Freedom: All our our actions do not proceed from the calm deliberations of our reason. Love, compassion, and patriotism are driving forces for deeds that cannot be explained away with cold intellectual concepts. In this case the driving force of the heart prevails.		Empowered Thought Motive Lawful Necessity: Even though distinctly human motives are always shaped by thoughts this does not mean that only actions resulting from abstract judgment alone are human in the highest sense. The heart does not create the motives of action. Motives are present prior to being received into the hearts domain. Compassion appears in my heart as a driving force to act after the thought of a person who arouses compassion has appeared in my mind.
Conscious Action The mind and heart work together in the unity of motive and driving force. The way to the heart is through the head.
STEP #35 Love (1.11) Compare Act Of Love with Idealizing The Beloved
Act Of Love Freedom: We are free when our action is an expression of love. We act out of love for someone or something.		Form Idealized Thought Lawful Necessity: Here, again, it must be pointed out that the way to love is through the head. Love depends on the thoughts we form of the beloved. The more idealistic these thoughts are the more blissful is our love.
Conscious Action Thought is the father of feeling.
STEP #36 Seeing Good (1.12) Compare Seeing Good with Forming Perception-Picture
Seeing The Good Freedom: It is said that love makes us blind to the flaws of the loved one. But we can turn this around and say love opens our eyes to the good qualities. Many pass by these good qualities without noticing them. One, however, sees them, and just because he does, love awakens in his heart.		Form Perception-Picture Of Good Qualities Lawful Necessity: The reason we see the good is because we form a perception-picture of the person filled with the good qualities that others have ignored.
Conscious Action Others do not experience love because their perception-picture lacks the good qualities.
Next Question: What Is The Origin Of Our Thoughts? The illusion of freedom occurs when we are conscious of our striving but unaware of the causes. By gaining knowledge of why we act motives compel us in a different way than if they remain hidden. The motives that direct human action are shaped by thoughts so before we can answer the question of whether we are freely self-determined or not we must investigate the origin of our thoughts. The discussion will turn to this in the next chapter, The Desire For Knowledge.

BOOK TEXT

1. CONSCIOUS HUMAN ACTION

1.0 The Question Of Freedom
[1] Is a human being free in his thinking and action, or compelled by the unyielding necessity of natural law? Few questions have been the focus of so much ingenuity. The Idea of freedom has many enthusiastic supporters and stubborn opponents. Moral zealots accuse anyone of stupidity who denies so obvious a fact as freedom. Scientific thinkers oppose them. They say its just ignorance for anyone to believe the universality of natural law suspends itself in the field of human action and thought. The same thing is as often called humanity's most precious possession as its worst illusion. Endless distinctions are used to explain how freedom can be compatible with determinism in nature. Man, after all, is a part of nature. No less effort has gone into explaining how this delusion could arise. The importance of the question of freedom for life, religion, conduct, and science is felt by anyone with any depth of character.

1.1 Freedom Of Indifferent Choice
One sad sign of the superficiality of today's thought is David Friedrich Strauss's book (The New and the Old Belief). It intends to construct a “new faith” from the results of scientific research, yet has only this to say on the question of freedom:

"We are not concerned with the question of free will. The supposedly 'indifferent' freedom of choice has always been recognized as an empty illusion by every reputable philosophy. An indifferent choice is not a factor in determining the moral value of human conduct and character."

I do not consider the book important. I quote this passage because it expresses the only opinion our thinking contemporaries seem able to reach on this question. Everyone who has grown beyond elementary science is certain of one thing about freedom. It cannot consist in arbitrary choosing, entirely at will, between two courses of action. There is always, so we are told, a specific reason why a person carries out one action from among several possibilities.

1.2 Freedom Of Choice
[2] This seems obvious. Yet opponents of freedom still direct their main attacks against freedom of choice. Herbert Spencer, whose doctrines are growing in popularity, says,

"That everyone is at liberty to desire or not to desire, as he pleases, is the essential principle concealed in the dogma of free will. This freedom is refuted by the analysis of consciousness, as well as by the contents of the preceding chapter [on psychology]."

1.3 Free Necessity Of One's Nature
Others begin from the same point when attacking free will. The essence of all the relevant arguments can be found as early as Spinoza. His clear and simple argument against the Idea of freedom has been repeated countless times. Though it is usually enclosed in complicated theoretical doctrines that make it difficult to recognize the simple line of thought, which is all that matters. Spinoza writes in a letter of October or November 1674,

"I call free all that exists and acts out of the necessity of its nature. I call it unfree, if its existence and activity are determined in an exact and fixed way by something else. For example, God is free, even though he exists in a necessary way, because he exists solely out of the necessity of his own nature. Similarly, God knows himself and all other things freely, because it follows solely from the necessity of his nature to know all. I locate freedom, not in free decision, but in free necessity.

[3] "Let us come down to created things, which are all determined by external causes to exist and to act in a fixed and exact way. To see this more clearly, let us imagine a very simple case. A stone, for example, receives a certain momentum from the impact of an external cause. Of necessity, the stone continues to move after the impact. The continued motion of the stone is compelled, for it is due to the external impact, and not to the necessity of the stone's own nature. What applies here to the stone, applies to everything else, no matter how complex and many-sided. Everything is determined by external causes with the necessity to exist and to act in a fixed and exact way.

[4] "Now please assume the stone, while in motion, thinks and knows it is striving to the best of its ability to continue in motion. The stone is only conscious of its striving and by no means indifferent. It will be convinced it is free and continues in motion, not because of an external cause, but because it wills to do so. This is just the human freedom everyone claims to have. The reason it appears to be freedom is because human beings are conscious of their desires, but do not know the causes that determine those desires. Thus the child believes it freely desires milk, the angry boy freely demands revenge, and the coward flight. The drunken man believes he says things of his own free will that, when sober again, he will wish he had not said. Since this bias is inborn in everybody, it is difficult to free oneself from it. Experience teaches us often enough people are least able to moderate their desires. When torn by conflicting passions they see the better and pursue the worse. Yet they still regard themselves as free, because they desire some things less intensely. And some desires can be easily inhibited by recalling a familiar memory that often preoccupies one's mind."

[5] Because this opinion is clearly and directly expressed, its easy to detect the basic error. Of necessity, the stone continues to move after an impact. With the same necessity, a human being is supposed to carry out an action when driven by any reason. Because he is only conscious of his action, he looks upon himself as the free originator of it. However, he overlooks the causes driving him that he must obey unconditionally.

The error in this line of argument is easy to find. Spinoza, and all who think like him, overlook the fact that a human being is not just conscious of his action. He can also become conscious of the causes that guide his action. Anyone can see a child is not free when it desires milk, as is the drunk who says things he later regrets. Both know nothing of the causes working deep within their organism that exercise irresistible control over them. Is it right to group such actions together with those of a human being who is not only conscious of his actions, but also of the reasons that motivate him?

Are human actions really all of one kind? Should the deeds of a soldier on the battlefield, a scientist in the laboratory, or a diplomat involved in complex negotiations be ranked in the same scientific category as those of a child craving milk? It is true the best way of seeking the solution to a problem is where the conditions are simplest. But the inability to see distinctions causes endless confusion. There is a profound difference between knowing and not knowing why I act. This is an obvious truth. Yet the opponents of freedom never ask whether a motive of action known to me in full transparency, compels me in the same way an organic process causes a child to cry for milk.

1.4 Conduct According To Character
[6] Eduard von Hartmann, in his Phenomenology of Moral Consciousness, says that human willing depends on two main factors: motives and character. If we look at human beings as all alike, then their will appears determined from outside, by the situations they encounter. But people are different. A human being will adopt an idea as the motive of his conduct, only if his character is such that this idea arouses a desire in him to act. If we keep in mind people are different then their will appears determined from within and not from outside.

Now, the human being believes he is free, independent of outside motivation, because he must first make the idea imposed on him from outside into a motive, according to his character. But according to Eduard von Hartmann, the truth is he is not free,

"Even though we first adopt an idea as a motive, this is not done arbitrarily. An idea is turned into a motive according to the necessity of our characterological disposition. We are anything but free."

Here again, the difference between motives is ignored. There are motives I allow to influence me only after I have consciously made them my own, and others I follow without a clear knowledge of them.

1.5 Action Resulting From Conscious Motive
[7] This leads straight to the standpoint from which the subject will be considered here. Should the question of free will be posed narrowly by itself, in a one-sided way? And if not, what other question must it necessarily be linked?

[8] If there is a difference between a conscious and an unconscious motive of action, then theconscious motive will result in an action that must be judged differently than one that springs from blind urge. Our first question will concern this difference. The position we must take on freedom itself will depend on the result of this investigation.

[9] What is the significance of having knowledge of the motives of one's action? Too little attention has been given to this question because we always split in two what is an inseparable whole: the human being. The doer is set apart from the knower, but the one that matters most is lost sight of —the knowing doer, the one who acts out of knowledge.

1.6 Free When Controlled By Reason
[10] It is said that man is free when his reason rather than his animal cravings control his action. Or freedom means to determine one’s life and action according to purpose and deliberate decision.

[11] Nothing is gained by assertions of this kind. For the real issue is whether reason, purpose, and decision exercise the same compulsion over a human being as his animal cravings. If, without my involvement, a rational decision occurs in me with the same necessity as hunger or thirst, then I must obey it. My freedom is an illusion.

1.7 Freedom To Do What One Wishes
[12] Another argument puts it this way: To be free does not mean being able to will what one wishes, but being able to do what one wishes. The philosopher-poet Robert Hamerling has given very clear-cut expression to this thought in his Atomistik des Willens:

“The human being can certainly do what he wishes, but he cannot will as he wishes, because his will is determined by motives! — He cannot will as he wishes? Let us look at these words more closely. Do they make any sense? Is free will to mean the ability to will something without reason, without motive? But what else does willing mean, other than having a reason for doing or striving for this rather than that? To will something for no reason and with no motive would mean to will it without wanting it. The concept of willing is inseparable from that of motive. Without a determining motive the will is an empty capacity: only through the motive does it become active and real. It is, therefore, correct to say the human will is 'unfree' to the extent its direction is always determined by the strongest motive. But it is absurd to contrast this 'unfreedom' with a possible 'freedom of will' that amounts to being able to will what one does not want.”

[13] Here again only motives in general are discussed, without taking into account the difference between conscious and unconscious motivations. If a motive affects me, and I am compelled to act because it proves to be the "strongest" from among other motives, then the thought of freedom ceases to have any meaning. Why should it matter to me whether I can do something or not, if I am forced by the motive to do it? The primary question is not whether I can or cannot do something once the motive has influenced me, but whether all motives work with inescapable necessity. If I am forced to will something, then I may be completely indifferent as to whether I can also do it. And if, because of my character and the circumstances prevailing in my environment, a motive is forced on me that I find unreasonable, then I would be glad if I am unable to do it.

[14] The question is not whether I can carry out a decision once made, but how the decision comes about within me.

1.8 Freedom Of A Spontaneous Unconditioned Will
[15] What distinguishes humans from all other living things is rational thinking. Activity we have in common with other creatures. Seeking analogies for human action in the animal kingdom does not help to clarify the concept of freedom. Modern science loves such analogies. When scientists succeed in finding among animals something similar to human behavior, they believe this has something to do with the most important question of the science of man. To what misunderstandings this view leads is seen, for example, in Paul Rée’s book, The Illusion of Free Will. Rée says the following on the subject of freedom:

"It is easy to explain why it appears to us the movement of a stone is by necessity, while the will of the donkey is not. The causes that set the stone in motion are external and visible. But the causes that determine the donkey's acts of will are internal and invisible. Between us and the place where they occur is the donkey’s skull... We cannot see the determining cause, and so believe it does not exist. The will, they tell us, is indeed the cause of the donkey’s turning around, but is itself unconditioned; it is an absolute beginning.”

Here too, human actions in which there is consciousness of the reasons is ignored. Rée explains: “between us and the place where they occur is the donkey’s skull.” As these words show it has not dawned on Rée that there are actions, not of the donkey but of the human being, where between us and the deed lies the motive that has become conscious. A few pages later Rée demonstrates the same blindness when he says: “We do not perceive the causes that determine our will and so believe it is not causally determined at all.”

[16] But enough of examples proving many argue against freedom without knowing what freedom really is.

1.9 Self-Determined Reason For Action
[17] Obviously, an action cannot be free if the doer carries it out without knowing why. But what are we to say of the freedom of an action when the reasons are known? This leads us to the question: What is the origin of our thoughts and what does it mean to think? For without knowledge of the thinking activity of the mind, it is impossible to form a concept of what it means to know something, including what it means to know the reason for an action. When we have a general understanding of what it means to think, it will be easy to see clearly the role thinking plays in human action. As Hegel rightly says,

"It is thinking that turns the soul, common to us and animals, into spirit."

And this is why it is thinking that gives to human action its characteristic stamp.

1.10 Driving Force Of The Heart
[18] By no means should it be said that all our actions proceed only from the calm deliberations of our reason. I am not suggesting that only actions resulting from abstract judgment alone, are human in the highest sense. But the moment our conduct rises above the satisfying of purely animal desires, our motives are always shaped by thoughts. Love, compassion, and patriotism are driving forces for deeds that cannot be explained away with cold intellectual concepts. It is said that here the heart prevails. No doubt. But the heart does not create the motives of action. Motives are present prior to being received into the hearts domain. Compassion appears in my heart after the thought of a person who arouses compassion occurs in my mind. The way to the heart is through the head.

1.11 Idealizing The Loved One
Love is no exception. Whenever love is not merely the expression of the sexual drive, it depends on the thoughts we form of the beloved. The more idealistic these thoughts are, the more blissful is our love. Here, too, thought is the father of feeling.

1.12 Seeing The Good
It is said that love makes us blind to the flaws of the loved one. But we can turn this around and say love opens our eyes to the good qualities of the loved one. Many pass by these good qualities without noticing them. One, however, sees them, and just because he does, love awakens in his heart. What he has done is form a perception-picture that includes the good qualities that others have ignored. Others do not experience love because they lack the perception-picture.

[19] From whatever point we approach this subject, one thing becomes more and more clear. An investigation into the origin of our thoughts must come before we can answer the question concerning the nature of human action. So I will turn to this next.