EPISTEMOLOGY PART 2: FREE WILL VS. DETERMINISM
VOLITION OR DETERMINISM?
Just as realizing the validity of the senses is a precondition to a coherent epistemology, so is settling the long standing debate between volition and determinism. Before we progress into how concepts are formed, it's essential to understand that we as humans have volition, also known as "free will". Volition doesn't apply to our perceptions, only to concepts. When you open your eyes you have no choice but to see what's in front of you, or if you touch a hot stove you have no choice but to feel the burn. However, when it comes to forming and integrating concepts, or thinking, we do have choice in the matter, even though often our brain is so powerful that it seems like we're not putting in much effort. Unfortunately, the notion of free will is often associated with religion (as it's sometimes championed by Christianity) and determinism is often thought of as more "scientific". Particularly in psychology, thinkers like Freud and B.F. Skinner sought to explain human behavior as being caused by mechanistic reasons, similar to how a billiard ball reacts when truck by a cue. To the scientist, it's attractive to think that since physics can explain the cause and effect of the physical world, it could similarly explain the human mind and choices it makes. Conversely, the notion of free will can on the surface seem to rely on mysticism or our subjective wish to be independent. Fortunately, we've already seen that using physics to study philosophy is a mistake, and this area is no exception. Let's see why.
First, it's important to distinguish the difference between metaphysical and epistemological determinism. Metaphysical determinism is a mystical view of the universe, where some supernatural force (God) is responsible for setting the universe in motion and overseeing it. It's the idea that God is the ultimate cause of everything, and while it might carry over into epistemology, it's ultimately metaphysical. The errors in the supernatural were covered in Metaphysics Part 3, so we won't deal with that here. Determinism in epistemology is generally put forth by secular thinkers, and masquerades as being logical or scientific.
Just as realizing the validity of the senses is a precondition to a coherent epistemology, so is settling the long standing debate between volition and determinism. Before we progress into how concepts are formed, it's essential to understand that we as humans have volition, also known as "free will". Volition doesn't apply to our perceptions, only to concepts. When you open your eyes you have no choice but to see what's in front of you, or if you touch a hot stove you have no choice but to feel the burn. However, when it comes to forming and integrating concepts, or thinking, we do have choice in the matter, even though often our brain is so powerful that it seems like we're not putting in much effort. Unfortunately, the notion of free will is often associated with religion (as it's sometimes championed by Christianity) and determinism is often thought of as more "scientific". Particularly in psychology, thinkers like Freud and B.F. Skinner sought to explain human behavior as being caused by mechanistic reasons, similar to how a billiard ball reacts when truck by a cue. To the scientist, it's attractive to think that since physics can explain the cause and effect of the physical world, it could similarly explain the human mind and choices it makes. Conversely, the notion of free will can on the surface seem to rely on mysticism or our subjective wish to be independent. Fortunately, we've already seen that using physics to study philosophy is a mistake, and this area is no exception. Let's see why.
First, it's important to distinguish the difference between metaphysical and epistemological determinism. Metaphysical determinism is a mystical view of the universe, where some supernatural force (God) is responsible for setting the universe in motion and overseeing it. It's the idea that God is the ultimate cause of everything, and while it might carry over into epistemology, it's ultimately metaphysical. The errors in the supernatural were covered in Metaphysics Part 3, so we won't deal with that here. Determinism in epistemology is generally put forth by secular thinkers, and masquerades as being logical or scientific.
Imagine the case of a young man robbing a convenience store. The free will viewpoint would say that the man is responsible for his crime, as he is capable of making the decision to rob or not to rob the store. A determinist might argue that he's just acting based on a series of inputs the world has given his brain. Perhaps his parents, his community, friends, economic status, etc. combined with the genetic workings of his brain culminated in this action. For the purpose of this site, we're dealing with the philosophical idea of determinism. Not the fact that one's decisions might be influenced by environmental factors, but that one's mind is determined by environmental factors. That human thoughts and actions are caused by mechanistic factors; similar, albeit more complex than the billiard ball.
The philosophic basis for determinism takes cause and effect (the corollary of the law of identity) and applies it to human behavior. The robbing of the store is an effect of the man's actions. But we know effect must have a cause. Since, according to the law of identity, everything must act in accordance with its nature, then by definition, his nature must have included him walking into the store at that particular moment. He can't both walk and not walk into the store at the same time, so whatever caused him to do so is in his nature. The idea of free will (according to a Determinist) would be to obliterate the idea of cause and effect. If you have a will that is separate from your nature, then you would be a walking contradiction, and as we know, contradictions in reality are impossible. If that makes your head hurt, don't feel bad! Modern philosophy is full of such nonsense.
The philosophic basis for determinism takes cause and effect (the corollary of the law of identity) and applies it to human behavior. The robbing of the store is an effect of the man's actions. But we know effect must have a cause. Since, according to the law of identity, everything must act in accordance with its nature, then by definition, his nature must have included him walking into the store at that particular moment. He can't both walk and not walk into the store at the same time, so whatever caused him to do so is in his nature. The idea of free will (according to a Determinist) would be to obliterate the idea of cause and effect. If you have a will that is separate from your nature, then you would be a walking contradiction, and as we know, contradictions in reality are impossible. If that makes your head hurt, don't feel bad! Modern philosophy is full of such nonsense.
I am determined, but I don't know it
TO FOCUS OR NOT TO FOCUS
The error in determinism is the failure to acknowledge the nature, the identity of the human consciousness itself. Not all consciousnesses possess volition, but any consciousness that can form concepts, like humans, does. Our consciousness is different from, say, a snail, which operates only on the perceptual level and is incapable of changing the course of its actions independently, and is therefore, "determined". By "determined" we mean it lacks the independent ability to alter its future outside of the world it finds itself in. A snail can only deal with the world by reacting the way it's biologically programmed, it has no choice in the matter. To have a choice would require it to have a different consciousness. The difference is humans have the ability to think, which is a voluntary action. Stated more precisely, the ability to think is the ability to focus. Every moment we are awake, we have the ability, and choice, to focus or not. Every concept we form, every subject we learn, every problem we solve, every sitcom we watch, requires focus.
Right now, you have the choice to concentrate and read this post, to really think about each word and integrate it in with your previous knowledge, or to just skim through it, catching bits and phrases, or even just stare blankly at the screen not thinking at all! The idea that you can sit out of focus and ideas magically come into your head is nonsensical. Similarly, our young robber spent a lifetime of choosing when and how to focus his mind.
When dealing with a human action, it's important to remember that every conscious act we make presupposes a mental process. The mind controls our body, not the other way around. Another word describing this would be awareness. The degree of your awareness is a result of your mind focusing. On the way to the convenience store, the robber had the ability to focus on the situation or not. If he chose to focus on his upcoming actions (and had previously formed the notion that stealing is wrong) then he would examine the situation and alter his decision according to his own ethics. However, if he decided to ignore the morality of the situation, and instead focus on what he would do with the loot, or how he would evade the police, or tried to think of something else entirely, that would be an error in awareness. Ethically, not being aware of your actions would be an error in judgement, which carries with it the corresponding ethical considerations. But we're not on ethics yet, so let's not get ahead of ourselves!
To argue that the robber is "determined" and has no independent control over his thoughts (meaning ability to focus) is nonsensical. How did he learn how to say, "this is a stickup!" in the first place? This isn't to say certain environmental factors couldn't influence him, just that they didn't cause him to think of committing the crime, only he could choose to think that. Volition doesn't violate the law of identity, because the identity of our consciousness is one that can make independent decisions. So while the cause of the robber committing the crime is different from the billiard ball, it's still a cause, and one that conforms to the law of causality (cause and effect).
Again, just like with the 3 axioms and the validity of the senses, we can't "prove" we have volition; it's self-evident, and precedes proof. If this seems like a cop out, it's not. It's self-evident because it's arrived at by observing our own consciousness at work. By reading this passage and thinking, you realize you can focus, or choose not to focus. There is always the option. If you can't grasp that fact then there's nothing me or anyone else can do to convince you. The mere act of beginning to prove volition shows you have it. Just like with the 3 axioms, you either accept them or you don't, but if even if you don't, you will end up showing them true if you go down the path trying to disprove them.
The error in determinism is the failure to acknowledge the nature, the identity of the human consciousness itself. Not all consciousnesses possess volition, but any consciousness that can form concepts, like humans, does. Our consciousness is different from, say, a snail, which operates only on the perceptual level and is incapable of changing the course of its actions independently, and is therefore, "determined". By "determined" we mean it lacks the independent ability to alter its future outside of the world it finds itself in. A snail can only deal with the world by reacting the way it's biologically programmed, it has no choice in the matter. To have a choice would require it to have a different consciousness. The difference is humans have the ability to think, which is a voluntary action. Stated more precisely, the ability to think is the ability to focus. Every moment we are awake, we have the ability, and choice, to focus or not. Every concept we form, every subject we learn, every problem we solve, every sitcom we watch, requires focus.
Right now, you have the choice to concentrate and read this post, to really think about each word and integrate it in with your previous knowledge, or to just skim through it, catching bits and phrases, or even just stare blankly at the screen not thinking at all! The idea that you can sit out of focus and ideas magically come into your head is nonsensical. Similarly, our young robber spent a lifetime of choosing when and how to focus his mind.
When dealing with a human action, it's important to remember that every conscious act we make presupposes a mental process. The mind controls our body, not the other way around. Another word describing this would be awareness. The degree of your awareness is a result of your mind focusing. On the way to the convenience store, the robber had the ability to focus on the situation or not. If he chose to focus on his upcoming actions (and had previously formed the notion that stealing is wrong) then he would examine the situation and alter his decision according to his own ethics. However, if he decided to ignore the morality of the situation, and instead focus on what he would do with the loot, or how he would evade the police, or tried to think of something else entirely, that would be an error in awareness. Ethically, not being aware of your actions would be an error in judgement, which carries with it the corresponding ethical considerations. But we're not on ethics yet, so let's not get ahead of ourselves!
To argue that the robber is "determined" and has no independent control over his thoughts (meaning ability to focus) is nonsensical. How did he learn how to say, "this is a stickup!" in the first place? This isn't to say certain environmental factors couldn't influence him, just that they didn't cause him to think of committing the crime, only he could choose to think that. Volition doesn't violate the law of identity, because the identity of our consciousness is one that can make independent decisions. So while the cause of the robber committing the crime is different from the billiard ball, it's still a cause, and one that conforms to the law of causality (cause and effect).
Again, just like with the 3 axioms and the validity of the senses, we can't "prove" we have volition; it's self-evident, and precedes proof. If this seems like a cop out, it's not. It's self-evident because it's arrived at by observing our own consciousness at work. By reading this passage and thinking, you realize you can focus, or choose not to focus. There is always the option. If you can't grasp that fact then there's nothing me or anyone else can do to convince you. The mere act of beginning to prove volition shows you have it. Just like with the 3 axioms, you either accept them or you don't, but if even if you don't, you will end up showing them true if you go down the path trying to disprove them.
THE DETERMINISM FALLACY
The only alternative to free will, would be determinism, or its mystical twin, fate. Determinism means that we have no independent control over our thoughts and actions, and we are like robots (or snails), automatically reacting to the world with no choice of our own, and no power to alter our course in the world. What we might think of as choices are just an illusion. While some romantics seem to fancy this notion, it's only because they don't think it through. This would obliterate concepts like right and wrong, morality, virtue, and ironically, love itself. You could never hold anyone accountable for their actions, as they had no choice in the matter! Try this idea on your spouse next time you screw up and see how it goes! Like all fallacies, the notion of determinism collapses in on itself, as how can something is true (like determinism) when you have no ability to think independently and interpret reality? If you follow determinism to its logical end, there is no way to know anything (including determinism!) as we have no choice in the matter. Just like with the axioms of existence, consciousness and identity, refuting volition is nonsensical. You have to accept it in order to refute it!
If we are determined, then there is no ability to think independently, and thus no ability to know what's true. After all, we have no choice, right? So, both the advocates of determinism and the advocates of free will are helpless to choose what they believe in. Neither have any ability to understand the truth, and thus it's pointless to go any further in the debate. We don't have any independent control over learning concepts, as it's automatic, so the study of epistemology is useless. Why study a subject that answers if our knowledge is valid? Why study any subject? Philosophically, it's a dead end, and leads to nonsensical and harmful ideas in subsequent branches of philosophy, like ethics. After all, if you can't choose your actions, how can you be responsible for them? Concepts like virtue, honesty, justice, integrity, etc. become meaningless. How can philosophy tell us what to do and how to act if we have no control over our mind?
In the political realm, it becomes truly destructive, as it tends to view people not as individuals but as cogs in a wheel. It is receptive to totalitarian ideas of state control and focusing on what's "best" for the collective, even though according to its own premises, we can never really know the proper political institution anyway! As such, determinism is seldom a viewpoint held consistently, but more likely one to be held inconsistently. Few philosophers take it seriously as a school of thought anymore, but it's remnants are scattered throughout a plethora of subjects as well as imbedded in popular culture. Even seemingly benign phrases like, "fate brought us together" are based on this error, and are destructive to the extent which one adopts it into their philosophy. Hopefully the irony that some consider determinism the "scientific" approach to philosophy is now clear.
ON TO EPISTEMOLOGY!
Remember, there is always that choice, to think or not to think, and this is ultimately why humans are capable of error or good and evil, as we're not infallible and we have the ability to make multiple decisions. Later on this will lead to ethics, and how to decide the right course of action. For now, it's important to understand that volition is yet another self-evident truth. If we don't accept this truth, we can never form a rational view of concept formation and the rest of epistemology. We'll be forever stuck in a philosophical black hole. Fortunately, for those who "see the light", the world of philosophy is brighter than ever now that we have the building blocks understood. Now, off to where epistemology really gets going, concepts!
The only alternative to free will, would be determinism, or its mystical twin, fate. Determinism means that we have no independent control over our thoughts and actions, and we are like robots (or snails), automatically reacting to the world with no choice of our own, and no power to alter our course in the world. What we might think of as choices are just an illusion. While some romantics seem to fancy this notion, it's only because they don't think it through. This would obliterate concepts like right and wrong, morality, virtue, and ironically, love itself. You could never hold anyone accountable for their actions, as they had no choice in the matter! Try this idea on your spouse next time you screw up and see how it goes! Like all fallacies, the notion of determinism collapses in on itself, as how can something is true (like determinism) when you have no ability to think independently and interpret reality? If you follow determinism to its logical end, there is no way to know anything (including determinism!) as we have no choice in the matter. Just like with the axioms of existence, consciousness and identity, refuting volition is nonsensical. You have to accept it in order to refute it!
If we are determined, then there is no ability to think independently, and thus no ability to know what's true. After all, we have no choice, right? So, both the advocates of determinism and the advocates of free will are helpless to choose what they believe in. Neither have any ability to understand the truth, and thus it's pointless to go any further in the debate. We don't have any independent control over learning concepts, as it's automatic, so the study of epistemology is useless. Why study a subject that answers if our knowledge is valid? Why study any subject? Philosophically, it's a dead end, and leads to nonsensical and harmful ideas in subsequent branches of philosophy, like ethics. After all, if you can't choose your actions, how can you be responsible for them? Concepts like virtue, honesty, justice, integrity, etc. become meaningless. How can philosophy tell us what to do and how to act if we have no control over our mind?
In the political realm, it becomes truly destructive, as it tends to view people not as individuals but as cogs in a wheel. It is receptive to totalitarian ideas of state control and focusing on what's "best" for the collective, even though according to its own premises, we can never really know the proper political institution anyway! As such, determinism is seldom a viewpoint held consistently, but more likely one to be held inconsistently. Few philosophers take it seriously as a school of thought anymore, but it's remnants are scattered throughout a plethora of subjects as well as imbedded in popular culture. Even seemingly benign phrases like, "fate brought us together" are based on this error, and are destructive to the extent which one adopts it into their philosophy. Hopefully the irony that some consider determinism the "scientific" approach to philosophy is now clear.
ON TO EPISTEMOLOGY!
Remember, there is always that choice, to think or not to think, and this is ultimately why humans are capable of error or good and evil, as we're not infallible and we have the ability to make multiple decisions. Later on this will lead to ethics, and how to decide the right course of action. For now, it's important to understand that volition is yet another self-evident truth. If we don't accept this truth, we can never form a rational view of concept formation and the rest of epistemology. We'll be forever stuck in a philosophical black hole. Fortunately, for those who "see the light", the world of philosophy is brighter than ever now that we have the building blocks understood. Now, off to where epistemology really gets going, concepts!