I propose to examine the three main traditional solutions to this problem. I will discuss the contribution of Nietzsche as a critic of both freewill and determinism and examine his will to power concept as an attempt to break out of this binary opposition. His critique also implies that Descartes cogito arguments is part of cause and effect and I will also examine the role of psychology in the conception of the existence of the self and its role in the freewill debate.
Traditionally there appears to be a conflict between, on the one hand, the scientific desire to explain everything in terms of cause and effect (determinism) and on the other the personal experience that each of us appears free to choose ( freewill). From a scientific point of view, each action must have a cause, and that cause in turn must be the effect of another cause. However this claim of causation would never have a beginning or an ending, and this result is a problem for the idea of free will: if all our actions are determined by other causes, then none of them can be said to be freely chosen. We would in a real sense be merely robots who possess the illusion of choice.
Before I examine Nietzsche’s approach to the problem of freewill I will examine some traditional approaches. Determinism is the view that there is a strict cause and effect relationship between events, and that there is no room for free choice or an “uncaused cause”. This view may take many different forms; someone maybe a determinist because they believe that individual` actions are predetermined by their genes; religious believers may also be deterministic if they hold that all events are preordained by God. Determinism has a stronghold in many scientific perspectives, and is commonly associated with traditional views of causation. Isaac Newton could be considered as an example of such an outlook. In fact it could be argued that if a mind existed that knew all the forces and laws that governed events, and the actual constitution of the world then such a mind could predict the future exactly.
However Bohr and Heisenberg argue that there is a limit to what we can know about subatomic particles this is known as the uncertainty principle. So for instance in any one time we may only be able to know with relative certainty the position of a particle, but not its momentum or indeed its momentum but not its position.. (1)(Gribbin, 1982, p 119-120)
A belief in free will is the opposite of determinism. It holds that determinism is false and that free choice is in some way possible. There are different forms of freewill, and the reason it believes we are free to choose will differ accordingly. Some might argue we have an immaterial soul or self which is the free cause of action, whilst others would argue that degrees of randomness in the universe stop all actions being determined. Many religious believers fall into the above category. Descartes may be considered representative of the freewill approach.
The first two traditional attempts are incompatible with one another because they deny that freewill and determinism are compatible with one another and cannot therefore both be true. I would call both examples of incompatibles. However a third position could be called compatibilism that argues to some extent that determinism and freewill are in some sense compatible and that they are both in some sense true. Both Thomas Hobbes and David Hume (2)(Robin Baker 1983) held versions of compatibilism and argued that in an everyday sense, we can hold that some events are either forced or free. Body reflexes such as dilation of eyes may be an example of an action over which we have no control. However there are actions where it is natural to acknowledge choice such as whether we cross the road or not.
The basis of the concept of free will is the idea that a thing may be a causa sui, the cause of itself. There is great difficulty in imagining an uncaused cause, since a scientific understanding argues that all things have causes. Nietzsche argues that the simplicity of this idea of causa sui and that if we were to accept it we would have to accept its possibility then it would require a rejection of cause and effect.
David Hume made a similar point when he argued that our sole knowledge of cause and effect comes from the experience of seeing one thing “cause” another many time over in “constant conjunction” , and that there is not ( as philosophers such as Descartes claimed) an absolutely ”necessary connection” involved ( or at least, none that we can identify with any certainty). (3) ( David Hume sections IV to VII)
Whilst Nietzsche is critical of this unscientific way of thinking he is also critical of the scientific tendency to “naturalise” these concepts which he termed reification. Nietzsche argues that cause and effect are not physical things, but ways of explaining the world. They are purely abstract concepts, and as such should not be confused with the events that they are used to describe. This is an important and yet subtle point, the main significance of which is that human beings use concepts to explain and control the world, but that these concepts are not in the world. In other words we make the concepts and we do not discover them:
“It is we who have fabricated causes, succession, reciprocity, relativity, compulsion, number, law, freedom, motive, purpose, and when we falsely introduce the world of symbols into things and mingle it with them as though the symbol world were `in itself`, we once more behave as we always behaved , namely mythological “. (4)(section BGE 21 p 51)
Thus when scientists behave as if cause and effect were physical things in the world they mistake the symbol world, the world of concepts we have created, with the real one the world in itself, as it exists independently of human understanding. . When this mistake is made it is as if we are creating a myth as to how the world is rather than see the world as Nietzsche argues as a place where concepts are created and chosen to fulfil deeper purposes that we have.
But not only causa sui is a myth so is "unfree will” (or determinism) and it is these two myths which reflect different psychological tendencies. For example a strong willed individual will see their actions as being under their control, whilst the weaker willed person will see their actions as being determined largely by things out of their control such as environment and biology.
The opposite interpretation Nietzsche says would be one which saw the world in terms of different wills in constant competition for dominance over one another. This doctrine he terms the will to power. Of course he points out (5)( BGE Section 200 p79 ) “this too is an interpretation. This implies that all that exist are competing interpretations. Thus the Will to power is not so much a governing principle but rather the state of things when all law are absolutely lacking. From this perspective science would appear to be a battleground for different versions of the truth.
Nietzsche’s view is somewhat difficult to define. On one hand, he is critical of causa sui and therefore appears at odds with freewill; but he is also critical of determinism. He states:
..”Assuming that it is in this way possible to get beyond the peasant simplicity of this concept of freewill and banish it from one's mind, I would then ask whoever does that to
carry his enlightenment a step further and also banish from his own mind the contrary of that unusual concept freewill: I mean unfreewill, which amounts to an abuse of cause and effect” (6) (BGE section 21 p51)
We must consider in which way traditional cause and effect is unsatisfactory? These terms, he argues, should only be used to help us in talking about the world but simply as an explanation for it. Nietzsche points out that when we talk about cause and effect, we think of the cause as being the source of what is produced as opposed to simply being a way of describing certain events,. Furthermore, just as the idea of causa sui is something that we have invented in making the world in our own image, so determinism is reliant upon the same way of thinking,. Determinism is a mechanistic picture of causation in that like Darwin’s theory of evolution it treats nature as if it were a machine where all decisions are made by external forces. His preferred picture is one where nature is a battleground of competing drives each of which has its own internal agenda, like a desire which compels it to extend its power or dominance over others.
..”Unfreewill is mythology in real life it is only a question of strong and weak wills”
(7) (BGE section 21 p51)
For Nietzsche will is a matter of will to power. In other words when we feel a sense of freedom in our actions, what we are actually feeling is the vigour of existence as we give full expression to a certain drive or instinct. Over time we learn to associate this feeling of being in control, and successfully willing actions. It also implies in contrast that when we associate with the expression of contrary instincts comes to be associated with lack of control. So in reality there is no such thing as the will only the dominance of certain drives over one another.
. .”Freedom of the will is the expression for that complex condition of pleasure of each person, who wills, who commands and at the same time identifies himself with the executor of the commands- who as such, enjoys also the triumph over resistances involved but who thinks it was his will itself which overcame these resistances. “ (8)(BGE section 19 p49)
This implies that a unified will might be possible if certain drives joined together or that one drive might become as dominant as to dominate all that we could see as the ultimate goal of personal development. This may explain why certain clients in Psychotherapy are able to transcend difficult circumstances and others not. Jung and Freud both argued that to know our respective drives and instincts was vital to self knowledge.
The argument of competing drives can be read as a criticism of Descartes Cogito.. So instead of asking about the existence of freewill. He asks what is this thing we call the will/. He argues that the self is made of many “souls” and asks why we must assume that there is a separate and distinct “I” which thinks or even “that it has to be something that thinks”. Descartes assumes that he knows what thinking is and that it involves a cause and effect relationship between self and thought.. To call this knowledge intuitive is to beg the question as where do these intuitions come from. It is a mistake, Nietzsche argues, based on the analysis of language that there is a subject “i and a predicate “think”. The temptation to think of the “I” or “cause” is simply another example of the psychological need to think of something as having a centre or “atom” (9)(BGE section 16 p48)
I consider that the major problem with Nietzsche’s view of freewill is the question to the extent we can make sense of our traditional understanding of cause and effect. It is very persuasive to argue that the whole problem is self made and that if we simply abandon or amend our understanding of these terms we can arrive at a more satisfactory picture.. It seems that Nietzsche appears outside of the freewill and determinism opposition.. yet when he comes to replace the traditional concept of free will he does so by a deterministic picture.. Our nature is determined by our drives, and our drives are determined in turn by factors outside of our control. Such as environmental conditions, biology, genetic influence and education.. So the drives that are dominant for us would therefore appear to be determined for us.
Nietzsche also can be said to argue for room for freewill for some.. In his concept of the “free spirit” he describes certain individuals who have evolved beyond their programming (ASZ) . That they do so, initially, is perhaps a matter of chance; either that they find themselves with qualities or instincts that make them gain mastery over their instincts, or else they arise out of an awareness of their inner conflict with a desire to resolve it. (BGE Section 200 pp89) This freedom arises from the development of will and discipline in relation to the instincts and not as some critics of Nietzsche have suggested a letting go into the irrational drives.. The free spirit is an individual who has achieved freedom through discipline, which allows in turn the choice to express an instinct or another..
In this sense Nietzsche as indeed do I suspect that many people lack freedom. Without self-knowledge a lack of responsibility for our own actions means that many are not aware of how we repeat mistake upon mistake. In Psychotherapy I regularly meet people who do not accept responsibility for their actions. This may be because of lack of knowledge of self or indeed from environmental factors. (10)(Schatt, 1983 pp 304-309)
This last point is particularly important to the debate between freewill and determinism.
Nietzsche’s concept of the Eternal Return argues that the most positive conception of life would be to live it all over again exactly as it was.. This is almost a love of fate, whereby to accept responsibility for everything one is, provides the basis for true freedom, whereas to desire to change anything about oneself would be to give to an individual desire and bring about internal conflict and therefore become unfree.. .So therefore freedom from my point of view resides in both acceptance and resistance. It may be possible to see this approach to certain strands of Buddhism where the overcoming of desire is seen as a means of liberation or enlightenment.
Ref
1 Gribbin, In search of Schrödinger’s cat, p 119-120
2 Robin Baker 1983 Philosophy for beginners Inner City books London 1989
3David Hume An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding sections IV to VII
4 BGE section 21 p 51
5 BGE Section 200 p79
6 BGE section 21 p51
7 BGE section 21 p51
8 BGE section 19 p4
9 BGE section 16 p48
10 Richard Schatt, The Arguments of the Philosophers, Nietzsche London;Routledge&Kegan Paul1983 pp 304-309)
Bibliography
David Gribbin, In search of Schrödinger’s cat. London;Routledge& Kegan 1982
David Hume An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding sections IV to VII
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future (Oxford World's Classics) by Robert C. Holub and Marion Faber (Paperback 2008)
Friedrich Nietzche Thus Spake Zarathustra (Wordsworth Classics of World Literature) 2008
Richard Schatt, The Arguments of the Philosophers, Nietzsche London;Routledge& Kegan Paul 1983
