Name: Do We Have Free Will or Are We Predetermined?
Uploaded: 2020-03-25T02:18:32.000Z
Duration: 5 min 48 s
Description: Thousands of YouTube videos with English-Chinese subtitles! Now you can learn to understand native speakers, expand your vocabulary, and improve your pronunciation...

The history of philosophy has been dominated by competing arguments around the ideas of

Adverbs of manner

Free Will and Determinism. Simply stated, the issue hangs on whether human beings should

be thought of as fundamentally free to choose their actions and mould their lives – or

whether they should be deemed as being at heart determined by forces beyond their control,

be they fate, biology, politics or class. The debate has been long-running and hugely

vicious. It began in Ancient Greece, was picked up by the Romans, dominated Christian philosophy

and rumbles on to this day among philosophers, psychologists and neuroscientists. Part of

the reason why the question seems so hard to find a conclusive answer to is that it

is almost always framed in objective terms, as if we might discover whether either Free

Will or Determinism could be an advisable interpretation for human beings in general.

But, in truth, the debate becomes more interesting and more relevant if we change the parameters

of the question – and ask simply: is an idea of Free Will or of Determinism more or

less relevant to me? All of us will have different needs in this area depending on our contrasting

levels of two psychological qualities: Defeatism on the one hand, Aspiration on the other.

There are people whose levels of Defeatism have grown so high, they too readily declare

that responsibility for things always lies outside of themselves: the course of their

life is, they tell us, entirely determined by parents, school, the government, the bosses,

the media… anyone but themselves. The result is radical under-achievement and self-deceit.

But there is another kind of difficulty created in people whose levels of Aspiration have

grown so high on the basis of overly exaggerated notions of Free Will. They will deem that

everything about their lives is capable of change. They will declare that they can achieve

all things simply through an exercise of the will. Their career and income, their relationships

and prospects are all, apparently, subject to dramatic change. It’s an inspiring philosophy,

but one that reliably also leads – when things don’t work out, as they never do

in all areas – to bitterness and rage. Each of us needs to decide for ourselves whether

we should have a greater faith in Determinism or in Free Will. We should ask how much of

the suffering in our lives can be traced back to a defeatist attitude and how much might

be traced back to reckless aspiration. Some of us need to dial up a faith in Free Will,

others need more of a mellow acceptance of Determinism. The oldest debate in philosophy

isn’t beyond answering. We just have to answer it more personally, with more of a

sense of what we need to believe in to be calmer and more fulfilled. Perhaps the wisest

way to navigate the debate between Free Will and Determinism was worked out by the Ancient

Roman philosophers of the Stoic school. These Stoics proposed that we should see ourselves

as always hovering between a Free and a Determined state – and they invented a powerful image

to evoke our condition as creatures able at times to effect great change – and yet never

far from being subject to immensely powerful external necessities. We are, they said, like

dogs who have been tied to an unpredictable cart. Our leash is long enough to give us

a degree of leeway, but is not long enough ever just to allow us to wander wherever we

please. A dog will naturally hope to go wherever it pleases, said the Stoics. But if it cannot,

then it is better for the animal to be trotting behind the cart rather than dragged and strangled

by it. To reflect that we too are never without a leash around our neck may help to reduce

the violence of our protest against events which veer away from our intentions. It may

sound like a recipe for passivity, but as the Stoics insisted, it is no less unreasonable

to accept something as necessary when it isn’t as to rebel against something when it is.

It’s our reason that must judge the difference and this is where we have a big advantage

over a dog. A dog will probably not at first grasp that he is even tied to a cart, nor

understand the connection between the swerves of the cart and the pain in his neck. So he

won’t be able to predict where the cart is going and adjust his position accordingly.

But reason enables us to theorise with considerable accuracy about the path of the cart or destiny,

which offers us a chance, unique among living beings, to increase our sense of freedom by

ensuring a good slack between our desires and what we cannot change. Reason allows us

to calculate when our wishes are in irrevocable conflict with reality, and then bids us to

submit ourselves willingly, rather than angrily or bitterly, to necessities. We may be powerless

to alter certain events, but we remain free to choose our attitude towards them, and it

is in an unprotesting acceptance of what is truly necessary that we can find a distinctive serenity and freedom.

At The School of Life we believe in developing emotional intelligence.

To that end we've also created a whole range of products to support that growth. Find out