absolute freedom: complete illusion

There is a lot of controversy surrounding the whole subject of human freedom. Humanity in general and philosophers in particular have grumbled on this issue. Some argue that just like rationality, freedom is an intrinsic element of man while others argue that a human being has never and possibly will never be free. This work therefore tries to critically analyze this subject and so answer this vital question: is freedom real or it is just an illusion?

Before defining the key concept here: ‘freedom,’ it is necessary to note that freedom is defined through the ‘will’ which as St Thomas Aquinas points out, is the “rational appetite” The term freedom has been simply defined as the “absence of constriction.” It is the “faculty of which man enjoys to determine himself to an action and to bring its cause after having taken consciousness of the considerations that such an action carries for his life.” The validity of the above definitions lies in the assumption on the part of some who believe that man has a will that is free and which consequently acts without constrictions. However, those opposed to it claim that human freedom is determined and that even though man may have a will, this will is not free, that it (will) is determined by various forces, both intrinsic and extrinsic. This leaves us with a question, ‘is man really free?’

Therefore, freedom remains a thorny issue both in practical and in theoretical fields. Practical because the external environment, that is; social, political, economic and cultural realities have constricted it and it has almost been completely suffocated both in the past and in the present. Capitalism and socialism systems on their part avail an environment with humiliating and even oppressive features which bind many in chains making choice an arbitrary and even contradicting in as much as it would contrast the laws of nature which seems deterministic. By socialism exalting the society, it reduces man to an object in a chain to perfecting a society through work while capitalism exalts the freedom of an individual, bring about competition and takes human beings back into the Hobbean ‘state of nature.’

Freedom has been divided into five major forms namely; physical, moral, psychological, political and social. The above are defined as “immunity from physical constriction, absence of constriction through oppressive forces of the moral order such as reward and punishment, absence of pressure on the part of other human activities on the will to perform an act in a determined way such as the intellect or passion, absence of political pressure,…and absence of social determinism” respectively. If Hobbes idea that for a society to exist the masses should cede there freedom to a monarch is true, then it can easily be assumed that there is no political freedom. But considering Locke’s social contract, then it can be concluded that there may be political freedom but only in its relativity. In fact, looking at today’s world, it can be assumed that physical, moral and social freedoms have been eroded and that if they exist, they do so relatively. This leaves us with only one real freedom to be considered: psychological freedom, “the sovereign control over the situations by which the will holds in its hands the power to make a choice in favour of one of various alternative possibilities.” This therefore becomes our focus.

Historically, in ancient Greece, the answer to this question was clear, apart from the freedom at birth, man was not free! This is because they considered that “all things, including man, were considered subject to fate (an absolute will), which consciously or unconsciously determined an action, thus men were exempt from the responsibilities of their actions” and as such, man could not be blamed for whatever reason. Man therefore, being part of nature and subject to the general laws that governed him, could not act differently. They also believed that man was subject to the strong influence of history which they believed to be cyclical. In Christian era, fate cedes its place to God and history came at the service of man. As Saint Augustine rightly points out, “there is the God of the scripture to reveal to us that in man, there is free choice of will.” This makes the medieval era to view freedom in a theocentric perspective. However, the theocentric era could easily have plunged man into perpetual imprisonment because on one hand, it gives assigns free will to man and on the other, it withdrew the same free will, making man only to do wot please the Deity. Possibly this goes with the idea of 'responsibility' that may easily be considered the the sole most important moderator of the free will and consequently, its prisoner. It is not until the modern era with Descartes ‘cogito ergo sum’ that man starts to grasp the consciousness of his autonomy. In this period therefore, the focus of freedom shifts from the relationship with God to relationship with other faculties especially, passion and society. In the contemporary era with its politics, technology and mass media, “freedom is being defined through social forces created by man himself” that seems to be working against the master. The issue therefore is trying to reconcile progress and freedom leaving us with a question: Is man really free?

Basing on the above, there are two principal solutions to this subject namely; deterministic solutions which denies human freedom and indeterministic solution which affirm that man is no doubt, free. The first category is further subdivided into two main sub-divisions; intrinsic and extrinsic determinism. The intrinsic pessimists argue that man is intrinsically bound not to be free. This thinking is further sub-divided into four main sub-classes namely; physiological, psychological, sociological and metaphysical. Physiological intrinsic determinism is defended by the modern scientists who “see in the movement of will simple reactions to determined chemical combinations of cells among human tissues” that man cannot be free because his whole body function is determined by what they view as complex chemical reactions. Structuralists on their part claim that “all human action is determined by the pressure exercised by society on individuals,” and since freedom must be freedom to do something, then an individual cannot claim any freedom for himself. This is particularly real in the contemporary setting where an individual seems to have ceded all his freedom to the society in which he/she lives. philosophers like Socrates, Plato and Leibniz represent a group of psychological determinists who claim that the “action of will is entirely determined by the intellect and its knowledge.” Metaphysical determinists like Spinoza see in nothing ‘more than a movement and a mode of the supreme will and the divine substance and as such, no freedom left for an individual. Therefore, this group of determinists holds that man is doomed not to be free.

Extrinsic determinism on its part suggests that there are external forces which suffocate human freedom. These features it suggests may be mythological or theological. Mythological in that fate, celestial bodies, demons and other things real and not real that man has no control over, constricts an individual’s freedom. Theological extrinsic determinists on their part argue that “the omnipotent of man (God) do not leave any room for man’s freedom.” Such a stand is widely held by Muslims and protestant theology. This still leaves us with the question, is freedom real or it is just an illusion?

The indeterminists who affirm that man is free and indeed should be left to be so, both intrinsically and extrinsically come in to challenge the former groups. On their affirmation stand the human rights declaration which notes in part that “all human beings are born free…endowed with reason and conscience.” On their belief rests the human rights movements led by people like Mandela and Luther. When confronted with the struggle of choosing between fight for liberation of the black people and giving up, Mandela says, “I am not prepared to sell the birth right of people to be free” Viktor Frankal, a holocaust survivor recalling his tribulations and final survival in the concentration camps once wrote in his book ‘man search for meaning’ that “everything can be taken away from you but to choose ones attitude (and action) is left to a person” therefore, there is a belief in the part of many that man is indeed free, both extrinsically and intrinsically, and that this freedom must be safeguarded and upheld.
The indeterminists are, according to Mondin, divided into two major fields namely; gnoseological and ontological fields. The former is further divided into postulative and assertive. Postulative theory taken up by Kant affirms that “man is certainly free but this cannot be theoretically proven.” The assertive theory Aristotle, Saint Thomas Aquinas among others asserts that the freedom of man is real and that it can be proven. The ontological freedom on its part appeals to the intrinsic relationship between freedom and the true nature of a human being, that freedom is a necessary and essential property of a human being. Descartes backed by Sartre affirms that “freedom constitutes the essence itself of man’s nature.”
Various philosophers have presented different arguments in affirmation of human freedom, some like Augustine appealed to testimonies of conscience which attest that ‘we are free to initiate an action, that we can interrupt it, that once fulfilled we are responsible for It.’ Others like Kant have appealed to the intellective constitution of the human being by which an individual comes to have certain mastery over things and over possibilities that these things present to him, while others like Spinoza have used as a focal point the absurdity and disastrous consequences in the negation of freedom. Infact, Kant’s assertion that “although man is free, freedom cannot identify itself to human nature,” seems more applicable and as depicted by Descartes, it (freedom) makes up part of human’s essence. Therefore, this work also highlights the thoughts of various philosophers especially Origen, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, Hegel among others.
Origen affirms that “free will constitutes the essence itself of rational creature by which none of them can be constrained to act by force.” Thus, he points to the fact that man is completely free. Being a Christian, he argues that such a freedom has been given by God. Infact, by Descartes putting the ‘ergo’ in the ‘sum,’ through his first principles, he agrees with him. On his part, Descartes through his immanentistic premises claims freedom to be “a choice of pure and simple…spontaneous self-determination of the individual.” He believes that what differentiates man from other animals is his rationality and is ability to choose. Therefore, from his definition and argument, Descartes puts freedom as an essential and necessary element of man which differentiates him any other creatures.
Saint Thomas Aquinas on his part holds human freedom to a higher degree and refutes the deterministic solutions on freedom. He clearly recognizes that in the act of decision making, the will and the intellect must work together. He also affirms that man is fully free especially in making decisions. He rightly notes that,
“Man does not choose of necessity and this is because that which is possible not to be is not of necessity. Now, the reason why it is possible to choose may be gathered from a two fold power in man…for man can will and not will, act and not act, again, he can will this or that and do this or that. Again this is seated in the very power or reason, for the will can tend to whatever reason can apprehend as good…man chooses not of necessity, but freely.”
Immanuel Kant on his part views freedom as a property of the will to give itself a law and not to be subordinate to the law of necessity as phenomena are. Perhaps his most vehement defense of human freedom comes from his critique of practical reason. Kant, tackling the subject of freedom argues that;
“as a rational being and consequently belonging to the intelligible world, man can never conceive the rationality of his own will otherwise than on condition of the idea of freedom, for independence on the determining causes of the sensible world is freedom. Now, the idea of freedom is inseparably connected with the conception of autonomy, and this again with the universal principle of morality which ideally the foundation of all actions of rational beings, just as the law of nature is of all phenomena.”
Therefore, Kant being a moralist recognizes the necessity of freedom in ethics and thus, puts it as the number one requirement in morality. Choice therefore is a necessary element in morality and since man cannot live without morals, then Kant believes that man must be free (so as to act morally). His arguments have formed the basis of human rights declarations.
Consequently, Sartre believed that ‘man is doomed to be free,’ that no matter what, man is free. For him, the freedom of man was absolute. He believed in freedom and responsibility. He says “I am condemned to exist beyond my essence, beyond my causes and motives. I am condemned to be free.” He sees the arguments of determinists as psychic malfunctioning. Therefore, for Sartre, man has absolute freedom that neither the visible nor the invisible forces can curtail. However, he thinks that human freedom may be conditioned by passions.
Having known that the will and the intellect operate together in making choices, it is necessary to look at how a choice is made before we draw a conclusion. According to Mondin, the first step is that the will is attracted by some good, presented by the intellect, but in this step, there is no freedom and thus no responsibility and ultimately no guilt involved here. Secondly, the good presented is examined by the intellect in conjunction with the will to establish if it is an absolute good since the will must always tend towards an absolute good. There is no action taken in this stage and as such no guilt involved. In the third stage, after a through examination in the second stage, various reasons for and against the root of action to be taken are analyzed. This ensures that a good decision is reached and happiness is achieved at the end. This step may take longer than other stages since sound deliberations must be reached. It is also influenced by various features, both internal and external. Lastly, the actual decision is made. This is done through focusing on the favourable elements of the good, neglecting the unfavourable ones. A decision is finally reached and the will swings into play to make an absolute choice. Therefore, even though the intellect participates in evaluating the authenticity of the good, the power to make a decision is left to the will. The choice opted for always tends towards a befitting good and not just an apparent one. Therefore, the relationship between the will and the intellect, which work hand in hand, determines the decision an individual’s makes. The intellect presents a concrete good and will, which tends towards an absolute good, makes a choice. It is important to note that the will and the intellect are all free in their deliberations and hence, the choice opted is free and independent, making man free.
In summary, using the intellect and through the power of the will, man has been left at crossroads, to choose among various possible options at his disposal. These two intrinsic faculties of man give him freedom to choose how to respond to his ever changing habitat. But this freedom is limited by the environment in which he lives and by his nature: body and soul. The soul, as it has been argued by various philosopher, is that faculty in which the intellect and will rests. If the assumption by Aristotle that man is basically body and soul, and if Plato’s argument that the body is the prisoner of the soul holds, then it is inevitably right to assert that man is free, but complete freedom is an illusion, since the soul, which holds the will, is not free.
Having assessed various stands on this subject therefore, it is necessary to note that no group or individual has given any conclusive answer to this subject. Analyzing man’s position in the world today, it is certainly unfair to deny his freedom. Given that; war against a better part of colonialism and slavery has been won and each country has a constitution and a legal system that seeks to safeguard the freedom of man, it is certainly wrong to deny human freedom. It is indeed erroneous to claim that there is no human freedom when all over, there are human rights movements that seek to enhance this freedom. If man is stripped off his freedom, then he is not only reduced to a level of a primitive primate, but in reality, to a mere object which cannot act, for the freedom is essentially freedom to do something. However, it is also incorrect to assert that man is absolutely free both intrinsically and extrinsically. The fact that man lives in a society and is responsible for his actions in such a setting no doubt affirms that man is not completely free. With all the torture chambers all over, wars, the specter of global warming, oppressive political regimes, numerous disasters both natural and man-made like the Haiti Tragedy and the current volcano in Europe, rampant poverty caused by poor societal structures and inequality, it is definitely misleading to say that man is absolutely free. The absolute freedom of man may therefore be said to be ‘becoming.’ If man attains absolute freedom, he may turn into a beast that cannot be tamed by any power.
Therefore, if man has to live with others and survive in his habitat, he has to make choices, an act determined by the will and the intellect. However, man has to be responsible for his freedom, to carry the blame or praises that may come as a result of his choices. Man’s ultimate desire is to attain happiness and he has the power to reach such a goal through his well calculated choices, or fall into frustrations and disappointments if his will is weak. Therefore, although freedom, just like rationality, is an intrinsic feature of an individual, man cannot fully achieve this freedom for he does not live alone in the world. We can therefore rightly conclude that human freedom is real, but that absolute human freedom is an illusion!