Post by D'rorah Philosophy on Jul 1, 2007 11:43:39 GMT -5
In my own life, I like to believe that my actions are free. I do, however, admit that my actions are influenced by my desires, past experiences, and internal chemistries. Every morning, I wake up to go to work and make the decision of whether to get up and head in like a conscientious contributing member of society or to lie in bed where I am already so warm and comfortable. Like so many, I would love to think that I freely make this decision; however, I know that the final decision is the result of an almost unconscious weighing of consequences and rewards for each outcome. If I go to work, I can continue to pay bills, buy food, pay rent, and basically supply myself with the necessities of life. If I stay home, I no longer have the means to meet these obligations. Going to work affords me interesting opportunities to learn new skills and generate new ideas (I am quite fortunate to command a position I enjoy doing research and analyzing the produced statistics); staying home would afford me the opportunity to rest (something I have felt quite deprived of, of late). I believe that we are free to make these decisions; and we endure the consequences of those decisions. Going to school full time while working full time has the consequence of sometimes leaving me feeling a bit overwhelmed and perhaps missing out on a few hours of sleep that I would otherwise have each week; however, the benefit is that I am speeding myself towards my goal of rabbinical school and learning fascinating new things in the process about the myself and world around me.
One thing the determinists fail to take into account in the reading I have done thus far is the fact that there are consequences and rewards for each and every decision one makes. The text seems to posit that one’s decisions are made based on what one feels will deliver the greatest reward. However, we can see that many times individuals grow up in very similar situations and yet make very different decisions in life. If determinism were true, one would expect that individuals who are the product of the same environment and life experiences would always behave the same way. For example, my brother and I grew up with the same parents in the same house through our entire childhood. One would expect us to be at least somewhat alike, but he is content to subsist as a part-time auto mechanic and live with my parents while I aspire to graduate school and a career that will provide me with security and stability.
Freud’s theory of id, ego, and superego (pg. 6 clearly illustrates how an individual may be influenced by those parts of the mind; however, if the mind is part of the self, isn’t the decision the mind reaches a decision freely reached by the individual? Those internal drives are part of the person, so any product of those drives is, in essence, a product of the person as well. If one denies the contributions of a person’s past experiences and internal thought processes, is that not the same as denying what we consider to be the very essence of individuality? Mind and man are not two separate entities which control each other; rather, they are parts of a symbiotic whole which can only function properly together. To assert that one’s mind controls one’s body or vice versa is to assert that a human being can function with either of these two halves independently. As we see, when the mind ceases to function, the result is death. When the body ceases to function, the result is also death. Only those two components together are capable of sustaining a human life; therefore it would only seem proper to assume that any decision made on behalf of either of these components is a decision that the person makes for the person. The id, ego, and superego inform these decisions in much the same way that nerve cells inform one that a stove burner is hot. Is this control? Yes, but I assert that this is control one is asserting over one’s own life. Having the freedom to assert this control denies that decisions are determined for anyone. Having control of oneself is the very essence of freedom.
The author also addresses the issue of responsibility as it relates to one’s actions (pg 74-75). “The power of the unconscious, to which we are all subject, seems to make personal accountability virtually impossible. If our actions are not under our conscious control, how can we fairly be held responsible for them.” (pg 75) I believe that our actions are under our conscious control. One may not always be aware of one’s entire thought process in making a decision; however, there is no barrier to taking a moment to stop and analyze that process if one wishes. Even those physical actions which are considered “involuntary” (such as heartbeat, breathing, etc.) can be controlled by those who know how. I feel that claiming such atrocities as “crimes of passion” are simply convenient excuses to deny responsibility for a reckless individual who possesses poor self-control. The fact that we have automated many of our everyday actions does not mean that the behavior cannot be controlled or changed. If I reach for the phone when it rings because I have conditioned myself to do so, there is still nothing to bar me from doing otherwise. In fact, it is necessary to automate many decisions in one’s life in order to function in the world. If one were to stop and contemplate each and every action and decision, his life would grind to a halt. There simply isn’t enough time in the day; however, this does not mean that one could not choose to analyze a certain action or thought if one so chose. Too often we confuse behaviors which are convenient (such as automation of everyday thoughts and behaviors) as being behaviors over which we have no control. One simply needs to stop and think in order to take this control back.
The text cited is the following:
White, Thomas I.
Discovering Philosophy / Thomas I. White -- Brief ed.
p. cm
ISBN 0-13-508003-7
Copyright 1996 by Prentice Hall, Inc.
Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458
One thing the determinists fail to take into account in the reading I have done thus far is the fact that there are consequences and rewards for each and every decision one makes. The text seems to posit that one’s decisions are made based on what one feels will deliver the greatest reward. However, we can see that many times individuals grow up in very similar situations and yet make very different decisions in life. If determinism were true, one would expect that individuals who are the product of the same environment and life experiences would always behave the same way. For example, my brother and I grew up with the same parents in the same house through our entire childhood. One would expect us to be at least somewhat alike, but he is content to subsist as a part-time auto mechanic and live with my parents while I aspire to graduate school and a career that will provide me with security and stability.
Freud’s theory of id, ego, and superego (pg. 6 clearly illustrates how an individual may be influenced by those parts of the mind; however, if the mind is part of the self, isn’t the decision the mind reaches a decision freely reached by the individual? Those internal drives are part of the person, so any product of those drives is, in essence, a product of the person as well. If one denies the contributions of a person’s past experiences and internal thought processes, is that not the same as denying what we consider to be the very essence of individuality? Mind and man are not two separate entities which control each other; rather, they are parts of a symbiotic whole which can only function properly together. To assert that one’s mind controls one’s body or vice versa is to assert that a human being can function with either of these two halves independently. As we see, when the mind ceases to function, the result is death. When the body ceases to function, the result is also death. Only those two components together are capable of sustaining a human life; therefore it would only seem proper to assume that any decision made on behalf of either of these components is a decision that the person makes for the person. The id, ego, and superego inform these decisions in much the same way that nerve cells inform one that a stove burner is hot. Is this control? Yes, but I assert that this is control one is asserting over one’s own life. Having the freedom to assert this control denies that decisions are determined for anyone. Having control of oneself is the very essence of freedom.
The author also addresses the issue of responsibility as it relates to one’s actions (pg 74-75). “The power of the unconscious, to which we are all subject, seems to make personal accountability virtually impossible. If our actions are not under our conscious control, how can we fairly be held responsible for them.” (pg 75) I believe that our actions are under our conscious control. One may not always be aware of one’s entire thought process in making a decision; however, there is no barrier to taking a moment to stop and analyze that process if one wishes. Even those physical actions which are considered “involuntary” (such as heartbeat, breathing, etc.) can be controlled by those who know how. I feel that claiming such atrocities as “crimes of passion” are simply convenient excuses to deny responsibility for a reckless individual who possesses poor self-control. The fact that we have automated many of our everyday actions does not mean that the behavior cannot be controlled or changed. If I reach for the phone when it rings because I have conditioned myself to do so, there is still nothing to bar me from doing otherwise. In fact, it is necessary to automate many decisions in one’s life in order to function in the world. If one were to stop and contemplate each and every action and decision, his life would grind to a halt. There simply isn’t enough time in the day; however, this does not mean that one could not choose to analyze a certain action or thought if one so chose. Too often we confuse behaviors which are convenient (such as automation of everyday thoughts and behaviors) as being behaviors over which we have no control. One simply needs to stop and think in order to take this control back.
The text cited is the following:
White, Thomas I.
Discovering Philosophy / Thomas I. White -- Brief ed.
p. cm
ISBN 0-13-508003-7
Copyright 1996 by Prentice Hall, Inc.
Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458
