Freedom is one of the most paradoxical concepts in human thought and phenomena in our history. Freedom tempts, seduces, it is promised by teachers of wisdom and shouted from the tribunes of politicians, it is lived and died for it, people strive for it and flee from it (remember E. Fromm's landmark work "Escape from Freedom"). At the same time, now, as before, there is no clear understanding of what it is. Even if we ask this question to a very educated person, in response we will have to hear something extremely vague, confused and contradictory. But this hardly worries anyone; it is assumed that the concept of freedom goes without saying, it is available to us intuitively and there is no need to try to delve into its nature and definition. As often happens, this evidence is deceiving, it is similar to the evidence of the rotation of the Sun around the Earth. We think,as if it is it that moves across the firmament, we see it every day, while in reality the opposite is true. Likewise, it seems to us that we understand freedom and possess it - but, alas, the opposite is true.
The first step to comprehending freedom begins with discovering its connection with the concept of causality, that is, a cause-and-effect relationship. We are inclined to consider free that which is not determined, is not "justified" by the influence, but acts as if from within itself. Thus, the slave is interpreted by us as not free precisely because his behavior is determined by the master, his actions are to a large extent a consequence of obvious external causes, and his internal determination is constrained. On the contrary, we perceive as free the person who decides for himself what to do, in which direction to move - at least to a significant extent. Already here, anxiety should stir in us, a feeling that something is not in order. Indeed, does this second, free person exist in a vacuum and is not influenced? Of course it does. Do they influence his decisions, do they determine his actions? And how.
Imagine that at the wedding table, one guest, exercising his own free will, poked a fork in the hearts of another - and such a fight broke out that, as they said in the old days, even take out the icons. But who is to blame? Himself and his free decision? Wait, don't rush to judge the person. If his neighbor hadn't been acting like a brute, this would not have happened. Finally, the blame lies with the one who planted them next to them and the shameless manufacturer of the vodka they used. And on the newlyweds, of course, without them there would be no celebration itself, on the parents of both gentlemen, who gave birth to them. On the inventor of the fork, on Isaac Newton, Gaius Julia Caesar, Homer and even your late great-grandfather (yes, he could not do without him) - this list can be endless, without them there would not have been a chain of cause and effect that led to this ugly scene. In reality,There can be only one answer to the question of who is to blame for the wedding fight: the entire universe as a whole must bow its cheeks, reddened with shame, up to supermassive black holes, distant stars and quasars. Not a single atom, not a single neutrino, not a single virtual particle of vacuum in the entire multiverse can be excluded from the list, since each of its elements interacts with all the others (through the third, and so on) in a continuous space-time continuum.since each of its elements interacts with all the others (through the third and so on) in a continuous space-time continuum.since each of its elements interacts with all the others (through the third and so on) in a continuous space-time continuum.
This continuum is so tightly stretched that you cannot put a knife between its links, each event turns out to be determined not only by some other, it is determined by absolutely all elements of the system. And where is the place for freedom, one wonders? For plunging a fork into a neighbor to be an act of freedom, our wedding drunkard would have to be able to start a new chain of causality, that is, to give rise to an event torn out of the continuum of the universe determined by causes and effects. I would like to believe that, being capable of such, he would have disposed of this gift differently.
At this point, we come to understand two key points. First, what freedom really is. Bearing in mind the reasoning of Immanuel Kant, freedom is the ability to spontaneously start a new chain of causality. Secondly, we realized that it is absolutely impossible - neither completely, nor partially, nor in any other form. This position is called extreme, or absolute, determinism, and within the framework of the education system it is customary to call it refuted (how exactly, it is never reported), which, of course, is complete nonsense, since with regard to extreme determinism there were not only refutations, but even few the slightest bit serious arguments. The most frequently cited argument against today is pointing to some quantum effects such as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. From the fundamental impossibility of accurately predicting and measuring certain quantities (because the very act of measurement affects the quantum system), an extremely hasty conclusion is drawn about their fundamental randomness, as if incomplete determinism. On this occasion, Einstein once said: "God does not play dice" (God is understood here allegorically, of course, see his work "What I Believe"). Indeed, even when the Universe is gambling, all its cards have long been calculated and only to us the games seem to be a matter of chance.even when the Universe is gambling, all its cards have long been calculated and only to us the games seem to be a matter of chance.even when the Universe is gambling, all its cards have long been calculated and only to us the games seem to be a matter of chance.
So far, we have focused on external determination, which people tend to limit themselves to in reasoning about freedom. However, from the inside (if it makes sense to make this distinction), our behavior is determined as completely. It is governed by countless genetic algorithms, from large ones, such as the instincts for protecting offspring, imitation, reproduction, dominance, to the smallest adjustments to tastes, reactions and behavior patterns. It is thanks to them that we strive for everything that we strive for, it is they who are then refracted under socio-cultural and other pressures, creating a variety of individual and social life. It is worth a little tweak the settings of the program code of any of us - and we will get a completely different personality who will like the taste of fresh earth more than strawberry ice cream,and lampposts evoke such a range of desires and emotions that the opposite sex previously awakened. As soon as we take in some psychoactive substances or change the ratio of hormones and neurotransmitters, we, again, get a completely differently functioning system. We are in captivity of the "internal" no less than the "external". It seems to us that we ourselves control our behavior only because we perceive our own desires and their realization, but we do not know how to distinguish between their causal definiteness.as if we ourselves control our behavior only because we perceive our own desires and their realization, but do not know how to distinguish between their causal certainty.as if we ourselves control our behavior only because we perceive our own desires and their realization, but do not know how to distinguish between their causal certainty.
We find a classic description of this situation in Blaise Pascal (letter to G. G. Schuller, October 1674):
The great determinists from Pascal and Kant (the latter's attempt to get out of it, as well as from extreme constructivism, was extremely unconvincing) to Nietzsche, Heidegger and Einstein could not help but notice that this information has little value for practical behavior and can, simply put, and drive crazy.
Promotional video:
That is why the ontological concept of freedom, which is impossible, should be opposed to the phenomenological concept of freedom as the reality of our inner experience. A person finds himself in a curious, absurd situation - realizing the impossibility of freedom, he is still able to exist only "as if" he was free. It is in this last sense that a person, according to Sartre, is "doomed to freedom."
The phenomenological concept of true freedom presupposes that we move the centers of determination of our behavior from the outside - inside ourselves. Freedom, even in this last sense, does not mean existence in a vacuum and lack of attachment, for this is impracticable. It is the replacement of destructive dependencies with those that are repelled by our highest interests, contributing to our happiness and development, harmony between the external and internal, as well as the harmony of our inner world in itself. Let us recall once again the figures of a slave and a free man. What makes them fundamentally different? The slave's dependence is recognized as such, since it oppresses and suppresses him, it contradicts his inner world and higher interests, is in conflict with them. The dependence of a free man on the external and internal world is not felt as such (although it is just as complete), because it does not contradict his nature and intentions.
Phenomenological freedom is not a binary concept (Yes / No), but a gradual one - it is a sign that always has one or another degree of manifestation, a measure of the above-mentioned harmony. In order to be free in this sense, we must be capable of independent intellectual analysis and synthesis, and not just assimilating thinking. This will allow us to avoid submission to the destructive authorities within culture, economy, politics and social environment, to avoid the subordination of our thought to someone else, which, according to Tolstoy's fair expression, is "a more humiliating slavery than giving your body to someone else." Finally, this will make it possible to cognize ourselves and understand what exactly constitutes our nature, what laws it is subject to, in order to then find for ourselves those niches, those centers of dependence and determination that correspond to it.
© Oleg Tsendrovsky
