Published
What everyone gets wrong about free-will
There’s a recent-ish trend of criticizing Stoicism as: a means to placate the masses into subjugation as if to throw up one’s arms and proclaim “everything is as it is and I shall have no part in any changes!” In other words, to accept all of the inequities and divisions of power as they exist today. Living under the rule of a dictator? Oh well, just stiffen up and be "stoic!"
This is honestly so silly yet highlights the nuance of philosophy: do not make a rule out of any philosophy!
What is a potentially useful tenet for self improvement is being reinterpreted as a rule for society or culture. I also see criticisms of Buddhisms teachings around detachment. In both cases, it seems people are taking the Black Mirror approach and pushing the teachings or ideas to their logical extreme. Why? I dunno, maybe so their Egoic logic can poo-poo on a popular idea so they feel smart? ¹
Really, any idea can be taken to a logical extreme and "proven" stupid or dangerous or problematic.
At the heart of these criticisms is the notion that there is a "divine" plan, or in Buddhism an isness that is, in some sense, unavoidable or unchangeable. Yet, this line of thinking may well exist in all category of philosophy.
Even in Materialism we find Sam Harris lamenting:
"[...] but the next choice you make will come out of a wilderness of prior causes that you cannot see and did not bring into being."
Essentially, reducing free-will to that of simple cause-and-effect and, as we cannot control all prior causes and effects, concluding that "The illusoriness of free will is as certain a fact as the truth of evolution, in my mind."
Is that so different than a "divine" plan or a isness that is at some level or some sense, unavoidable and unchangeable? This line of thinking can be found throughout world religions and countless philosophies. Why? What's at the heart of it?
Well, there's two things at play here:
- Any belief about free-will is just that—a belief; and
- We do need to accept some level of uncertainty and lack of control.
Just because someone says something confidently doesn't mean you need to accept what they are saying 100% (myself included 😉). Even Sam Harris who positions himself at the forefront of Materialist, empirically proven, philosophical thought isn't 100% correct. He may sound convincing and confident in his reductionist view of consciousness and thus free-will yet, it turns out, material sciences have a long way to go in understanding our brains. Any claim that we know with 100% accuracy and confidence how our brains, consciousness and free-will "work" is a bit of a farce.
So, how you choose to view your own consciousness and free-will is, to a large extent, a choice and a belief. I'd recommend building a belief that feels useful to you, more than anything. Personally, I prefer the modern version of this tenet: How is this happening for me?
Obviously, there is some truth to what Sam Harris, Stoicism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and many other religions and philosophies are saying. And it's simply this: we can't control everything. Even if free-will is real and not illusory, my free-will is going to bump up against your free-will—and the free-will of 8 billion others.
Acceptance of what is, can be a very helpful practice. We can also take it too far. As always, the right balance is specific to each an every one of us. Only you know what's right for you!
[¹] I thought about taking this line out as it's a bit rude and perhaps judgemental. But, I realized I was judging my own Ego mind which, on numerous occasions, has convinced itself that it's found a mistake in a New York Times Crossword only to, of course, be proven wrong. 😅