Print this post Print this post

Freedom is Willing Our Determination

Gustav Klimt, Death and Life

Gustav Klimt, Death and Life, 1915

1,769 words

Twenty years ago I remember being absolutely outraged by an acquaintance, an M.D. by trade, who told me he was a strict biological determinist. Everything about us, he related to me over coffee, was attributable to heredity. I was flabbergasted – and indignant. Especially because he insisted that his position left no room at all for freedom of will, which he regarded as a myth. Flash forward to the present, and now I find myself in almost complete agreement with him – almost.

Partly, that’s due to the weight of the evidence that has accumulated in the intervening years. My major response to this guy, by the way, was basically to keep asking him for the evidence: “Where’s the proof that being attracted to blondes is genetic?” And so forth. Well, the evidence is in, and there is an enormous amount of evidence that much about us is genetically determined.

Some of the most striking data comes from studies of identical twins separated at birth – who were found to dress alike, have similar careers, similar hobbies, similar political views, similar taste in food, even to drive similar cars and have wives with similar names. Giving them IQ tests was like testing the same person twice – the definitive proof that intelligence is almost entirely genetic, and that environment hardly influences it. You can read about these studies here, and see this fantastic film about identical triplets separated at birth.

I’m not going to go into greater detail about the evidence for genetic determinism, because a great many of my readers are already familiar with it. Of course, there is more to biological determinism than genetics. For about a decade now I’ve been an avid reader of popular science books dealing with sociobiology, brain science, sex differences, and other topics.

My reaction to finding out that so much about myself was “natural” (i.e., biologically based, and outside the realm of choice) was exactly the opposite of what I expected it to be. Instead of feeling horrified, I felt strangely comforted. I suppose this is because I’d always had the vague feeling of being a freak; an unnatural animal. It was nice to find out that much of what I’d thought peculiar about me had identifiable causes and fell into not-uncommon categories – and that much of it was just part of having a male brain. The odd comfort I felt in learning more and more about how “determined” I am felt oddly freeing. I suppose this is at least partly because I no longer felt responsible for those things. A weight had been lifted off me; I was set free by determinism.

I hasten to add, however, that this was not a matter of making excuses for the bad in me, or settling into an attitude of helplessness. I am an extremely self-critical person. This voyage of self-understanding I’ve been describing was not entirely a matter of reading popular science books. It also involved coming to understand how many things about myself were clearly family traits. Now, a fair amount of those traits are things I don’t like. I know that a tendency to depression tends to run in the Costello family. So do intense feelings of regret about what we did or did not do in the past. Then there’s our mania for making lists and for accumulating clutter. Yes, in a way it was curiously comforting to realize that these weren’t unusual to me, but were instead things I’d been saddled with.

But not for a moment did I entertain the possibility that those inherited tendencies must rule me; that I have no choice but to turn out exactly like my parents and grandparents did. Not once did I think to myself, “Well, I guess I just have no choice but to go on accumulating junk.” For as long as I can remember it’s been the case that when I detect a problem in myself – a bad habit, for example – I aspire to try and change it. Usually, I follow through on those aspirations, and seldom fail to improve, at least to some extent. But I suspect this too is part of my unchosen, biological baggage. Don’t listen to those who tell you that people never change, or that change is impossible. They’re usually just making excuses for themselves. People can and do change, and I’ve improved my life in dramatic ways, especially when I was in my twenties.

But I think you’ve got to be wired for change. Some people aren’t.

So, if even the will to change oneself is “determined” by factors beyond our control, is there really any “freedom” at all? I am going to offer a tentative yes.

When “freedom of will” is claimed, it’s usually by people who want to assert that there is a fundamental difference between human beings and animals. Conversely, those who affirm determinism think it leads to the conclusion that human beings and animals are fundamentally the same; that humans just are a kind of confused animal. But this claim is obviously false. Your typical, garden variety determinist overlooks the most obvious truth of all: there are no animal determinists. In other words, animals are not aware of their determination. Only human beings can see how their lives are shaped and determined by unchosen factors. Only human beings study what causes them to be the way they are, and become aware of those causes.

Could freedom, real freedom, have something to do precisely with our capacity to see our determination? At first glance, that doesn’t seem much like the “free will” we’ve been promised by philosophers. A freedom that consists just in my capacity to helplessly witness myself being shuttled about by the forces of determination seems hardly like freedom at all. And yet, if it is possible to resist the forces that determine us, the first condition is recognizing them and seeing their hold on us.

I’m thinking of things like bad habits or negative tendencies – to procrastinate, or lose our temper, or talk too much, for example (all of which, of course, could be hereditary). If we are able to actually see these things, it creates a space between us and them, a space in which a capacity for change can emerge. You see, normally we live as if we are our habits and tendencies, in complete identification with them. But if I’m able, even fleetingly, to objectify a habit, to see it with an attitude of “oh, there it is again,” then I don’t have to be it – at least for a moment. And then change may be possible. Maybe. But it will take repeat viewings, and a decisive commitment to action.

Of course, it is entirely reasonable to think that just as our capacity to change, to act against influences, may itself be “determined,” so may our capacity to see. In other words, it may be that some people are wired for the sort of self-knowledge I’m talking about, and others are not. This seems to lead to the odd conclusion that some are determined to be “free” and others aren’t. So, someone might object, why treat this as “freedom” at all?

I suppose the only answer to this is to say that while some of us have been equipped with the conditions that make it possible to see and to change, it remains a mystery why we avail ourselves of these possibilities, and why we don’t. There seems to be an inescapable element of “choice” involved in my deciding, in a given situation, whether to let myself be carried along by habit or inclination, or to see and, possibly, resist. I know that such seeing and resisting is possible for me, since I’ve done it before. But I frequently choose not to see, and just be carried along. On those occasions when I do see, is something “making” me see? The strict determinist would insist that that is the case.

But it may be a mistake to hold to such a strict and fine-grained model of determination. It seems more reasonable to think that, in the case of human beings at least, determinism entails a set of factors that strongly incline us to behave in certain ways, but do not always strictly necessitate an outcome. There is still room for that “seeing” I’ve spoken of, which is able (more in some people than in others) to step back from those influences, evaluate them, and, up to point, resist them.

Again, of course, the capacity to see is not something I have chosen; I was born with it, or with the potential, with maturity, to develop it. But to argue that this entails I am not free is like saying that a concert violinist deserves no credit for his artistry because, after all, he was born with talent; had he started from absolute zero that would really be impressive. But none of us begins from absolute zero. Freedom is possible only on the basis of certain conditions, most of which we are born into and do not choose. For example, surely part of developing a consciousness such as I’ve described – one which can see its habits and inclinations and potentially resist them – is the presence of adults early in our lives who encourage us to do this. And that’s just one example.

Hegel, in his Philosophy of Right, taught us that the notion of an absolutely unconditioned freedom is an absurdity. To have such a freedom we would have to be disembodied and asocial spirits, each of whose “free” acts was free of any antecedent conditions. In other words, every “free act” would be a creation ex nihilo. Instead of endorsing such a fantastic abstraction and damning our own capacities for not living up to it, we need to recognize the contextual nature of our freedom – that it has myriad conditions, biological and social, that make it possible. If we accept this, if we own those conditions, then they are no longer an alien other that “determines” us. In a way, they are us. Freedom, in other words, involves willing or affirming our determination (i.e., the conditions for our freedom).

Ultimately, the constrained vision of freedom I have argued for in this essay is indistinguishable from the ability to rise above the basics nature has doled out to us in terms of inclinations and urges, and to create distinct, individual human personalities, as well as culture. We all know that some people – and some groups – are better able to do this than others. Some remain slaves to their biology and never become free.

 

This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , . Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

12 Comments

  1. J. Goodlow
    Posted January 17, 2020 at 6:50 am | Permalink

    Jef, have you ever considered becoming a Buddhist? The views here are pretty much identical to the Buddha’s teaching on Karma.

  2. HamburgerToday
    Posted January 16, 2020 at 9:12 am | Permalink

    In ‘Lapsed Agnostic’, John Waters (the Irishman, not the Baltimorian) describes the sensation of ‘liberation’ when he accepted that there was much that was out of his control and, instead, in God’s hands. Accepting the role of one’s biology seems to have a similar effect. What is obvious is that no living creature is meant to be a singularity. We come out of a collective (family, village, tribe, race, etc) and collectively we compensate for each others’ limitations.

  3. Vigilante Jesus
    Posted January 16, 2020 at 5:58 am | Permalink

    “A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants” – Schopenhauer

  4. Jud Jackson
    Posted January 16, 2020 at 5:14 am | Permalink

    Jef,

    I enjoyed your article very much.

    Having taught the problem of Free Will and Determinism for 15 years in 3 different colleges, I am fairly familiar with most of the arguments. I always broke it down into 3 alternatives: 1) Hard Determinism: Determinism is true and there is no Free Will. 2) Soft Determinism or Compatibilism: Determinism is true but there is free will. The best defense of this position that I know of was given by Michael Levin in is book “Metaphysics and the Mind/Body Problem” (many readers will be familiar with Levin and his great discussion of the Race Problem in “Why Race Matters”) and 3) Agent Causation or Libertarianism (not Economic Libertarianism as exemplified by Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell), but Libertarianism in the Free Will Problem. This position holds that Determinism is false but there is free will due to the actions of a Self which can cause things to happen without itself being caused. This last position seems to imply a kind of Mind/Body Dualism whereas the Mind is the Self. Descartes and many other philosophers held this position.

    I wonder if you have any comments about my breakdown of the problem and if you hold any of these 3 positions.

  5. Posted January 16, 2020 at 3:22 am | Permalink

    Just because you’re natural, doesn’t mean you’re not a freak.

    If you want to be content, you have to embrace your freakishness and hopefully put it to some good use.

  6. Ralph
    Posted January 15, 2020 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

    I am of the belief that man is a rider(conscious-will) on a horse(subconscious-instincts). Science shows man’s ability to exert will is the inferior force and he spends most of his time (95%) of his day
    in a subconscious habitual mode. My belief is that the horse (95%) lives in the realm of the material and deterministic. It is only the rider (5%) or in other words our will (spiritual) that can exert itself onto our determined animal self. In other words you quite literally will into existence whether determinism is false or true.

  7. CSC
    Posted January 15, 2020 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

    Jesus. It’s like you’ve read my thoughts on the matter. But you put them forward with a coherence and eloquence which was ground out of me years ago.

    I came to realize this and, so much more, too late to avoid or reverse terrible damage to my person. (There is that regret rearing its head.) Yet, what you express so well is the very truth which keeps me from utter despair. I cannot unsee what I have seen. It has increased my empathy and compassion for myself and other beings, and for all reality. I feel what I call true gratitude at times.

    To be self-aware is horrifyingly wonderful. I wouldn’t want to exist any other way.

  8. Benjamin
    Posted January 15, 2020 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

    Alright fam, not to get too spergy here, but people who advocate in favor of determinism ignore the most simple and obvious arguement in favor of determinism– at a much lower level than genetics.

    If we accept the Newtonian Theory (i.e. Classical Mechanics) that the universe is wholly material and comprised of atomic or even sub-atomic particles operating in space-time, if we accept that exploding stars created the heavier elements that eventually coalesced into planets and finally, into the primordial soup that created the first simple life forms.

    We would have to accept that everything that transpired up until the point of life, or a “primordial soup” that created life, was wholly deterministic based on fixed physical properties.

    But then, these same people resort to a special pleading arguement to where, although a primordial soup was created within the confines of a deterministic universe, once “life” began, it somehow broke free from the laws of determinism and entities (i.e., lifeforms) in the cosmos became free, to some extent.

    But why this break?

    If everything is comprised of material, then the laws of life, and there-from via evolution, the laws of Human life, are just as deterministic as the laws that govern simpler manifestations of the same universe, e.g., asteroids whizzing around the solar system.

    The only real difference would be that, the laws of physics that govern the conglomeration of materials that we call “mankind” are so many orders of magnitude more complex, that they are de-facto impossible for us to account for and we are “free” only in the sense that we can’t calculate the material chemical reactions in the brain in the same way that we can calculate how, say, space rocks orbit planets.

    Some people will attempt here to make an appeal to Quantum Mechanics or something, which posits a “randomness” of the universe, and claim there-by, that we are “free” because of this.

    But if the Randomness Theory is true, then we’re still not free per-se. Instead of everything being determined, being enslaved by a Classical Mechanics of absolute determinism, we’re only instead enslaved by a Quantum Mechanics of randomness– we’re still enslaved, we just can’t predict what will happen.

    I choose to believe in a Calvinism of Classical Mechanics personally, as its more orderly.

    Instead of bemoaning “oh, I shouldn’t done this thing 5 years ago” and feeling depressed, I’m actually mentally freed from that de-facto enslvaement by the thought “it couldn’t have happened any other way, every single one of my life decisions was pre-determined, via casual determinism, from the beginning of the universe, including my typing of this post right now.

    My healthy life style habits that have led to my embracing religion, abstention from pornography, alcoholism, adopting a clean cut aesthetic, etc, were also likewise determined.

    And now that you’ve read this, you too have been casually determined to have been awakened from your slumber by my esoteric gnosis, to become one of the Elect, just as I was determined to’ve been awakened by the works on healthy living and Traditionalism that I’ve read, that led me to the same path, which resulted in being an upbeat, extroverted, happy person that random people in stores feel comfortable interacting with.

    Or perhaps you’ll just ignore this and go back to your degenerate porn fapping and Doritoes and microwave tendies. Only god knows– but even the triune godhead its self is determined by these same deterministic principles.

    Or perhaps I’m just delirious from staying up all night listening to Counter-Currents podcasts instead of resting my brain.

  9. Lovely Phenotypes
    Posted January 15, 2020 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

    This gives me a kind of peace of mind I haven’t had in some time given all that has happened in the last few years and myself taking introspection to a very very excessive and almost crippling degree. Thank you for this.

  10. Lars Emilsson
    Posted January 15, 2020 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    Nice article, Jef. Having pondered your thoughts, I too feel better.

  11. Archie Bunker
    Posted January 15, 2020 at 10:32 am | Permalink

    I am reminded of that amusing meme with the Prussian field marshal: “You are miserable because you are free”. The freedom implied in this meme is, I presume, the freedom ex nihilo that you mentioned in the article. It’s the reason that modern SJWs (as an example) are miserable no matter how many tattoos they get or which ridiculous colors they dye their hair. Freedom based on one’s fleeting desires an not rooted to logos is no freedom at all. It is a cage.

  12. Archon
    Posted January 15, 2020 at 8:22 am | Permalink

    I know of a philosopher who is arguing, roughly the same, for his phd thesis. Right wing views are coming into philosophy, at last

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.
 
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
 
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

*
*

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs

    Cynosura

    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics

    Rising

    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Reuben

    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance