Freedom in Action: A Philosophical Inquiry

Freedom in Action

The Meaning of Action in the World

Freedom in Action begins with the premise that man lives in the world. This “world” isn’t merely a system of cause and effect, but an “arena full of meaning” where we act. Inhabiting the world means acting, not just responding to stimuli, but also inventing and creating without predetermined instincts.

Humans belong to an “open” and constantly “creating” species, as Pico della Mirandola posited during the Renaissance. The central question becomes: if creating the world is the same as acting in the world, then what constitutes meaningful action? This leads to further questions:

  • What distinguishes human action from the actions of other beings?
  • Is the ability to act, rather than merely react, an illusion?

Savater differentiates between:

  • Things that merely happen to us
  • Unintentional actions
  • Routine voluntary actions
  • Conscious, intentional actions

Voluntary Action and Freedom

How can we determine if an act is voluntary? Savater references Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, which explores the concept of voluntary action. He uses the example of a ship’s captain, who may act voluntarily against his will in certain circumstances. Savater also considers Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations, which suggests that if nothing prevents us from moving our arm, the desire to move and the movement itself are the same event. However, Savater argues there’s a distinction: we have the capacity to choose to move or not move. This possibility of choosing, of saying “yes” or “no,” is what we call freedom.

Is freedom merely an illusion? According to determinism, everything that happens is caused by natural laws. Our surprise at an event is simply due to our ignorance of the preceding conditions. Where, then, is the freedom to choose?

Savater argues that neither Laplace’s determinism nor the indeterminism of Heisenberg or Prigogine can address human freedom. The question of freedom lies not in physics, but in the realm of human action, where factors like will, intent, motive, and foresight come into play. Physical determinism doesn’t preclude free action.

Understanding Freedom

  • Freedom is not uncaused; it arises from a subject capable of wanting, choosing, and forming intentions.
  • Freedom introduces a new line of practical consideration, rather than breaking the chain of causality.

Different Meanings of Freedom

  1. Freedom as availability: The ability to act on desires or projects. This implies a possibility of success.
  2. Freedom of will: The ability to want what we want. The Stoics called this the “invulnerable freedom of human will.”
  3. Freedom to act against our desires: The capacity to want what we don’t want and not want what we do want. This acknowledges the gap between our ideals and our actions.

Perspectives on Freedom

Schopenhauer denies the third meaning of freedom. He argues that humans, like other beings, are driven by an essential will, primarily the will to live. We are what we want because our desires constitute us. We are free to want what we want, but we cannot choose or modify our will. Schopenhauer connects this radical freedom (“I am what I want to be”) with determinism (“I have no choice but to be who I am.”).

Freud shared Schopenhauer’s view on unconscious motivations. Sartre, in the 20th century, proposed a radical metaphysics of freedom: existentialism. Humans exist without a predetermined essence. We are what we strive to be, with the ability to deny our past selves. We are open to change because we are free.

Sartre’s radical freedom defines humans as beings condemned to be free, with the vocation to deny what surrounds us and project an alternate reality based on our freely chosen desires.

The Importance of Freedom and Responsibility

Why is freedom so important? Hume argued that it allows for the attribution of responsibility, which is essential for social coexistence. Fromm, in Fear of Freedom, suggests that true freedom lies in accepting responsibility for it.

Ancient civilizations recognized only the first sense of freedom (availability). Sophocles believed responsibility arises from reflecting on past actions, not intentions. In modern times, responsibility is seen as the counterpart of freedom. Savater challenges the current trend of dissolving individual responsibility, arguing that it reduces human actions to mere accidents.

In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna instructs Arjuna to act according to his nature, but without attachment to the consequences. This Eastern perspective resonates with Stoic and Spinozan thought, but leads to different practices. Western thought seeks to understand the causal framework of action, while Eastern thought emphasizes detachment from outcomes.

The human capacity for self-dissatisfaction raises further questions. How can we repent of actions arising from our natural freedom? How do we create internal conflicts with our nature? What is our nature, and what does it mean for us?