Today, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to address an essential philosophical topic that has been at the centre of human thought for centuries: Are we, as human beings, inherently free or essentially unfree? This subject has inspired heated arguments and has been investigated by several philosophers across history. I might contend for the positive, claiming that we are intrinsically free as humans.
First, let us consider the existentialist viewpoint, as described by Jean-Paul Sartre in his seminal article “Existentialism is a Humanism.” Sartre, a key proponent of existentialism, believes that humans are doomed to be free. He contends that our existence comes before our essence, meaning we are not born with a preset mission or character. Instead, via our decisions, we construct our identity (Russo, 2022). Sartre’s claim that we are doomed to be free may appear contradictory, yet it underscores an essential component of our being: our ability to choose and be free. He contends that we can determine ourselves via our activities since a fixed human nature does not constrain us (Wahman, 2022). In this way, our independence is a necessary component of our humanity. We can direct our lives, render moral judgments, and accept accountability for our actions.
Consider Baruch Spinoza’s “Appendix to Part I of the Ethics.” Spinoza, a rationalist philosopher, proposes a probabilistic perspective of the cosmos, which is all determined by natural necessity. His viewpoint, nevertheless, does not undermine human freedom; instead, it alters it (Bernstein, 2018). According to Spinoza, true freedom is not the lack of restrictions but the comprehension of inevitability. He contends that we reach a higher level of freedom whenever we connect our desires with natural laws and obtain awareness of the reasons that govern our behaviours.
In the simplest terms, Spinoza contends that our freedom stems from a thorough comprehension of the mechanisms of cause and effect that drive our choices rather than from resistance to determinism (Vicens et al., 2023). This viewpoint urges us to pursue knowledge and wisdom to acquire more control over our lives, suggesting that self-determination is grounded in our logical powers, even in a deterministic structure.
Ramifications of the optimistic viewpoint
If we agree that we are inherently free, we can come to important decisions and determine our fates. It lays a significant burden on us to behave ethically and conscientiously because our decisions affect not just ourselves but the community in general (Tianji & Szu-Chin, 2023). This point of view praises human innovation, self-expression, and moral progress. Our tutorial talks on this topic raised several obstacles to the optimistic viewpoint.
Others say that societal norms and institutions restrict our independence and that additional factors like economic disparity may drastically limit our options. Whereas these are legitimate worries, they do not undermine the fundamental assumption of liberty for all people. Instead, they emphasize the importance of cultural and legislative transformations that foster equality and chances, increasing individual independence (Nweke & Dibia, 2023). Finally, the positive stance emphasizes that we are intrinsically free as humans. This viewpoint is consistent with existentialist philosophy, which emphasizes the human ability for freedom and accountability, and Spinoza’s viewpoint on comprehending the inevitability of our acts. While there are objections to this stance, they do not invalidate the fundamental basis of human independence. However, they emphasize the significance of tackling social and structural factors that impede individual liberty. Accepting freedom as an integral part of our humanity might motivate us to strive for more accurate, moral, and meaningful lifestyles. Thank you for your time.
REFLECTION
In our lesson, we had a stimulating discussion about the essence of human independence. I took the affirmative stance, claiming that humans are free, building on Sartre and Spinoza’s concepts. Our conversations, on the other hand, displayed a broad range of opinions and raised some vital conceptual concerns.
The interaction involving a person’s autonomy and external limits was a constant subject in our conversations. Several respondents expressed legitimate worries regarding how cultural norms, financial inequities, and political institutions might constrain individual options. These criticisms not only called my initial viewpoint into question but also underlined human liberty’s intricate and multidimensional character. One major takeaway from our conversations was the significance of differentiating across different types of freedom. Whereas the optimistic viewpoint emphasizes our ability to choose and self-determine, it does not ignore the presence of other influences that might impact our choices. However, it necessitates an expanded comprehension of how our freedom impacts these circumstances.
Moreover, the debates highlighted the ethical component of human freedom. We must accept moral accountability for our acts if we are truly free. This aspect of ethical behaviour highlights concerns concerning the impact of one’s self-responsibility and the consequences of our decisions on individuals and society. In general, the instructional talks broadened my understanding of the subject. While I believe in the essential independence of human beings, I see the importance of continued investigation and discourse on the intricacies of this topic. Human independence is not a binary option within being wholly free or completely unfree; it resides on a continuum impacted by various internal and external circumstances.
Finally, the affirmative stance on human freedom emphasizes our ability to choose, self-determine, and exercise ethical accountability. It likewise recognizes the difficulties and limits people might face when enjoying independence. Participating in this intellectual debate has improved my awareness of the intricacies of human independence and the constant desire to comprehend and defend it in a complicated environment.
References
Bernstein, J. A. (2018). Baruch Spinoza. Edinburgh University Press. https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9781474423632.003.0022
Nweke, C., & Dibia, E. O. (2023). AN ETHICAL INQUIRY ON SARTRE’S CONCEPT OF FREEDOM. SIST JOURNAL OF RELIGION AND HUMANITIES, 3(1).
Russo, M. (2022). From Jean-Paul Sartre to Critical Existentialism: Notes for an Existentialist Ethical Theory. Sartre Studies International, 28(1), 49–66. https://www.berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/sartre-studies/28/1/ssi280104.xml
Tianji, M. A., & Szu-Chin, C. H. E. N. (2023). Is Human Freedom an Illusion? A critical discussion between the current neurophysiologically deterministic interpretation and Martin Luther’s theologically deterministic interpretation. International Journal of Sino-Western Studies, (24).
Vicens, L., Visala, A., & Vainio, O. P. (2023). Can the Unfree Person Have a Deep Self? Theological Perspectives on Free Will: Compatibility, Christology, Community.
Wahman, J. (2022). Psyche as Agent: Overcoming the” Free/Unfree” Dichotomy. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society: A Quarterly Journal in American Philosophy, 58(2), 79–96.
write