Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter November 2, 2022

Free will: Dr Johnson was right

  • John Shand
From the journal Human Affairs

Abstract

In this attempt to deal with the problem of free will Tallis identifies intentionality as a feature of our lives that cannot be explained by deterministic, natural, physical, causal laws. Our ability to think about the world, and not merely be objects subject to it, gives us room for manoeuvre for free thought and action. Science, far from being antagonistic to the possibility of free will as it is usually presented through its deterministic explanations, is a manifestation of our freedom and could not exist without it. However, doubts arise for the argument owing to a lack of explanation as to how freedom is possible no matter how persuasively we are shown that it appears to be. That is, what kind of world would it have to be for freedom to exist and be explicable. I conclude with my own view, alluded to by Tallis, but not followed up, that the problem with the scientific worldview is that it is wedded to objectivity as the only stance deemed veridical as to the nature of reality, one which therefore cannot by necessity allow subjects or freedom. As freedom is a property of subjects, the scientific worldview cannot allow for freedom. Once the condition is dropped that only the objectively knowable can be real, freedom also may be real, defined as a knowable property of our subjectivity. There is no need to deny physicalism if the definition of it is released from the epistemic bonds of objectivity and we hold that some physical properties may be known subjectively, namely those that characterize our subjective life.

References

Bellow, S. (1976). Herzog. London: Penguin.Search in Google Scholar

Bergson, H. (2016) [1889]. Time and free will. In K. Ansell Pearson & J. Ó Maoilearca (Eds.), Henri Bergson: Key writings. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Search in Google Scholar

Humphrey, N. (2006). Seeing red: A study in consciousness Harvard: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674038905Search in Google Scholar

Hampton, J. E. (1998). Reason and authority. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.10.1017/CBO9780511625213Search in Google Scholar

Quinton, A. (1973). The nature of things. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Search in Google Scholar

Schopenhauer, A. (1969/1881). The world as will and representation. (E. F. Payne, Trans.). New York: Dover Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Shand, J. (2009). Limits, perspectives, and thought. Philosophy, 84(3).10.1017/S0031819109000461Search in Google Scholar

Shand, J. (2015). Free will and subject. Polish Journal of Philosophy, 9(1), 51–70.10.5840/pjphil2015913Search in Google Scholar

Shand, J. (2021). Consciousness: Removing the hardness and solving the problem. Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, 77(4), 1279–1296.10.17990/RPF/2021_77_4_1279Search in Google Scholar

Tallis, R. (2021). Freedom: An Impossible Reality. Newcastle: Agenda Publishing.10.2307/j.ctv1wgvb6cSearch in Google Scholar

Wilson, C. (1966). The new existentialism. London: Wildwood House.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2022-11-02
Published in Print: 2022-10-26

© 2022 Institute for Research in Social Communication, Slovak Academy of Sciences

Downloaded on 25.2.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/humaff-2022-0033/html
Scroll to top button