Has anybody else picked this up yet? It’s really done a number on me. Prior to reading it I would consider myself a Stoic. One of my central philosophies being that “The choices I make define who I am”.
So obviously being told that my choices were never even mine to begin with was kind of a slap in the face.
It rings true though. The choices we make at any given time are a result of our genetics, or environment, the media we’ve consumed, how tired we are…
I’m not a stranger to the concept of Ego death but it had been a hot minute since I thought about it.
by 2rfv
8 Comments
Haven’t read the book, so there’s that.
But I do know that “no free will” is the cry of those who no longer take responsibility for their choices. Nothing is their fault. They can freely point the finger at *anything but themselves* and blame *that.*
“I couldn’t help it. It was genetics. It was my environment. I’m not responsible.”
That’s what it all amounts to.
And I’ll say this: Bullshit.
Ego death is necessary, but losing free will is a lie. You can learn that you are not the most important thing in this life (ego death) and still have free will.
You were right the first time: The choices you make *do* define who you are, no matter what any book tells you.
Including the choice to abandon all responsibility for the self in the name of the lie of “no free will.”
Sapolsky is largely on the money for most of the book, and probably undersells just how profound the pure stimuli->response nature of behavior is.
If your philosophy stops with Descartes, the book is probably going to pose interesting arguments rather than compelling ones. Anything more modern and I think his examples do a good job of making it seem obvious.
If you have the opportunity to read any of [his other books](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/31170723-behave), you can see his growth toward this standpoint by evidence and deduction. Taken with Determined, it’s interesting to see someone who is sensitive enough to their own errors that they allow it to modify their viewpoint in consistent yet dramatic ways. The path through his last few books have felt more like a long running internal argument from someone invested enough in the topic they dedicate themselves to it.
Which is character development, cool.
I’ve always viewed it as:
We have no free will, but we must behave as if we do.
Do you feel like the book substantially argues against that point? Or adds to it in a compelling way?
Think of it this way; it is YOU who are making those choices, they are YOUR choices, it’s just that it was predetermined that you would make that one specific choice. Our environment, the way we were raised influences our choices and so the past in a way determines the future. If you want to get into the physics of it all, randomness does exist but as far as we know only at a quantum level; the bigger events are deterministic in nature. And about the whole crime/punishment thing just as someone “had no choice” but to commit a crime, the judge also “has no choice” but to punish that person. You are responsible for your own choices, it’s just that they are predetermined.
Honestly, I get why this stuff triggers people so hard. From a biblical sense, *choice* is almost the sole defining characteristic of what makes us human.
What else could free will mean but the capacity to, when faced with multiple percieved options, select from among them?
What statistically predicts this selection obviously includes factors such as genetics and environment, but much less than 100% of the variability in behaviour has been demonstrated to be explained by any combination of factors. In other words, there is still lots of room for some other factor that determines behaviour other than immutable characteristics/experiences (e.g. potentially ‘free will’).
Some might argue, well yes that’s just because we haven’t measured them yet. Maybe…but that’s still an idea…and one the belief in which has been shown to predict worse outcomes.
Can anyone explain to me how the concept of having no free will applies to people who are chronically homeless? I do not mean people in a temporary crunch, but long termers who are addicts or just can’t get it together. I struggle with extreme guilt over beggars, if it is in a way predestined I would like to know.
Free will and personal agency are not mutually exclusive; they should not be understood synonymously. If you identified as a Stoic, then you should recall how a deterministic metaphysics was made compatible with the freedom to choose as a personal agent. It’s actually one the cleverest and most elegant developments offered by Stoic philosophy.