There is no thought to regard human being as apart from or above or below animal being or animal nature. In an expansive framework, Human World can be seen as Cosmology with a focus on the human world

A psychological and social anthropology!

Since the focus is on the psyche and the group—mind and society—the title of this chapter could be psychological and social anthropology

Note on psychology as a discipline

Academic psychology often regards itself as the objective study of the—human—psyche and therefore does not admit experience—consciousness and related subjective aspects of psyche into its domain of study. In response, it is often claimed that the existence of a subjective side is objectively known—which has been shown in this narrative to be a—perhaps the—fundamental fact of the meaning of experience. Further, that knowledge has a subjective side does not constitutively imply that it is not objective; objectivity must be a contingent or case by case concern. In this narrative, psychology has no a priori restrictions of subject matter except, of course, in its focus on—human—mind. While the contours of the discussion concern mind as such, the treatment is, however, selective with regard to detail—the general interest lies in the place and evolution of mind in general, the necessity and nature of animal / human freedoms, the given versus development in human being, the use of the metaphysics of immanence to shed light on these basic questions, and those aspects of the human world that enhance realization of the goals of the journey

It would seem that the exclusion of the subjective side of human-being-in-the-world at the beginning of study is a prejudice that, even from the conservative viewpoint, could well be replaced by an intent to make no unfounded objective statements about that side

Role of Human World in Journey in Being

Place of the division in the journey. (1) Understanding—knowledge—of human being and society will be instrumental in undertaking the journey, especially in the initial phases of ideas and transformation. The human world is the context in which the journey begins. (2) Illustration of the Theory of Being especially rounding out the Cosmology and provision of a—potential alternate—approach to the Metaphysics

Presentation as a contribution to the history of ideas

Human World is presented as a contribution to thought, especially in the study of human mind; and to the study of society and its institutions, values, morals—ethics—and faith

Method

Method has been outlined in Metaphysics. Metaphysics (theory of being) provides a framework of necessary—though occasionally contingent—assertions and proof. Here, the human world is a special context and most ‘data’ e.g. psychology will be contextual or contingent—but some elements of data e.g. the fact of bound and free elements in—human—mind will be shown necessary. Conclusions are necessary when all premises including proofs—form of proof may be regarded as a premise and necessary proof is deductive proof. When any premise is contingent, conclusions may be contingent

Freedom and necessity

Significance of the topic and of this discussion. Pertinence to the narrative. Placement

The questions of human freedom—its existence and nature—have intrinsic and ongoing interest. A discussion of freedom serves the following purposes. (1) The subsequent topics are frequently concerned with the issue of freedom and it seems effective to discuss it at some length before approaching specific topics. This first item also explains the placement of the discussion. (2) The treatment of freedom in prior thought is found to not satisfy the needs or standards of the present discussion. (3) The reflections are sufficiently novel in their approach that they may be a contribution to thought. As is typical for such issues, their clarification may require and be the occasion for, not only clarification of the concepts of immediate interest, but also for other fundamental concepts and questions of method

Origin of the idea of freedom

The degree of variation among human individuals and cultures—and within cultures—suggests that human beings have certain kinds of freedoms and this is apparently confirmed by individual reflection on the ability to conceive of alternate possibilities of action especially toward some chosen end, to choose from among the alternatives and to act constructively toward that choice

Debate regarding existence of freedom

There is, however, a tradition of debate about freedom—especially in modern philosophy—stemming from scholastic (theological) and modern scientific arguments for determinism in nature and the question of compatibility of freedom and determinism. The significance of ‘freedom’ is such that debate is natural

Substance of the debate

The most famous and glamorous question is Are we free?

There are other concerns of which some have roughly equal importance:

What is the true nature of freedom and what are the human and philosophical consequences of its presence or absence? Is nature deterministic—and what is determinism? Is freedom compatible with determinism? Is indeterminism necessary? Is indeterminism sufficient for freedom or must it be a kind of indeterminism? Is there such a thing as human liberty? Why should individuals be accountable for their actions? Can there be true action in the absence of freedom? In absence of freedom can there be creativity, independence, choice, or dignity—do these concepts even have meaning, could they even arise in absence of freedom?

Some background in religion and science

In scholastic philosophy, especially in the thought of Thomas Aquinas, discussion of freedom and determinism includes a desire to reconcile the absolute nature of God with human liberty. The science of Newton is deterministic in form—this does not guarantee determinism because singular states can be described mathematically whose outcome is not unique. It is not clear, however, whether such states are actual states of the world. Recently, chaos theory has shown that the behavior of ‘chaotic systems’ is so sensitive to initial conditions as to make prediction of the trajectory of such a system impossible unless initial conditions are known to a precision that is not attainable and, on the assumption that the brain may be ‘chaotic,’ this is sometimes thought to make human freedom compatible with determinism in nature. However, it seems that what may legitimately concluded is that it may be impossible, as a result of chaos, to distinguish true from apparent freedom. While Einstein’s theory of gravitation—general relativity—is deterministic in form, the presence of singularities that make global partitioning into spaces at a time and space-times that have closed causal loops further complicate what may be inferred regarding the determinism of the world from formally deterministic physical theories

Modern physical science

Since Newtonian physics may be seen as a deterministic approximation to quantum theory, the latter theory may be expected to provide a more robust foundation for the discussion of freedom. Quantum theory is indeterministic and yet it allows for stable structure and in this is entirely consistent with the idea of human being as having form and behavioral patterns that are often determinate but are not invariably so

Recent cognitive science

Against this there are cognitive scientists who argue from experiments that in many common actions, while there is a conscious sense of choice, action is actually already executed before the consciousness occurs. This argument has a simple deficiency in that it does not allow for unconscious choice (it will be seen below that the unconscious is not invariably and entirely in a realm of unawareness but is, rather, inclusive of a realm of dim and non-reflexive awareness.) Further, the argument does not allow for interaction of consciousness and the unconscious over time in complex actions such as planning, design and execution of diffuse projects especially the ‘project’ of a life or of a civilization. The comparison may be unfair and is not particularly relevant to the question of freedom but Aquinas seems to have been fair minded in comparison to those science minded thinkers who rush to make defining conclusions from simple laboratory experiments on a complex creature

Freedom and determinism

Is freedom compatible with determinism? Although the question has intellectual interest and has been the occasion for ingenious argument, it is no longer as significant as it was in times when theological and scientific determinism were predominant. Some responses have argued that a sense of freedom is consistent with determinism. Some have argued that the freedom to do what one wills is compatible with determinism. However, the ability to have and make a choice is inconsistent with determinism and without choice there could not be freedom to do anything. Therefore, indeterminism necessary for freedom. Is indeterminism sufficient for freedom? It is not but this is so near to being transparent that the question is not interesting. It is more interesting to ask what kind of indeterminism may be sufficient or necessary for freedom. It is reasonable to think that an indeterminism that is consistent with freedom is one that permits a degree of indeterminism (choice) within a framework of form or structure. Thus, freedom may well be possible within a framework of quantum theory but this is far from having been shown. As will be seen, the absolute indeterminism of metaphysics of immanence is—probably far more than—sufficient for freedom

Quickness to conclusions in the recent literature. Interpretation of recent experiments on freedoms. Possible reasons for quickness and pre-interpretation

In reading arguments for and against freedom an impression may arise that there is an occasional quickness to make conclusions from ideas or data that are suggestive but not conclusive even though reigning paradigms of thought may dispose thinkers to hold that what is merely suggestive is actually conclusive. The experiments that ‘show’ that human freedom is an illusion—the result of a desire to believe in such freedom—show only that, in some simple instances, the source of action is not in the ‘bright’ region of consciousness. The quickness of the conclusion could be explained by the desire of the scientists desire to believe in a strict empiricist program of science—or, perhaps, by the satisfaction that is derived from a vision of science and scientist as informing society (of course this description pertains only to some kinds of ‘science’ and ‘scientist’)

Questionable status of quantum theory

Even though the arguments from quantum theory appear to have robustness it is pertinent that a careful reading of the theory appears to makes its status as a non-deterministic theory less than certain. Further, among those physicists who reflect on that theory and its potential as a final theory, there is a growing belief that it is probably an incomplete approximation to a very different theory—the phrase in italics is from Lee Smolin, The Other Einstein, New York Review of Books, June 14, 2007

Proper direction of thought on freedom

Therefore, it seems that, in order to think carefully on human freedom at all, the one available contextual direction is one that may have seemed obvious and natural in the first place—reflection on the subject of thought that, in this instance, is human being. Thought on the topic is not limited to the contextual because the context lies within the larger domain of being and the contextual questions can be framed within the theory of being

The essential questions on freedom

With preliminaries addressed, discussion begins anew

The essential questions are as follows. (1) What is freedom? (2) What kinds of freedom are there and what are their interrelations? Note that one possible answer to this question is that there are no kinds—i.e. there is no freedom. (3) How are the arguments to be made?

The answer to the third question is addressed—though not answered—immediately. In outline, the arguments shall use the metaphysical principles established and the empirical evidence of, first, everyday human experience and, second, the course of human history. The detailed development-recapitulation of method is interwoven with the discussion of the particular and ‘substantive’ questions

What is freedom?

Freedom is the ability to conceive different outcomes, to choose from among them, and to effect the choice. The word ‘outcome’ covers both act and end. If there are 10,000 possible outcomes in one description of some context, 5000 of them may be regarded as ‘one’ and therefore freedom does not require the effectuation of a precise outcome. However, freedom does require that there should be more than one outcome; i.e. freedom and determinism are incompatible. If indeterminism is necessary for mind—an at least reasonable argument for that conclusion can be given—then determinism is incompatible with even an illusion of freedom. This concept of freedom requires novel concept formation in the ability to make and execute choice; it will be seen in Human being that these are not distinct freedoms and have basis in the ‘free symbol.’ As suggested above, freedom is without meaning unless it occurs against a background of—at least partially—determined form. That determined form includes knowledge and it is against and from that background—itself in part the creation of freedom—that novel choice emerges…

Freedom without conception of alternatives?

A lesser form of freedom might be the ability to choose from given alternative outcomes without an ability to create alternatives; however, to be aware of the alternatives the individual would have to have another—likely human—person conceive them. The thought that that other person could be God may be discounted from the kinds of argument in Metaphysics and Cosmology. However, the question arises as to when the choice from among given alternatives is freedom. If an animal has hunger and a sense of smell the connection between direction of travel and scent may not occur at any conscious or articulate level. However, if the animal is able to bring into consciousness several scents, their directions, their kinds, their magnitudes and estimate consciously which direction of travel would bring about the greatest amount of food, would that not count as creation of choice? The case is interesting but is not analyzed further because the interest is in the case of higher choice, i.e., the case in which choice is in fact created

Freedom is not the ability to do ‘anything one pleases’

Freedom is not the ability to do anything one pleases—even if it does not appear to be absurd

In liberal-analytic, existential, and common thought there is an occasional and thoughtless assumption that the exercise of freedom is simple and luminous—that except for absurdities, one can do whatever one chooses. This assumption has drawn the natural reactions that include ‘human being is determined, not free,’ ‘the exercise of freedom is an illusion,’ ‘human freedom is trivial and uninteresting.’ Action and reaction submit to the position that freedom is absolutely polar: human being is absolutely free or not free at all

It is important to recognize that the process of creating choice, selecting from among alternatives, and acting on selections is not at all easy, linear, or altogether luminous

Awareness and exercise of freedom may be slow and laborious (that may be punctuated by points of light)

It should be emphasized the ‘freedom’ is not the ability to do ‘anything one chooses,’ that presence of freedom does not mean that acts are fully determined by intent or ends fully determined by intent or acts, or that the exercise significant freedom is free of immense challenge. As noted, freedom is without meaning unless it occurs against a background of—at least partially—determined form. Misconceptions regarding the nature of freedom and its place in human life are a source of tension in discussions of human freedom. Some liberal analytic philosophers have written as though self-definition is straight forward and entirely conscious. Here, however, in saying that persons have freedom this view is rejected. Even becoming aware of the fact of freedom and in seeing or creating options is likely to be hesitant and, partly due to a necessary interplay between conscious and unconscious factors, to not follow any foreseeable progression

If freedom is a defining human characteristic, it is so only in certain perspectives

Existentialists have written as though exercise of freedom—in the face of nihilism or adversity—is the defining human characteristic. The thought here is that freedom is, as seen below, an essential characteristic. However, no single characteristic is put forward as the defining characteristic and it is not suggested that any struggle for freedom or any noble stand against nihilism is necessary to be ‘authentically’ human

Yet, freedom is essential

Yet, freedom has been seen as sufficiently important that, even though its expression may be halting and occasional (and luminous), its role in human life is essential

Are we free?

Discussion so far has provided some answer to the question of the nature of freedom. It also shows that if there is freedom, what its kinds shall be. It remains to discuss whether there is human freedom

How shall the question of freedom be addressed?

But this also requires addressing the question how the issue may be discussed

Contingent / empirical aspect of the argument

This is provided by the discussion so far

Necessary aspect

In saying earlier that the only possible direction of thought on the issue of freedom is to reflect on human being, the possibility of using the Metaphysics was temporarily suppressed. Since science and religion and even the history of ideas have little to say on the issue that can be regarded as final and since it is not at all clear that these traditional sources of argument can resolve the issue, argument now turns to Theory of being i.e. the Metaphysics in whose ultimate character the traditional sources have been seen to be limited

Human being has freedom. The argument

In saying ‘Human being has freedom’, ‘freedom’ is, of course, as laid out earlier

The argument

The argument in six steps is supremely simple

1. The universe enters a state of being the void

2. The present—state—has emerged from the void

3. Since the void is absolute absence, it is essential to the present that it contains novelty and, since, sufficiently far in the past there was no human culture or even human being, human culture must contain essential novelty

4. The novelty in human culture must stem human being—freedom—and the environment in interaction

5. Although it is logically possible (from the skeleton form of argument) for all cultural novelty to have environmental origin, given the complexity of human being—brain—in relation to that of the environment the actual probability of entirely environmental origin is infinitesimal

In mathematics an infinitesimal is a number, given rigorous meaning by Abrahamson Robinson in ‘non-standard analysis,’ not zero but whose magnitude is less than that of any finite number such as 0.01 or 0.002 and so on. Here, however, ‘infinitesimal’ is used metaphorically to mean extremely small. Also note that the probability in question has not been shown here to be quantifiable since it occurs against the background of the universe of all being; perhaps, therefore, ‘probability’ is here also best seen as metaphorical

6. Therefore, human being is a—partial—determinant and instrument of self, and of human culture and destiny

Comment on environment

The other determinant is, of course, ‘environment’ for human being and environment constitute the universe. However, it is—obviously—not being said that the human being and environment together are fully determining for that would be determinism

Review: robustness of the argument

The argument follows a pattern already seen in which an extremely likely and robust contingent conclusion is made within a framework of necessity. Those who want a logical proof of human freedom should note that such proof is impossible except on detailed assumptions regarding the structure of the cosmos and may also note that Theory of being has shown that there must be beings who—will—share Identity with human being who have freedom. Anyone who still desires unconditional logical proof may be encouraged to act upon this desire but may also reflect that it is perhaps a loss based in a misunderstanding of being and human being to be allow this concern to prevent all forward motion into further realms of ideas

If, however, it is assumed that the locus of novelty in the human world is not entirely in the environment, then the argument for human freedom becomes necessary (since human being must then be one of the loci of freedom)

Neurosis of insistence on the counter-argument

The argument against freedom is instructive in demanding an argument for freedom. Further insistence on an argument against freedom, except that illumination continues to be a good thing, is then seen as massively neurotic. As source of novelty, freedom must lie in the universe, i.e., in environment andor organism. The source of the thought against human freedom lies, in the light of absolute indeterminism, in the thought that we are separate from the baser environment. In any demand that we are so different, whose origin is in neurosis, we entail the conclusion that we are less than we are. We allow the lessening of the organism to promote its ego. The thinker who thinks he or she is above the other lessens his or her own image. Stop it