Appendix C - Contradiction Between Self-Improvement and No Free Will

Appendix C: Contradiction Between Self-Improvement and No Free Will #

This sections explores the apparent contradiction between not having free will (under a framework of determinism), and the ability to self-improve.

The Future is Fixed #

At first glance, the philosophy of hard determinism seems to stand in opposition to the concept of self-improvement.

Hard determinism says that every event in the universe, including every thought, decision, and action of human beings, is the inevitable result of preceding events in combination with the laws of nature. This framework suggests that the future is fixed by past and present causes. Within such a worldview, the individual’s agency and ability to effect change through personal effort or decision-making are illusions. If every aspect of our lives, from our feelings to our actions, is predetermined, then the notion of actively shaping our destiny through self-improvement seems at best misguided, and at worst, entirely futile.

The future is fixed. Self-improvement is an illusion.

Separating Our Terms #

This contradiction arises when hard determinism is conflated with fatalism, leading to the belief that efforts toward self-improvement are pointless because all outcomes are already fixed.

If one’s future state of being, including one’s character and abilities, is predetermined and unchangeable, then any attempt at self-improvement would seem to be in vain. This perspective can lead to a sense of resignation or passivity, undermining the motivation for personal growth and change.

Let’s briefly review our terms:

Self-Improvement: This concept implies that through reflection, effort, and choice, individuals can change aspects of their character, abilities, or circumstances for the better. It assumes a degree of control or influence over one’s actions and their outcomes.

Hard Determinism: This view holds that all events, including human actions, thoughts, and decisions, are determined by preceding causes and the laws of nature. It negates the existence of free will by asserting that every action or state is the inevitable result of preceding events.

Fatalism: Fatalism is often confused with hard determinism. It suggests that all events are predetermined to happen in a specific way, regardless of what we do. Under fatalism, the future is fixed, and human efforts to change or influence it are futile.

Hard Determinism vs. Fatalism #

The key difference between hard determinism and fatalism lies in their implications for action and the nature of the future:

Hard Determinism acknowledges that causes lead to effects through the laws of nature. It does not deny that actions have effects; rather, it asserts that these actions are themselves determined by prior causes. This view allows for a dynamic interaction between one’s actions and the unfolding of future events, even though these actions are determined.

Fatalism, by contrast, suggests a fixed future that is independent of one’s actions. It implies a kind of inevitability that renders human actions irrelevant to future outcomes. This perspective is more about resignation to an unchangeable destiny than about the causal chains of events.

Under hard determinism, the things we learn, the way we change, the thinking we do, and the actions we make, matter. They aide in determining future decisions and actions. The future is not fixed, it is determined.

Implications for Self-Improvement #

Under hard determinism, efforts towards self-improvement are seen as part of a causal chain. The desire to improve, the actions taken towards improvement, and the results of those actions are all determined by preceding causes. However, this deterministic chain does not negate the effectiveness or reality of self-improvement efforts; it simply places them within a framework where choice is understood as being influenced by prior factors.

Fatalism, on the other hand, would indeed pose a contradiction to the notion of self-improvement, as it would render such efforts meaningless in the face of a predetermined future.

Understanding this separation helps reconcile the practice of self-improvement with a deterministic view of the world. It allows for an appreciation of the causal relationships between our actions, including self-improvement efforts, and their effects on our lives, without resorting to the fatalistic notion that our actions are without influence on our futures.

Cannot Choose To Do Otherwise #

Recall that hard determinism is the view that all events, including human actions, are determined by preceding causes and conditions together with the laws of nature. According to this perspective, the future is determined and inevitable, given the past and the laws of nature. This means that individuals have no real choice or control over their actions; everything they do is the result of prior events and conditions.

Therefore, we cannot choose to improve ourselves. Self-improvement is an illusion.

Determined Self-Improvement #

At first glance, the hard determinism viewpoint might seem to clash with the concept of self-improvement, which typically implies a degree of personal choice and volition in bettering oneself. However, one can propose a compatible framework where the pursuit of self-improvement aligns with hard determinism through a few key considerations:

  1. Causal Influence of Knowledge and Awareness: Under hard determinism, the acquisition of knowledge and exposure to new ideas are events determined by prior causes. When an individual learns about self-improvement strategies, this new knowledge can causally influence their future behaviors and decisions. The desire and effort to improve oneself can thus be seen as the deterministic result of having encountered certain information and experiences.

  2. Internal Motivations as Determined Responses: Motivations, desires, and inclinations can be understood as internally generated responses that are themselves determined by an individual’s biology, past experiences, and external influences. For example, someone might be genetically predisposed to be more reflective and thus more inclined toward self-improvement, or their upbringing and life experiences may have fostered a strong value for personal growth. The pursuit of self-improvement, then, is a determined outcome of these factors.

  3. Self-Improvement as Adaptive Behavior: From an evolutionary perspective, the capacity for self-reflection and adaptation can be seen as beneficial traits that are the result of deterministic processes. Individuals who engage in self-improvement are responding adaptively to their environment in ways that may enhance their survival and well-being. This adaptation is not a matter of free choice but rather the result of deterministic factors that have shaped human cognition and behavior over millennia.

  4. Influence of Social and Environmental Factors: The environments in which individuals find themselves can significantly influence their paths towards self-improvement. Social pressures, cultural values, and even random encounters can all serve as determinants that push an individual towards self-improvement endeavors. These external factors can set a chain of events in motion, leading to outcomes that appear as self-directed growth.

  5. Reconceptualizing Autonomy: While hard determinism challenges traditional notions of autonomy and free will, it doesn’t necessarily negate the concept of personal development. Instead, autonomy can be redefined within this framework as the capacity to act in alignment with one’s desires and values, even if those are themselves determined by prior causes. The journey of self-improvement can thus be understood as a deterministic unfolding of an individual’s potential in response to both internal and external determinants.

By viewing self-improvement through the lens of hard determinism, we can conceptualize it not as a series of free-willed choices but as the natural outcome of a complex web of determined factors. This perspective does not diminish the value or significance of personal growth but rather situates it within a broader understanding of human behavior and motivation.

Move Toward Compatibilism #

Given the concern over this contradiction, many find a middle ground in compatibilism, which argues that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive.

Compatibilists suggest that free will is compatible with determinism if free will is understood as the ability to act according to one’s desires and motivations, even if those desires and motivations are determined by prior causes. This view allows for the possibility of affecting change through self-improvement by acknowledging that while our desires and choices may be influenced by deterministic factors, we can still consider ourselves free in a meaningful sense if we act according to those desires and choices.

Addressing Dilemmas #

The contradiction of self-improvement under a framework of no free will may raise a series of seeming paradoxes and dilemmas.

1. The Agency Contradiction #

This contradiction arises from the belief that if all actions are predetermined or a result of uncontrollable factors, then the concept of actively deciding to engage in self-improvement activities seems moot.

Under hard determinism, agency can be reinterpreted as the manifestation of one’s character and experiences, which, although predetermined, are uniquely expressed through individual actions. This reconceptualization allows for a form of personal growth that acknowledges the role of inherent and environmental factors in shaping choices and behaviors.

2. The Responsibility Paradox #

If there is no free will, the responsibility for one’s actions, including the failure or success of self-improvement efforts, could be seen as lying outside the individual’s control. This challenges the conventional wisdom that individuals are accountable for their personal development.

Responsibility in a hard determinist framework can be understood in terms of social and personal narratives that guide behavior and expectations. While individual actions may be determined by prior causes, societies can still promote growth and improvement by shaping the conditions that influence those causes, creating a collective form of responsibility for self-improvement.

3. The Motivation Dilemma #

The drive to improve oneself presupposes a belief in the possibility of change and the power to effect that change. A strict determinist view could potentially undermine the motivation for self-improvement by negating the efficacy of personal effort.

Even within the constraints of hard determinism, motivation for self-improvement can stem from an understanding that our desires, drives, and efforts are part of the causal chain leading to change. Recognizing that personal development is the outcome of determined processes can encourage engagement with those processes in a meaningful way.

4. The Goal-Setting Paradox #

Setting goals is a fundamental aspect of self-improvement, implying foresight, planning, and decision-making. However, if one’s actions and future are predetermined, the act of setting and striving for personal goals could seem irrational or futile.

Goals can be viewed as reflections of one’s determined path, serving as milestones that guide and focus efforts in alignment with one’s nature and circumstances. In this light, goal-setting becomes a tool for navigating the deterministic landscape, making the journey towards predetermined outcomes more intentional and fulfilling.

5. The Identity Contradiction #

Self-improvement often involves a narrative of personal growth and change. However, if there is no free will, then the concept of a stable, autonomous self that can guide and witness this growth is challenged.

In a hard determinist context, identity is not a static, self-fashioned essence but an evolving narrative shaped by deterministic forces. Understanding oneself as a product of these forces allows for a kind of self-improvement grounded in self-awareness and acceptance, facilitating growth within the parameters set by one’s nature and nurture.