You are free! but only to do as your body tells you

This is post five of a series titled: Monica’s Mind-Blowing Trip Through Existential Philosophy.

Battling onwards with the themes of existentialism!

2. Existence precedes essence

A central proposition of existentialism is that existence precedes essence, which means that the actual life of the individual is what constitutes what could be called their “essence” instead of there being a predetermined essence that defines what it is to be a human. It is often claimed in this context that a person defines himself, which is often perceived as stating that we can “wish” to be something — anything, a bird, for instance — and then be it. According to most existentialist philosophers, however, this would be an inauthentic existence.

What is meant by the statement is that a person is (1) defined only insofar as they act and (2) that they are responsible for their actions. For example, someone who acts cruelly towards other people is, by that act, defined as a cruel person. Furthermore, by this action of cruelty they themselves are responsible for their new identity (a cruel person). This is as opposed to their genes, or ‘human nature’, bearing the blame. (Wikipedia)

I remember once when I was in high school, and no doubt troubled by typical teenage insecurities, I imagined myself having only ever lived on a desert island, without a single other soul. And I thought to myself, there, would I be funny? Dorky? Intelligent? Kind? Cruel? Without anyone to interact with, how can you ever know if you are any of these things? And if you never once ‘act’ these things, are they still a part of you?

For the French existentialist Jean-Paul Satre (1905-1980), your essence only emerges in the act of existence. Which is to say no, your essence is not locked up inside of you like a rattling genie in a bottle. You are the sum of your actions. It is the way you live, the way you talk, the way you treat others, the things that you do, that make you. And outside of that lived life, there is no essential you.

And Satre’s lifelong partner Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1986) carried this idea into feminism, developing the idea that “one is not born a woman, but becomes one.”

The thing is, as more work is done on the differences between the male and female brain, or looking at the way personality traits are, in actual fact, written into our genetics, not to mention hereditary mental disorders, one can’t help but wonder if some of this negates their ideas. (According to Evolutionary psychologist Nancy Etcoff in her excellent TED talk on the science of happiness, 50% of our ability to be happy is determined by genes – but there’s still 50% which is unaccounted for.)

In fact science and psychology – particularly evolutionary psychology and social darwinism – are constantly coming up with theories that attempt to explain why we act the way we do. It seems like that long list of diverse human behaviour, that seemed to embody the creativity, the chaos, the diversity and the irrationality of humanity, is one by one being linked to ever-more complicated expressions of simple, prosaic evolution. In fact if you take this to the extreme, perhaps every single thing we humans do and think links back – somehow – to evolution.

So in reply to the existentialists, can we be responsible for our actions? Are we actually free to choose? Or are our bodies simply driven by that primal urge to survive (Schopenhauer’s will to live), and making all the decisions for us?

Many psychological scientists argue that the concept of “free will” is more of a philosophic issue than a scientific one, given that it is difficult to experimentally conceptualize or to empirically test. It is also largely a semantic house of mirrors: we feel free (have “free will”) when we have the capacity to choose. However, do we have the capacity to choose what we want to choose? (And, if so, can we choose what we want to want to choose, and so on…)

Evolutionary psychology, as does psychological science in general, operates under the assumption that human behavior has causal roots. Our desires and wants, and our choices, are a complex interaction of biology and environment; we can “feel free” while our behavior is determined. (Wikipedia)

Perhaps every aspect of humanity, from the transcendental beauty of great art, the genius behind technological innovation, to the mad irrationality of love boils down to some sort of evolutionary drive. Even somewhat counter-intuitive things like altruism and homosexuality, will some day be explained as part of a survival instinct. But where does knowing that it’s all an illusionist’s ‘trick’ get us?

Evolution delivered us ‘free will’ – the feeling (note, just a feeling) that each of us is a unique entity, responsible for our actions and more sophisticated than just a bundle of primal, biological urges. And evolutionary psychologists may continue to uncover the mechanics behind the illusionist’s elaborate trick, but for now not enough links have been made for the spell to be broken. We will continue to be amazed by art, feel personal responsibility for the actions we’ve made, and, yes, feel like love is some kind of mystical connection between two souls.