Sartre vs Determinism

Determinism: All of our future actions are already determined, and that what we call free will is really just the product of causality.

Sartre clearly rejects this view completely, as this would treat man as an object and places him in the world of 'being-in-themselves'. It also ties in with human nature, which Sartre also rejects, because it thus denies the inherent freedom of man.
What else can we say about Sartre's viewpoint on determinism? A lot of the stuff I find seems to be very heavy reading and easy to get lost in :P

Reply 1

white_rabbit

Start with his easier stuff. Such as "Existenialism as Humanism." Or for kicks read his short stories like "The Wall."

But don't try "Being and Nothingness." There is no hope.

Reply 2

fernobob

I believe in determinism. It seems to me that all life is just chemical reactions in the brain which send electrical impulses. If there was some kind of 'soul' controlling it, it would obviously have to be a non-physical thing but it would also have to be able to send electrical impulses to the body. I'm fairly certain that this is against the laws of pyhsics, though I may be wrong.

Reply 3

Psyonif

fernobob

I believe in determinism. It seems to me that all life is just chemical reactions in the brain which send electrical impulses. If there was some kind of 'soul' controlling it, it would obviously have to be a non-physical thing but it would also have to be able to send electrical impulses to the body. I'm fairly certain that this is against the laws of pyhsics, though I may be wrong.

It is indeed against the laws of physics. The problem is that, from our own point of view, it really, really, REALLY seems like we DO have free will; it seems like we are conscious free agents that make our own choices. Indeed, in order to be able to experience the world subjectively, which we clearly do, it is necessary for us to not be deterministic.

And yet we must be, because we're made of matter. It's the ol' Hard Problem of Consciousness, and it's a tough nut to crack.

I (and science) agree with you, in that free will is an illusion and we're not really conscious, we only seem to be.

Reply 4

RawJoh1

14

I don't see how mind-body dualism is against the laws of physics. I imagine prominent philosophers (eg. Richard Swinburne) would not subscribe to it, if indeed it was.

Science doesn't agree with you that we don't have free will and that we don't have consciousness. If it did, there'd be peer reviewed scientific journals espousing such things.

Reply 5

Psyonif

How is mind/body dualism not against the laws of physics?

If you accept that we're made of meat and meat alone, then meat is deterministic.

If, on the other hand, you're claiming there's a non-material soul involved, how is it able to interact with the meat?

Reply 6

RawJoh1

14

Psyonif

How is mind/body dualism not against the laws of physics?

If it were against the laws of physics, there would be some scientific journal articles that tell us this. There are no scientific journal articles which tell us this, so therefore it is not against (or rather, not known to be against) the laws of physics.

Psyonif

If you accept that we're made of meat and meat alone, then meat is deterministic.

False. A fair few people claim that indeterminism is true (they appeal to things like quantum mechanics), and it is perfectly possible to do that without jettisoning materialism.

What's more, even if materialism entailed determinism (and it doesn't), you still would not have shown that materialism entails us not having free will.

Psyonif

If, on the other hand, you're claiming there's a non-material soul involved, how is it able to interact with the meat?

I'm not claiming anything of the sort. I am merely disputing your view that science denies mind-body dualism and free-will, when it does nothing of the sort.

Reply 7

fernobob

phawkins1988

If it were against the laws of physics, there would be some scientific journal articles that tell us this. There are no scientific journal articles which tell us this, so therefore it is not against (or rather, not known to be against) the laws of physics.

I believe that it is known however that something non-material cannot influence something material.

Reply 8

RawJoh1

14

fernobob

I believe that it is known however that something non-material cannot influence something material.

If it is known, I doubt that it is known scientifically. Science, last time I checked, does not investigate non-material phenomena.

Reply 9

Psyonif

phawkins1988

If it were against the laws of physics, there would be some scientific journal articles that tell us this. There are no scientific journal articles which tell us this, so therefore it is not against (or rather, not known to be against) the laws of physics.

I can say that I read a New Scientist article on it t'other week... but I concede that's a weak argument. I'm inclined to believe that scientists would be a little hesitant about putting at the end of their article a blanket statement that "In conclusion, free will does not exist". So while I'm sure there must be articles out there that at least strongly imply it (like all articles ever published that use determinism), not having the Journal of Particle Physics to hand, I concede that I am unable to argue the point with any sort of verification.

False. A fair few people claim that indeterminism is true (they appeal to things like quantum mechanics), and it is perfectly possible to do that without jettisoning materialism.

Alas, you can't appeal to QM to allow free will. Quantum mechanics is random. So using classical physics our actions are predetermined, whereas using quantum mechanics they're absolutely random. Either way, there's no room for choice.

What's more, even if materialism entailed determinism (and it doesn't), you still would not have shown that materialism entails us not having free will.

"If you accept that matter is deterministic, then stuff made from matter has to be deterministic. And if we'remade of matter, we're deterministic."
It appears that you're disputing some part of the above logical sequence, though I'm not quite sure which bit. Could you elaborate?

Reply 10

Ferrus

19

coldplasma

What else can we say about Sartre's viewpoint on determinism?

He rejects it utterly as 'bad faith'. It is a self-delusion that provides temporary relief but on a societal level leads to misery.

To Sartre we have a choice in everything within our 'factuality'. Arguably LaPlace's demon, this is the notion of an omniscient demon with the capacity to predict all the universes movements through the laws of physics. This here is negated as part of this factuality, for such a demon is impossible and for the sake of our experiences it may be ignored. For Sartre's existenialism turns on individual phenomenalist reality.

As far as Sartre is concerned (in contradistinction to Kierkegaard) the corolary of the existence of God would be determinism, so the fundamental syllogisms of existentialism (along with Descarte's cognito) have atheism among their premises.

Reply 11

RawJoh1

14

Psyonif

I can say that I read a New Scientist article on it t'other week... but I concede that's a weak argument. I'm inclined to believe that scientists would be a little hesitant about putting at the end of their article a blanket statement that "In conclusion, free will does not exist". So while I'm sure there must be articles out there that at least strongly imply it (like all articles ever published that use determinism), not having the Journal of Particle Physics to hand, I concede that I am unable to argue the point with any sort of verification.

I'm being slightly facetious with the modus tollens via scientific journals (it's still sound though).

My point is broadly that science neither affirms nor denies mind-body dualism or free-will. And that's true. They are philosophical issues, not scientific ones.

Psyonif

Alas, you can't appeal to QM to allow free will. Quantum mechanics is random. So using classical physics our actions are predetermined, whereas using quantum mechanics they're absolutely random. Either way, there's no room for choice.

I didn't say you could. I said that you can accept indeterminism (NOT the same as free-will) without thinking materialism false.

Psyonif

"If you accept that matter is deterministic, then stuff made from matter has to be deterministic. And if we'remade of matter, we're deterministic."
It appears that you're disputing some part of the above logical sequence, though I'm not quite sure which bit. Could you elaborate?

Well, I don't think that the first premise is true. What is true of the things that we are made of, is not necessarily true of us.

However, I'm not really disputing that argument. All I am disputing is whether science entails that we do not have free will. That is not the case - science can entail determinism at the non-quantum level, but entailing determinism is not the same as entailing that we do not have free will. There is a respectable compatibilist position which states that determinism is both compatible with, and sometimes necessary for, free will. I don't think we should assume incompatibilism without an argument.

Sartre vs Determinism

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you