Dr I John Mohan Razu
Professor of Social Ethics
Philosophers always in their explorations or moving beyond notions that predominant raise the problems first, and then critique those offering adequate explanations with their rational constructions. Friedrich Nietzsche, known for his daring and scathing philosophical counters on many important areas of life, yet again makes on more observation and then offers his response. Barouch Spinoza, the 17th Century prominent philosopher seems to come closer to Nietzsche. Both of them are ardent demolishers of religion and its dogma, creeds, and practices. Known for their scathing critique entering into the depth of religion.
Nietzsche raises a problem and then how does that problem create all kinds discomfort or impatience and what would be our responses to it. It is undoubtedly an existential problem that Nietzsche places before us and thus builds it to bring-in whether our approach is rational and logical. We are told in our cycle of life pain and joy, rising and falling in our walks of life are part of human journey, and so, it will be routine and ongoing that we are supposed to face till the end of life, and so, there is no escape. Would this proposition offer a good prospect meaning hope or despair? This is the question Nietzsche raises for which we have varied assumptions.
What Nietzsche raised not just an age-old philosophical debate but it continues even now in various quarters. The question is existential which the religion especially Christianity and Judaism offers exposition to this dogma, but these two philosophers build their arguments in rational ways. Since Christianity is influenced by the West that deals on ‘free-will’ in its debates by pitching ‘determinism’ to define what it means to be human. Plato supported ‘free-will’ and this ought to be guided by a virtue called ‘Good’ an eternal value, so that we would not be held by our emotions and desires that are antithetical to the value of ‘Good’.
Would that be like a dictate leading to ‘bondage’ or ‘determinism’? It simply implies in the name of ‘free-will’, bondage is subtly operating, and in the process ‘human will’ would become obsolete/waning, and so, ‘determinism’ is being pitched as humans have the capacity to ‘determine’ what is good for them. Philosophers like Immanuel Kant has advocated ‘free will’ that has universal application having no other hinges allowing backdoor entry to determinism. To come out with such radical proposition that we are constrained to tell the truth, even if a circumstance leads us necessary to commit murder.
For Fredrich Nietzsche rejects the traditional notion of ‘freewill’, labelling it a ‘folly’ and a ‘theological illusion” designed to make humanity ‘responsible’ and thus permissible. Christianity by and large employs ‘freewill’ as one of the credos. The explanation and exposition of ‘free will’ within the Christian realms offer caution showing certain constraints. As against this, Nietzsche proposed the ‘will to power’ as the driving force behind actions, emphasising that we consider ‘freedom’ is a rare achievement of self-masking not a natural endowment. Nitsche dismisses both traditions—freewill and its opposite (non-free-will) as mis-understood concepts of cause and effect. He argues that neither exists.
He views basically the idea of free-will came into effect by Christian morality to justify original sin, divine punishments and host of others. Instead of a free, conscious subject, he believes that human action is determined by a complex interplay of internal driven forces. Nietzsche regards individuals as thus inevitable and so cannot be put within the bracket of causa prima (first cause) or a ‘conscious cause’. In line with Nietzsche, Barouch Spinoza (1632-1677) stoutly denied the existence of free-will arguing that it is an illusion arising from our consciousness of actions, but ignorance of their causes.
Spinoza was fixated with deterministic perspective who believed everything is necessitated by nature though he proposed a path to true freedom through understanding and reason. Spinoza reiterated that there is no such thing as “absolute or free will” because the mind is determined by another, so on to infirmity. Human believes that they are free because they are conscious of their volitions and desires, but are ignorant of the causes that dispose them to want and will. Spinoza further argued that there is no “absolute or free will”. He rationally centers around the mind is determined by another. Humans believe that they are free because they are conscious of the volitions and desires, but ignorant of the causes that dispose them to want and will.
Spinoza reinforces that freedom is not the just the absence of something, but understanding. Freedom is something that should be acted upon by our own nature, by reason—not by our active emotions (knowledge) rather than passion. Nietzche and Spinoza have many things in common. Nietzche’s critique of freewill is foundation to him based on his critique on Christian morality and his project of “revaluing all values”, not based on eternal values and so on.
Whereas Spinoza replaces the concept of “free-will” with the concept of “self-determination” or acting in accordance with our own nature, which is only possible through the understanding of the world as a necessary deterministic system. Both of them outrightly rejected the notion of “free-will”, but hotly debated theological doctrine in Christianity. It centers on the capacity of humans to make moral choices—with complete autonomy, but reducing everything to enslavement of sin for which grace is needed to overcome. Nietzche and Spinoza rationally and systematically have contested the logicality and relevancy of this doctrine.
