The freedom of non-will

1. The question is as follows:[1] "Can the freedom of human will be proved by self-consciousness?"

2. Secondly, Schopenhauer's essay made me realize that freedom and will are two different things. In fact, they can be two opposite things: Will can act against freedom.

3. What is will? We regard ourselves as beings who control and direct their thoughts and actions. But are thoughts and actions spontaneous, free manifestations of will? Or are they motivated and routed by deeper desires, imperatives, or instincts?

4. The driving force behind an animal's actions is the instinct to survive and reproduce. Its whole life is determined by this instinct, so that it has no "free time" left to do or think about anything else.

5. One would now say that with humans it is different, since we can control our instincts, such as when we make love for pleasure, instead of having offspring.

6. But is this pleasure a product of free will, or is it the need for satisfaction that makes us seek love or anything that can give us pleasure?

7. In addition, with humans there are social imperatives, which can be even more demanding. For example, society sets rules on how we dress, behave, get a decent job, get married, distinguish ourselves, defend our country, and so on.

8. But when we dress casually, or don’t get married, when we act against what we are told or what nature dictates, it is then that we are released from the demands of others or of nature. It is precisely when we deny the dictates of society or the desires and instincts of our own nature that we feel truly free.

9. Now, of course, one can say that our ability to choose is proof of free will. That is, we use our will (something compulsive) to achieve something we personally like (something free). But is what we choose without cause or reason, or is it still motivated by some deeper desire or necessity?

10. We therefore see that, in any case, will is something that lacks freedom, because it is always motivated by some, personal or social, physical or moral, impulse. By its very nature, will is the result of deeper, archetypal impulses. Even when we make a decision, choosing one thing over another, our final decision serves some deeper necessity.

11. Essentially, it is when we want absolutely nothing that we are truly free- what in Buddhism is described as the state of nirvana. Therefore, the correct expression shouldn’t be freedom of will, but freedom of non-will.

12. What else remains to be said? How can we manage to get rid of all personal and social bonds in order to reach absolute freedom? But is the state of non-will a state of being, or a state of non-being? Can we exist without any need, without being dependent on anything?

13. If we take a stone and throw it in outer space, the stone will keep on moving forever, without any destination, having nowhere to fall. It is gravity that gives direction and destination to the stone. It is the cohesion of the atoms what gives the stone mass and rigidness.

14. In the same way, it is the innate impulses that give man purpose and meaning. Will is the expression or power of these impulses. By having will, we become attractive and robust. Without will, we become cowardly and unloving. Even when we say that we don't want anything, this is an act of will.

15. And as this brief discussion shows, we must really want freedom in order to be free. Therefore, it is not the freedom of will as much as the will of freedom what makes the difference. In other words, the will may be inherently unfree, but it is the will itself that leads us to freedom. Then we can say, "Thanks, but I’m unwilling to."

[1] This question was posed by the Royal Norwegian Society of Sciences in 1839, in response to which Arthur Schopenhauer wrote his essay On the Freedom of the Will, which in turn gave me the inspiration to write my own poem. 

 11/6/2023

Image: [https://www.reddit.com/r/nightcafe/comments/q9qfy0/free_will_is_a_useful_illusion_surrealism/?rdt=45604]