Exsistetnialism VS Determinism/Eksistencializem proti determinizmu

EXISTENTIALISM VS DETERMINISM

Is there such a thing as freedom? Is man merely the product of a chain of antecedent events? These are two of the fundamental questions with which determinists and existentialists are concerned.

Hard determinists argue that all events - and with them, not least, man - are pre-determined, so freedom does not exist. So if I failed a maths test, it was not my fault, because I did not have the freedom to sit down in front of my notebooks and start studying, but a chain of events that happened before that (my upbringing, my genetic background, a long day, illness, etc.) brought me to that point. Soft determinists, on the other hand, would argue that it is true that I had no choice before, I would have failed the test in any case, but I am free to decide to start studying at that moment, so they also recognise the existence of free will.

We can explain what it means to be determined by looking at an object, e.g. a painting. The painter painted the picture exactly as he had imagined it, but the picture could not decide for itself what colour it would be or what would be painted on it. Nor can it change anything later in its lifetime. The psychologist Sigmund Freud took a similar view of man, arguing that the whole human character develops by the time a child is five years old and that our whole lives and all the decisions we make later are determined or predetermined only by this basic structure. Determinists argue, therefore, that man is not what he makes of himself, but what a chain of events in the past makes of him. A person who holds such a view would be regarded by many psychologists of more modern times as someone who has learned helplessness.

If existence precedes essence, it means that we are free, or, as Sartre says, condemned to freedom. It follows that there is free will, that when we encounter a facticity, we have a choice and are responsible for the consequences it brings, and that this is precisely what distinguishes us from objects and, ultimately, from other animals: we are no longer driven by primitive instincts that determine our every action.

In our case, the factitiousness or obstacle is the mathematics test. I can understand the test as an insurmountable obstacle and choose defeat for myself. This means that I live in the midst of the world. Living within the world means the opposite choice - I now see the test as a challenge that I will try to overcome, but I can only do this by getting involved, sitting down in front of my notebooks, learning the theory and starting to do the assignments. It is also important that I take responsibility for my decisions beforehand, so I admit that before the first test I freely decided to watch the game instead of studying maths. If I had decided not to learn mathematics, dropped out of high school and went to work, that would have had an impact on my whole life, but I would have made a free choice and I would have become what I made of myself, nothing would have forced me to do that.

However, at this point, I think it is also important to point out the social influences that to some extent - for some more, for others less - limit free will and influence the choices made by individuals. These are precisely the reasons why I cannot define myself as an existentialist in the strict sense of the word. We should consider, for example, poverty, family structures, violence, the organisation of school, the timetabling of lessons, the social expectations of being expected to care for grandparents and other influences that can limit a young person's simple decision to learn.

Being - more or less - free also means that we are often at a crossroads between two options, which causes anxiety. It brings with it a huge responsibility, which is why Sartre uses the expression ‘to be condemned to freedom’, but freedom of choice is also an invaluable value that allows us to have at least a semblance of control over our own lives. The latter means that it is we ourselves who, by our choices, have made ourselves what we are today.

EKSISTENICALIZEM PROTI DETERMINIZMU

Ali svoboda sploh obstaja? Je človek le produkt verige predhodnih dogodkov? To ste dve izmed temeljnih vprašanj, s katerimi se ukvarjajo deterministi in eksistencialisti.

Trdi deterministi trdijo, da so vsi dogodki – in z njimi nenazadnje tudi človek – vnaprej povzročeni, torej svoboda ne obstaja. Če sem torej test iz matematike pisala negativno, za to nisem sama odgovorna, saj nisem imela svobode, da bi se usedla pred zvezke in se začela učiti, pač pa me je do tega pripeljala veriga dogodkov, ki so se zgodili pred tem (takšna vzgoja, genetska osnova, dolg dan, bolezen ipd.). Mehki deterministi, po drugi strani, pa bi trdili, da že res, da prej nisem imela možnosti izbire, test bi v vsakem primeru pisala negativno, vendar se lahko v tem trenutku svobodno odločim, da se začnem učiti, torej priznavajo tudi obstoj svobodne volje.

Kaj pomeni biti determiniran lahko razložimo na primeru kakšnega predmeta, npr. slike. Sliko je slikar naslikal točno tako kot si je zamislil, slika pa se ni mogla sama odločiti, kakšne barve bo ali kaj bo na njej naslikano. Prav tako ne more kasneje v času svojega obstoja ničesar spremeniti. Podobno je o človeku menil psiholog Sigmund Freud, ki je trdil, da se celoten človekov značaj razvije do otrokovega petega leta starosti in da so naše celotno življenje ter vse odločitve, ki jih bomo kasneje sprejeli, determinirani oziroma vnaprej določeni le na podlagi te osnovne strukture. Deterministi torej trdijo, da človek ni to kar iz sebe naredi, pač pa to, kar iz njega naredi veriga dogodkov, ki so se zgodili v preteklosti. Človeka, ki goji takšno mišljenje, bi mnogi psihologi sodobnejšega časa obravnavali kot nekoga, ki ima naučeno nemoč.

Če eksistenca predhaja esenco, to pomeni, da smo svobodni, ali, kot pravi Sartre, obsojeni na svobodo. Iz tega izhaja, da obstaja svobodna volja, ko naletimo na neko fakticiteto, imamo možnost izbire in smo za posledice, ki jih le-ta prinese, tudi sami odgovorni, to pa je ravno tisto, kar nas loči od predmetov in nenazadnje tudi od drugih živali: ne ženejo nas namreč več le primitivni nagoni, ki bi determinirali vsako naše dejanje.

Fakticiteta ali ovira je v našem primeru test iz matematike. Test lahko razumem kot nepremostljivo oviro in zase izberem poraz. To pomeni, da živim sredi sveta. Biti v svetu pa pomeni ravno nasprotno izbiro – test sedaj dojemam kot izziv, ki ga bom poskusila premagati, vendar to lahko naredim le tako, da se angažiram, usedem pred zvezke, naučim teorijo in začnem delati naloge. Pomembno je tudi, da pred tem sprejmem odgovornost za svoje odločitve, torej priznam, da sem se pred prvim testom svobodno odločila, da bom namesto, da bi se učila matematiko, gledala tekmo. Če bi se odločila, da se matematike ne bom naučila, se izpisala iz gimnazije in odšla delat, bi imelo to vpliv na moje celotno življenje, vendar bi se odločila svobodno in bi postala to, kar bi iz sebe naredila, v to me ne bi nič prisililo.

Vseeno pa se mi zdi na tej točki pomembno izpostaviti tudi družbene vplive, ki do neke mere – nekaterim bolj, drugim manj – omejujejo svobodno voljo ter vplivajo na odločitve posameznikov in posameznic. Ravno ti so razlog, da se sama ne morem opredeljevati kot eksistencialistko v strogem pomenu besede. Sem štejem denimo revščino, družinske strukture, nasilje, organizacijo šole, razporeditev pouka, družbena pričakovanja, po katerih se pričakuje, da bo skrbela za stare starše in ostale vplive,  ki lahko mladostnici omejuje preprosto odločitev, da se bo učila

To, da sem – bolj ali manj – svobodna hkrati pomeni, da smo pogosto na razpotju med dvema možnostma, kar povzroča tesnobo. S sabo tako prinese ogromno odgovornost, ravno zaradi katere Sartre uporabi izraz »biti obsojen na svobodo«, vendar je svoboda odločanja hkrati neprecenljiva vrednota, ki nam omogoča vsaj navidezen nadzor nad lastnim življenjem. Slednje pomeni, da smo sami tisti, ki smo s svojimi odločitvami iz sebe naredili, kar smo danes.