The Conscious Impulse and Conscious Acts - Essay Example

Hospers' View ‘the Unconsciousness Determines What the Conscious Impulse and Conscious Acts Will Be’ Is CorrectJohn Hospers in his article, ‘meaning and freewill presents a myriad of thoughts on what influences people to act the way they do. This follows a broad spectrum of thinking by various other philosophers on the topic. In the article, he reviews some of the thoughts by the reputable philosophers, criticizing some concepts while embracing others. The question that the article tries to answer is whether people are influenced by their unconsciousness in their deeds or not. The author takes a position that the unconscious is very instrumental in determining the conscious deeds. Man’s actions may be influenced by various factors depending on the prevailing conditions; some of these conditions are within their control while others are not. Hospers argues that the concept of freewill is an illusion because ‘an act is free if and only if it is a voluntary act’. Using examples, he demonstrates that acting involuntarily dominates over voluntary actions. In many quarters, the debate of whether individuals act on freewill has been demonstrated. The proponents argue that freewill is nonexistent because the influence of the unconscious dominates over an individual (Blatchford 41). Citing the situation at birth where a child learns from the environment and the process continues with further development, the argument says that the influences of all those experiences are the ones that bring out the actions of an individual. The way a person acts is not a factor of their willingness but an inner push by the subconscious. A man is a product of their unconscious since their choices are biased. Humans make choices every day. Choices are not justifiable if they do not incorporate the aspect of freewill based on non-coercion. In a case where a person finds himself or herself torn between giving their money to thieves or otherwise they take away his life, making such a decision cannot be termed as freewill because the person is not willing to do either, only that he is limited to make a choice. Whenever a person makes a choice, there are factors inherent in the person that influences the choice (British Philosophical Association 2). In his article, Hospers gives a very convincing example stating that the paralytic are unable to move their legs while the others can, depicting that the limitations are not reliant on the choice of the individual but the credibility of the choice. What gets into the mind of a person indirectly influences their actions. Many are the compulsions that influence the humans without their knowledge. The perception that whatever we do is based on an informed choice may be far from the truth. The influences mould people are beyond our control, it is a wrong perception based on a misplaced attitude that am acting like myself, when the reality is that the factors surrounding an individual create an experience that forms the basis of their judgments and choices (British Philosophical Association 4). The actions we demonstrate are out of our control, character formation is an aspect that is based on a myriad of factors such as environmental and genetic that is far beyond our control. The exact character developed influences what we desire that further translates to what we do. Therefore, our actions are a product of a strong inherent will within us that has no individual control, if there was a possibility an individual could act otherwise. The experiences gained in the course of life creates a bias on the decisions made, a situation that we are unable to distinguish as unconscious. Considering the parts of the unconscious mind, it is evident that they influence every bit of a person’s being. The id is the section that seeks instant fulfillment; it touches on our instincts and primitivity. Therefore, based on the choice to be made these two factors influences the decisions we make. The choice made by a chief executive of a large corporation is based on what he knows and has experienced, very different from the thinking of a primitive hunter in the Congo forest. The social part of a being is controlled by the superego. Again, depending on the experience we have gone through there is a certain way we would like the world to perceive us. This creates biasness in the way different people respond to different situations, indicating that if all people were under the influence of the conscious, there would be uniformity in actions. The ego is the mediation between the two unconscious parts of the brain. In an attempt to balance between instant fulfillment based on the level of primitivity and instincts with the social perception, the ego influences the final decision. Another point that draws Hospers’ thinking home is the fact that no one is absolutely free because of the many limitations that humans have, either physical or mental. Based on these arguments I support Hospers line of thought, “it is the unconscious that determines what the conscious impulse and the conscious action shall be” (Hospers 126). The inability to determine when the conscious is in action and when the unconscious is, presents a big challenge to the stand that man’s actions are absolutely influenced by the subconscious. It may be explained that there is free choice based on the prevailing circumstances. There is a level of conviction that some actions are based on freewill. A case of my choosing to fast instead of taking food can be described as freewill, because the person had the opportunity to eat, all factors were available for eating. In establishing to determine whether the aspect was conscious or not we can get the fasting history of the person that may not be there. In addition, it may appear that a person is influenced by the superego part of the unconscious brain, a situation that is not necessarily the case because the social influence may not be there. The choice made may not always be repetitive; it may be based on a conscious desire that appears at that particular time. Some contradictions appear between the way a person acts and their experience. Either way, the belief that the unconscious is dominant may be biased, believing that an act is free can emanate from an internal experience that every other person has familiarized with (British Philosophical Association 1). However, the course of action may vary across individuals some of whom may be exposed to identical factors. These leave the question, if experience was the qualifying factor, then why differ. The psychoanalysis theory that is used in describing the absolute influence of unconsciousness is hypothetical in nature, it does not present facts. As presented by Hospers, the arguments are based on unjustifiable evidence that purports to support the hypothesis (Hospers 716). This arises from the thinking that it is difficult if not impossible to determine exactly whether a person is under the influence of the subconscious or the conscious brain. Psychoanalysis is capable of analyzing every behavior in general terms without the evidence demonstrating the exact facts behind it. The theory is therefore deficient and a more substantial way of determining the gray area between the use of unconscious and conscious can prove a point. The psychoanalysis theory has been proved to demonstrate positive results. There may appear to be a thin line between the conscious and unconscious mind but it is possible to induce their influence. Every time humans are obliged to choose between different options, the choice cannot be termed as an independent and freewill. The theory that has been adopted by Hospers demonstrates that these choices are based on some inherent personal biasness, the degree of the corruption by the unconscious may vary but ultimately it makes an impact. Moral regulations are inherent in a person, through experience and exposure we get to learn what is morally acceptable, and that which is not (Hospers 722). Different individuals will choose differently not because they are ignorant but because they are influenced by some factors within them. This explains why one person would choose to be a thief and while another morally upright person. The choices made shuttles between the superego and the id under the mediation of the ego. These aspects of the brain cannot be overlooked because of their input in determining the actions of a person. Nature plays its role in shaping a person, no individual is ever known of shaping his or her height or even weight at birth. As an individual grows and develops the thoughts, we develop and the views we uphold are determined by the parents, community, teachers, culture among other natural factors. A person grows having a certain line of thinking that keeps on changing from time to time depending on the experiences they gain. This clearly shows that freewill is not a component that ever happens to people, the influence is there most of the times being revealed indirectly. If it were the conscious only prevailing then it would mean that at no instance would doubt ever prevail. However, we doubt because our subconscious refuses to agree with the situation at hand (Blatchford 42). Consciousness based on coercion beats logic, a choice made under the influence of some pressure cannot be termed as voluntary, shallow focus may demonstrate the act as voluntary but the fact that no freedom accompanied makes it unconscious. In conclusion, it is notable that freewill is a concept coined to fool people that they are free to think, but in real terms, this is not the situation. Freewill is a concept that is influenced by the forces of nature in a great way; the DNA of the parents determines the genetic composition of a child a situation that presents a very different creature. Forces of nature determine many aspects of the child, that is why children of the same parents will look differently and have different characteristics. In raising the child, factors around them beyond control take a toll on them; the simple pretence of having control is an imagination since it is mandatory that these factors will indirectly influence their character. The mere denial accompanied by the simple belief that external influence has no stake, has been shown by the psychoanalysis theory to be a state of self-deception. It is important for individuals to understand the need for feeding their subconscious with the right information and experiences for character formation. Engaging in activities that are morally unacceptable or living in an environment that cultivates certain unacceptable behavior and still think that you will get scot-free is a self-deception. An individuals talk, character, beliefs and values are shaped by what they see, hear, say and belief. These aspects emanates directly from their unconscious state of being, therefore, a person ought to regulate their environment to fit their preconceived state. In addition, there are lessons learnt about bringing up children. It is possible that children brought up in violent homesteads will have some violent nature despite therapies such as counseling done to them. What gets into the subconscious will always affect a person’s way of being. Consciousness does not prevail in any way; it is an imaginary concept that has been advanced to fool people that their beliefs are personal. Works Cited Blatchford, Robert. “The Delusion of Free Will.” Philosophy and Contemporary Issues. Ed. John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger. Upper Saddle River N. J.: Pearson, 2004. 40-47. British Philosophical Association. Support Material for ‘Determinism and Free Will’.n.d. pp 1-5 Web. 25 Nov, 2013. http://bpa.ac.uk/answers/files/Determinism%20and%20free%20will.pdf Hospers, John. “Meaning and Free Will.” Twenty Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy. Ed. G. Lee Bowie, Meredith W. Michaels, Robert C. Solomon. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2004. pp.718-724. Hospers, John. What Means This Freedom. Determinism and Freedom in the Age of Modern Science, Sidney Hook, ed. New York: New York University Press, 1958. pp 113-130. Web. 25 Nov, 2013. http://depthome.sunysuffolk.edu/Selden_PL/SE/handouts/Hospers.pdf Read More