Free Will and Psychology - Research Paper Example

?Running Head: FREE WILL AND PSYCHOLOGY Free Will and Psychology of the of the Free Will and Psychology Introduction Psychology is a study of the human mind and its beliefs. What is ego, where do attitudes and beliefs come from, how do we think and why do we think in certain ways- all this is in the realm of psychology. In this aspect, the boundaries of psychology also crisscross with other disciplines such as religion and philosophy. The word psychology means ‘the science of the soul’. Psychological experiments and theories nevertheless follow the scientific method, so in that sense psychology is a science. This paper will discuss the notion of free will versus determinism, and also seek to compare and contrast the theories of Carl Rogers with Abraham Maslow and others. The Essence of Free Will Free will brings to mind the idea that we are in control of many of our choices in life, and can therefore manifest our own destinies in some degree. We are in conscious control of many of our decisions, and re free to think and decide which to take. On the other hand, there are some actions that go on unabated and are beyond our power- like the beating of our own hearts. Suicide notwithstanding, we would still agree that life and death are ultimately in the hands of God. This means that there are limits to our abilities as well (Flew, 1973). Regarding the doctrine of free will, it is not difficult to agree to the fact that many of our choices are made in an atmosphere of uncertainty. Also, we may not be aware of all the options that exist in a given situation at a given point of time. We simply choose what appears to be the best option to us. Free will is thus limited by our conscious choices or degree of awareness about a problem requiring a solution or choice. Then again, a person may be confined in his thinking because of limited exposure, experiences and previous training and attitudes. Sometimes we do not see the wood for the trees, though the obvious and best solution is staring us in the face. Once we have made a choice, or have made a final judgment or carried out an action, we claim that we have exercised our free will. But are our choices really free or are they dictated by certain antecedents and suppositions or expectations for the future. Man being a logical animal, makes intelligent choices that serve to better his future prospects. So the will that we claim to be really free is at the mercy of our desires and plans. Otherwise we would not make the choices that we do. Given the benefit of knowing what would happen in the future, we would definitely not make choices that would result in a loss to us in any way. But we do not have the benefit of this hindsight. If we really did subscribe to the belief that everything in the universe was preordained, there would simply be no point or joy in living. But as we know it, the future is not decided and it is only the events of the present that lead up to the future. We can choose to make it better or worse for ourselves-be it the issue of global warming or nuclear war. This is the essence of our free will- making conscious choice and taking the responsibility for outcomes. It is what separates humans from the animals, who are largely driven by instinct. The science of psychology which must relate cause to effect cannot exist in a vacuum. It must show that nothing happens without a cause, though we may not always discover the reason for it. This is the basis of all scientific thought. As we have seen, most or all of our choices in life are made depending on past experiences or hoped for outcomes. We have even turned gambling into a science. As many of our choices are based on our reasoning and judgment, it is safe to say they are self made. There may be a host of controllable and uncontrollable factors that determine the outcome of our choices, but being rational human beings, we will nevertheless make the best choice available given our state of awareness about a given situation. The debate of free will versus determinism has existed from the beginning of time, or more correctly, as soon as man began to consider the world around him. Religion in its earliest form was nothing more than an acquiescence and worship of the forces of nature, of powers and happenings which man could not comprehend. The sun, the moon, thunder and lightning, the worship of the seasons, all these have been gods and deities in different folk religions as still may be observed in Hinduism today. Even the days of the week were named after gods, as Thursday coming from Thor, the Norse god of thunder and lightning. A similar case can be made for the names of some months of the Julian calendar. Whatever these ancient beliefs and traditions, we still find them enshrined in festivals such as Holi (the festival of spring in India) and equivalent events in Europe and elsewhere across the world. The Wiccan religion being close to nature is also known to observe such traditions (Ainslie, 2001). The point of all this is, man recognized that his freedom or free will would be challenged by Nature from the very beginning of time and human existence. His worship of the gods of Nature and other such deities was proof of his acknowledgment of their power over him. Eventually as man began to understand and harness the power of nature and the lower animals, his deference to the powers of nature waned. He found confidence in himself and his ability to harness the powers of nature and use them for his benefit. He grew crops and learned how to protect himself from the vagaries of nature. He made towns, cities, villages and other communities where he could communicate with others to jointly work for the betterment of his life and that of his family and the society. And what of God, free will and determinism? That went on the backburner expect for Sunday worship when he was reminded of the power and existence of God in his life and the universe. The issue regarding determinism is about degree once again- though we reject the idea of a mechanistic law or certainty in some situations, we are apt to succumb to fatalism or predictability as the only possible consequence. A human being falling from a dangerous height without the benefit of a safety net is bound to die- there are no two ways about it. Much of our so-called free will is mechanistic, in which choices are bounded by time and space. Our thinking is limited by these factors. Abraham Maslow and the Hierarchy of Needs Theory The Hierarchy of Needs Theory as it is popularly known was developed by a psychologist called Abraham Maslow (1908-1970). He exhibited his theory to the world in 1954 in his book Motivation and Personality and tried to tie it in to motivational theories. In other words, the hierarchy of needs theory is an explanation of our personal and professional endeavors in life. It is the reason behind our motivations. Maslow’s original theory stated the following five needs: (1) Biological and physiological needs; (2) Safety needs; (3) Belongingness and Love needs; (4) Esteem needs and (5) Self Actualization needs. Maslow proposed that all these needs were attempted in a chronological order from first to last, though very few reached the fifth or highest stage of human endeavor. Indeed, they were the fortunate ones- elevated to the status of heroes and legends. Once man had satisfied his lower order needs, he moved on to the higher ones (Maslow, 1954). But if he was deprived of even the basic or lower order needs, he would not worry his mind with achieving the higher order ones- they would be meaningless for him. The self actualized person according to Maslow was fair to all, self reliant and confident in his abilities, had thoughts and actions based in reality, and was a creative and active thinker, seeking solutions to the problems of his community and the world in general (Kant, 1993). The hierarchy of needs theory is relevant even today and has been adapted for use by individuals, trainers and organizations who want to motivate themselves and others to achieve more in life. Of course, a person is sometimes prevented from achieving his highest station in life by circumstances, but he must learn to work around them. It nevertheless gives hope and shows the way ahead to the man who is ready to take up the challenges on the way to self-actualization. In Defense of Free Will: Carl Rogers’ Self Theory The psychologist Carl Rogers (1908-1987) was first and foremost a keen student of human nature. He was by all accounts a humanist and a positivist as well. His self theory, developed in the light of his many years of practice is also a good explanation of human behavior and why we are inclined to do the things we do. His theory is person centered. Rogers believed that we are essentially all rational and positive beings, and capable of being trusted to do what is best for human nature and others (Smilansky, 2000). Much like the theory of Abraham Maslow, popularly called the Hierarchy of Needs Theory when it was developed in the 1950s, Rogers agrees that man is born with a tendency to self actualize himself no matter what his environment. Thus even a native born on an island will eventually learn to hunt, gather fruit and fend for himself. The same would occur for a man born in the city. He would ordinarily rise to conquer and better his circumstances in the environment and society around him (Wainwright, 1968). Human beings are naturally motivated to conquer their environment and make the best use of existing circumstances till they can move on to better ones. In the process of growing up, man also develops an Ego and a sense of self. It includes a sense of awareness and his sense of being a part of society as a functioning being. Depending on his past experiences with other people in society, man continues to self actualize himself with a combination of fear and enthusiasm, depending on his previous experiences. The need to be appreciated is a secondary need that man picks up from his family and society during the process of growing up (Kant, 1993). Parents can provide a child a sense of positive or negative self regard during their interactions with him or her and he later gets the same from society in how it perceives his worth and reacts to his presence, attitudes, values and behavior. The person who has managed all or most of his ambitions and desires can be said to be living the ‘good life’ or the American dream as enshrined in the Constitution- life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. However, the sad fact being that most of our desires are connected with materialism and gaining satisfaction from inanimate objects rather than being concerned with ethics, values and morality-(Stump,2003) we are destined to lead unfulfilled and incomplete lives- believing that ultimate happiness and satisfaction always lies just beyond the horizon. The problem is that the pole always goes up another notch- thanks to technology, office politics and so forth. Positive self regard combined with self regard from others is a state of affairs reserved only for the best and brightest in the eyes of the world, and so it seems way out of the reach of most ordinary mortals. So Rogers concludes like Thoreau that the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation because of the incongruence of mans’ self worth with the value that society places on him (Pescitelli, 1996). The average human being often spends his whole life thinking about how to resolve this incongruity. He appears confused, tense and maladjusted most of the time. It is best to remember in this regard, as Rogers considered, that happiness is a journey, not a destination. We can never be truly happy forever, no matter what the fairy tales say, unless we are in Heaven. Though Rogers considered our childhood experiences a very important part of this incongruity, he maintained that our life-scripts were not fixed beyond redemption but could be rewritten (Honerich, 1988). Rogers regarded self-acceptance or recognizing our present condition to be the first step towards change. He maintained that change was a necessary part of the human struggle. Being a positivist, Rogers also maintained that human beings were capable of recognizing the incongruity between their own and society’s interpretation of themselves, and thereby make intelligent choices that reduced or overcame these incongruities. However, man should be rational and not delusional in his self evaluation, or it leads to individual and social problems (LaCroix, 1994). Rogerian Self Theory has been both praised and criticized. Supporters of the theory maintain that it is grounded in reality. It deals with real human beings rather than pigeons or dogs, as in Pavlov’s or Skinner’s experiments. It suggests that the majority of humankind can move on to a better life- if only they make the efforts required to correct the imbalances (Platinga, 1973). Furthermore, he reiterated that the resources all lay within the client. To correct themselves, people only have to look within themselves and correct the image to match it with the outside world. Although critics have maintained that Rogers is only concerned with the conscious and not with the unconscious realm, he addressed this deficiency in further writings (LaFollette, 1980). Rogers encourages us all to encourage and recognize the potential for improvement in human beings and help them over their difficulties and shortcomings in life (Wolf, 1990). The Ideal Self and Real Self According to Carl Rogers’ theory of the Self, most of mankind is living a life of maladjustment because of the divergence between the Real Self and the Ideal Self. The ideal self was what they were, the real self was what they were aspiring to be. Because of this divergence, there was incongruity in many human lives. The fortunate few who were able to reach their full potential as individuals were considered to be self actualized, as outlined in Maslow’s theory. Fully Functioning Person According to Rogers’ Self Theory, the fully functioning person is someone who has actualized his or her full potential. They are continually striving to live life to the fullest, and are what he called ‘living the good life.’ They have such characteristics like an open and creative mind, freedom of choice, living life to the fullest, being aware of the moment and its experiences, were reliable and trustworthy and were concerned with causes that were good for humanity or the community. They wanted to contribute and give back to the world like philanthropists and social entrepreneurs that had lived the good life. Awareness and Mal-adjustment Person centered, humanistic and therapeutic are some of the ways in which Rogerian theory has been eulogized. Rogerian theory revolves around the concepts of incongruity and congruity, in which the former describes a state of maladjustment and confusion, involving even defensive behavior as the individual tries to reconcile himself with the ideal self that he is. But it is only when he or she is shown through therapy and counseling sessions how the real self or self actualization may be achieved, that they aspire to their true and fullest potential. After attaining this, the individual is seen to be at the highest state of happiness, the result of having achieved nirvana or supreme bliss. Distortion and denial are two defensive mechanisms adopted by the maladjusted individual. If not cured, they may sometimes have serious consequences for society as we see in the shape of rapists, serial killers and other repeat offenders. It is far better to lead a previously misguided individual along the path to goodness and morality where good behavior takes him or her away from a life of crime and further altercations with the legal system. Rogers original theory of the self (1951) was based on no less than 19 propositions and he listed 7 characteristics of the fully functioning person (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010). Conclusion Compatibilism says both free will and determinism can co-exist. In this respect, I think that scientific psychology does not absolutely require the assumption of determinism. Rather it can and should include the notion of free will and deal with both free will and determinism in a coherent way (Kane, 1996). References Ainslie, G. (2001): Breakdown of Will. Cambridge University Press. Author Unknown(n,d.) Carl Rogers Self Theory. From the Angelfire website. Accessed on 20 Sep 2011. Flew, A. (1973): Compatibilism, Free Will and God. University of Reading. Honderich, T. (1988): A Theory of Determinism. Oxford University Press, UK. LaCroix, R. (1974): Unjustified Evil and God’s Choice. Sophia. LaFollette. H.(1980): Platinga on the Free Will Defense. International Journal for the Freedom of Religion. Kane, R.(1996): The Significance of Free Will. New York: Oxford University Press. Kant, I. (1788 / 1993): Critique of Practical Reason. Trans. by Lewis White Beck. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc. Maslow, A. (1954): The Hierarchy of Needs Theory. Accessed on 20 Sep 2011 at http://www.businessballs.com/maslow.htm Pescitelli, D. (1996): An Analysis of Carl Rogers’ Theory of Personality. Accessed on 20 Sep 2011 at http://www.pandc.ca/?cat=carl_rogers&page=rogerian_theory Platinga, A. (1973): Which Worlds Could God Have Created? The Journal of Philosophy, Volume LXX, No. 17, October 1973. Smilansky, S. (2000). Free Will and Illusion. Oxford University Press, UK Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2010): Free Will. Stump, E. (2003): Aquinas. Routledge Publishers, UK. Wainwright, W. (1968): Freedom and Omnipotence. Nous Magazine. Wolf, S. (1990): Freedom Within Reason. Oxford University Press, UK. Read More