Nominalist philosopher Jean Buridan is
nowadays best remembered from the infamous ass that was placed at
equal distance from food and drink and starved to death, because it
couldn't decide which it should choose first. In effect, the story of
the ass involves a question on how the capacity of deciding and
willing works: if the ass has a capacity to make a spontaneous
and completely arbitrary choice, it can avoid the trouble quite
easily. The dilemma of Buridan's ass has a long history, but now we
are interested in Wolff's manner of solving it.
Wolff defines willing (Willen) as
an inclination towards something that is taken as good. Somewhat
confusingly he defines unwilling (nicht Willen) as
the inclination to avoid something that is taken as bad: I shall
ignore this complication and treat Wolffian unwilling as a mere
modification of willing. What is important is that Wolffian willing
always requires a preceding notion of what is good and bad: this
notion is a motive (Bewegungs-Gründe)
for the act of willing.
Wolff seems then
step right into the trap of Buridan's ass: if one cannot act without
any reason, then one cannot just choose one form of sustenance over
another. Yet, here the Leibnizian notion of inobservable effects on
human soul becomes important. Wolff can assume in earnest that the
case of Buridan's ass can never truly happen, because there will
always be some small detail that will subconsciously make us inclined us to
choose one possibility over the other.
Wolffian notion of
subconsious motives implies that the process of human willing can
never be completely transparent to the subject of willing. In other
words, although a person would have a clear idea of what was good for
her (such as not smoking cigarettes), an affect could still tempt her
to act against her better interests. This is the idea of the
enslavement of human will to the affects that was a common subject at
the time of Wolff.
The problem of
Buridan's ass is often connected with the question whether humans
have a free will. In my opinion, the supposed connection is spurious:
Buridan's ass could circumvent its dilemma through a simple flip of a
coin or some quantum mechanical randomiser forcing the ass to act,
but such a mechanism is not really free will. Now, Wolff appears to
agree with me: if willing always requires a motive, a purely
arbitrary choice is still not willing.
One might criticise
Wolff for making human free will deterministic: if one would know all
the motives of a person, one would know what she would choose in a
particular situation. Yet, I find, firstly, that this possibility is
just something that is commonly accepted: if one knows my likes and
dislikes, one can immediately say that I will always choose a keylime
pie over a chocolate cake, and in general, if a person's character is
known, her actions can be predicted in some measure. The question of
predictability of human willing cannot decide the question of the
freedom of the will: chaotic phenomena like weather are practically unpredictable and quantum mechanical phenomena are unpredictable even
in principle, but they cannot be called free actions.
Furthermore, the
whole setup of knowing all the motives of a person is rather
unbelievable, especially as the person interacts all the time with
her environment and might gain new, previously unknown motives. For
instance, if I heard two persons betting over whether I will eat
keylime pie or chocolate cake, I might choose the cake just for the
sake of upsetting the gentlemen. Thus, the existence of motives for
all human actions does not even rule out the unpredictability of
these actions.
Wolff himself notes
that the deterministic theory of human mind confuses the analogy
between motives and causes. Both are types of reasons or grounds, but
they are still essentially different. For instance, scales require
some cause to move them out of the state of equilibrium, but they
cannot be motivated to do something as humans are.
Wolff himself
places the freedom of human will in the capacity of
self-determination. This does not mean that a human being could
arbitrarily choose what it wills, because Wolff thinks such a notion
would lead to a vicious circle. Instead, Wolff emphasises the fact
that a free action is caused by the human being itself, according to
its own notion of what it would be good to do in the current
situation. Hence, Wolff can present a sort of evaluation of actions:
the more a person knows about what is truly good for him, the more
freedom his actions show. On the other hand, freedom cannot be forced
on anyone, because a forced freedom would be just externally determined self-determination – a contradiction in terms.
With this text, the
chapter on empirical psychology in Wolff's German metaphysics is
closed. Well, Wolff does remark that the processes of human soul
appear to be related to processes in our body, but this unification
of soul and body will be dealt in more detail, when we come to
rational psychology.
In the next post I
shall begin the study of Wolffian cosmology, but I would still like
to make some comments on empirical psychology in general and
especially its Wolffian version. Later German philosophers were not
really enthusiastic about this discipline. Hegel's criticism is still
rather mild: empirical psychology is just disorganised observation of
whatever capacities we happen to find within ourselves and does not
reveal the nature of consciousness, of which all these capacities are
mere modifications. Hegel's description is rather accurate,
especially in case of Wolff, who has merely moved from one faculty of
soul to another, still, a bit unfair: the nature of the soul Wolff
intends to reveal in another chapter, dealing with rational
psychology. Analogically, one should not disregard natural history
just because it does not offer any general theory of nature, but mere
empirical observations on individual natural phenomena.
Kant's objections
against empirical psychology in his Metaphysical foundations of
natural science are more severe: science of psychology based on
empirical observation is an impossibility, because a) all true
science, such as physics, must use mathematics, b) all mathematics
requires constructing concepts in a priori intuition, c) the a priori
intuition corresponding to the object of psychology or soul is time
and d) time as one-dimensional cannot be used for constructions.
Kant's argument is
rather convoluted, especially as we are still far from Kant's main
works and concepts like ”a priori intuition” and ”construction”
in their Kantian sense are to be defined only much later in my blog.
Yet, we may for now note one important link in the argument:
psychological notions cannot be quantified. Indeed, if by science is
meant something like physics, science aims largely to discover
relations between various quantities.
Now, Wolff appears
actually to uphold the ideal of mathematized science, as befits a
mathematician. In fact, he points out that many human faculties come
in grades, that is, have a quantity that is analogical to numbers and
sizes. For instance, a person can have a better or worse memory and
one might even improve one's memory or enlarge its grade.
Of course, the
existence of quantities of mental faculties does not still mean that
these quantities could be measured, which is a condition for truly
quantifying phenomena. Yet, in case of some mental faculties this
seems rather easy. For example, we could well measure the grade of
our memory e.g. by measuring how many words I could remember after a
certain time of practice: the relation between the time and the
number of the words might then be used as describing the grade of
one's memory.
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti