Which Philosophical Ideas Best Protect Us From Existential Suffering in a Society Increasingly Accepting of the Claim That There is No Free Will?

Question

Discussion of free will seems increasingly prevalent in mainstream media, particularly Youtube and in reputable periodicals such as the Atlantic, the Conversation and the Guardian (to name a few).

Regardless of the 'truth' of Free Will, encountering ideas surrounding determinism and inagency can be difficult to absorb, and in some cases can lead to short-term and potentially long-term serious psychological and interpersonal harm.

As one example, Philosopher Galen Strawson (who denies Free Will) reported to the Guardian that he had been one recipient of a group email which read:

“Last year you all played a part in destroying my life. I lost everything because of you – my son, my partner, my job, my home, my mental health. All because of you, you told me I had no control, how I was not responsible for anything I do, how my beautiful six-year-old son was not responsible for what he did … Goodbye, and good luck with the rest of your cancerous, evil, pathetic existence”.

(https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/apr/27/the-clockwork-universe-is-free-will-an-illusion).

The author of the email may have had underlying mental health issues, and whilst such a reaction might be rare, it is clear that the existentialist themes intrinsic to discussion of free will may be psychologically disruptive and/or harmful.

Which philosophical ideas/questions might successfully be employed to help those who find themselves ill-equipped to navigate the psychological pitfalls such as nihilism and moral ambiguity which can accompany investigation of free will?

Answer 1

There are a few different directions to go on this. The person suffering can study philosophy further and learn to distinguish the implications of propositions more precisely (e.g. come to understand how analytic philosophers' discussions of the problem of free will don't align with popular conceptions of the inefficacy of our actions, or come to understand why whether we have free will or not in the analytic-philosophy sense of the term shouldn't have any effect whatsoever on how we relate to our own sense of agency cognitively, emotionally, or behaviorally; I recommend Dan Dennett's book Elbow Room for analyzing some of these distinctions), or they can embrace a deterministic worldview and dive into some life-affirming deterministic philosophy (e.g. stoicism, Spinoza, Nietzsche, Alan Watts), or they can throw those texts in the trash and focus on improving their life instead of externalizing their frustrations about their life onto people who have nothing to do with their life, or they can get professional psychological help to try to untangle these confusions. I do recognize that there is a bastardization of philosophical theories in popular understanding (just like a lot of solid science gets transmuted into pseudoscience serving marketing purposes in many popular publications for laypeople). And there are sociocultural reasons why "determinism" increasingly resonates with more people's firsthand experience of life (e.g. capitalism = the rich get richer and the rest of us have less and less control over our life circumstances). So I'd add Marx to my recommended reading list for people struggling with existential suffering over arguments for determinism. Among other reasons, for Marx's historical materialism: Your ideas are a reflection of your material conditions; so (connecting the Marxist idea to a Nietzschean idea) people don't feel life is meaningless because they're convinced by some philosophy--they're convinced by some philosophy because they feel life is meaningless.

Answer 2

The claim that there is no free will is a logical paradox. You cannot claim anything, unless you have free will to do so.

People who claim this nonsense are directly responsible for all the harm inflicted to those who believe it. To claim something is a conscious choice. To believe something is not.

The best way to help ill-equipped people is to stop confusing them with paradoxical claims.