The last of the human freedoms: choosing one's attitude
Freedom to take a stand; the critique of pan-determinism
Man is not fully conditioned and determined: he 'determines himself', whether he gives in to conditions or stands up to them. This freedom to choose one's attitude can never be taken from him.
Even in the camp, where everything can be taken from a man, there remains the choice of the attitude he takes, and so of what he becomes.
"The last of the human freedoms: choosing one's attitude" is an argument by Viktor Frankl (Ein Psycholog erlebt das Konzentrationslager (1946); Man's Search for Meaning, Part One and 'Logotherapy in a Nutshell', 1946) on the question "Are we free?" (answer: free will). Its claim: Man is not fully conditioned and determined: he 'determines himself', whether he gives in to conditions or stands up to them. This freedom to choose one's attitude can never be taken from him. According to AskPhilosophy's logic check (Z3 solver), the argument is valid only if one grants a premise the author leaves unstated (P4). AskPhilosophy presents 3 objections, 0 of them with a documented reply, and the original text behind each premise, checked word for word.
Determinism says our acts are the product of causes: heredity, environment, conditions. Frankl, a neurologist and psychiatrist, knows these causes. But he also lived in the Nazi camps, where lack of sleep and food and terror seemed bound to turn everyone into an animal. He saw prisoners give away their last piece of bread, others sink. His conclusion: freedom is not the absence of conditions, it is freedom to take a stand toward conditions. This margin, however tiny, is enough to say that man determines himself.
click a premise to reject it
Objections
3Each objection is a conversation: click to see who replies and where the debate stands.
Arthur Schopenhauer 1839 · attacks premise 4Schopenhauer would reply that consciousness tells us only 'I can do what I will', not that we could have willed otherwise. The attitude 'chosen' in the camp follows from the person's character and the motives presented: what Frankl calls choice is the expression of an already formed character.
no reply
Schopenhauer would reply that consciousness tells us only 'I can do what I will', not that we could have willed otherwise. The attitude 'chosen' in the camp follows from the person's character and the motives presented: what Frankl calls choice is the expression of an already formed character.
RRobert Sapolsky 2023 · attacks premise 4In Determined (2023), Sapolsky argues that our choices result from a chain of biological and environmental causes (genes, hormones, childhood, culture); there is no starting point that escapes this chain. A prisoner's courage has causes like any other act.
no reply
In Determined (2023), Sapolsky argues that our choices result from a chain of biological and environmental causes (genes, hormones, childhood, culture); there is no starting point that escapes this chain. A prisoner's courage has causes like any other act.
PPrimo Levi 1986 · attacks premise 1Levi, an Auschwitz survivor, distrusts moral lessons drawn from the camp. In 'The Gray Zone' he refuses to judge lightly the prisoners who collaborated, so extreme was the pressure; in 'Shame' he argues that those who survived were not the best, and that the best died. The survivors' testimony therefore does not prove that an inner freedom remained to everyone.
no reply
Levi, an Auschwitz survivor, distrusts moral lessons drawn from the camp. In 'The Gray Zone' he refuses to judge lightly the prisoners who collaborated, so extreme was the pressure; in 'Shame' he argues that those who survived were not the best, and that the best died. The survivors' testimony therefore does not prove that an inner freedom remained to everyone.