Thinking about axioms...

Estudia: Phi, I’ve got a question. Can you prove to me that my consciousness is free to choose and that it doesn’t just work automatically?

Philo: Let me ask you something. Do you find yourself having to decide to think or not to think all the time? Are you listening carefully to what I’m saying, or are you just half listening and thinking about something else you want or need to do?

Estudia: I’m listening! Yes, I have to decide constantly about what I’m going to focus on and how hard and how long. But that doesn’t prove anything, does it?

Philo: No, but this is one of those things you can’t “prove” as such.

Estudia: Not another axiom!?

Philo: Well, if your consciousness was automatic and your thoughts were determined by something or someone, then you wouldn’t have a choice about what you are thinking. You’d just have to accept whatever you had to accept.

Estudia: Sure, I would be thinking about whatever I’ve been “told” to think about. I wouldn’t have any choice in the matter; so maybe we are being “forced” to think about this.

Philo: Then I’d be mistaken to ask you to think about thinking. We don’t need any epistemology because we couldn’t or wouldn’t have to justify our thoughts or actions for that matter. Yes, the principle of volition is an axiom. Volition is at the base of the concept of validation and that includes “proof”. The only way we can even consider validating our ideas is to accept that our thinking is free, that our consciousness is volitional. To ask me to prove to you that your thinking is free, or that you have free will, requires that we presuppose the reality of free will.

Estudia: So you’re telling me that it must be self-evident.

Philo: Well isn’t it for you? Just introspect and observe your own consciousness. Volition is a primary starting point of all your thinking about anything including thinking. In order to even consider directing your thoughts, you must be free and you must know it in someway. All our knowledge requires some form of validation, and validation rest on the fact of volition. You can’t deny it, and you can’t escape it because you have to use it in some way even in trying to deny it.

Estudia: Yes, but wouldn’t someone who holds that they have no choice and that their thinking is a result of some subconscious process, or social pressures, or whatever; wouldn’t someone like that be correct too?

Philo: Someone like that would be a determinist. A determinist claims that we are determined by something outside, or maybe inside, ourselves. Everything is determined so he must claim that his own position of determinism is determined also. So, how can a determinist know the truth? Does he never make any mistakes and always act properly and think rationally and logically about everything?

Estudia: I don’t think so. Nobodies perfect in that sense.

Philo: Right, but the determinist would be saying that when he makes a mistake, he had to do it, no matter how he feels about it, no matter if he thinks he knows better. He couldn’t do otherwise. Such a person couldn’t rely on his own opinions. How could he judge anything? He couldn’t claim he knows anything about anything, including his position on determinism.

Estudia: Hahaha... that’s funny. You’re right. Someone who is infallible and knows the truth doesn’t need to think. Hey, my dog is like that and he is conscious.

Philo: Yes, but you are a human so you must think to know the truth about reality.

Estudia: Not if I touch a hot stove. I know the truth about reality real quick without thinking.

Philo: True, but remember we allowed for the perceptual stage of awareness. Yes, the senses are automatic and beyond your control. They are a part of the identity of your consciousness. We are talking about volition now. Volition is not a separate independent philosophic idea. It is part of the axiom of consciousness and is derived from it.

Estudia: A corollary then?

Philo: Precisely. Your dog is conscious but doesn’t have a faculty of volition. We are all fallible, conceptual human beings possessing a consciousness that includes the faculty of volition.

Estudia: That’s interesting. So a determinist would be saying that he is in control of his mind and can decide to focus or not on reality. He is free to be objective and not just controlled by outside forces, and so he is free to conclude that he is not free. That’s bizarre!

Philo: Bizarre like any rejection of an axiom. Determinism refutes itself as you see. You have to accept that existence exists or that you have consciousness in order to deny it. Similarly you have to accept that you have volition in order to deny it, and that answers your question.

Estudia: Right, you can’t and you don’t need to “prove” to me that my consciousness is free to choose and that it doesn’t just work automatically.

Philo: Your will is free and is located in your conceptual faculty. Ayn Rand taught us that the faculty of reason is the faculty of volition, and you and I have validated it. Your senses are valid and your mind is free.

Estudia: Terrific. Now just tell me how I should use my mind?

Philo: Patience, grasshopper, patience, my dear. Until next time ... just let me say good bye for now.