Motives and Freedom

Sorry folks, I have been involved in an ongoing art project so posts might slow a little. To recap: 1. The objects for the Principle of Sufficent Reason of Becoming are tangible perceptive objects. 2. The mental faculty that deals with them is the Understanding. 3. The form of the Understanding is the Law of Casuality.

Now the following is important to comprehend as a unique element of Schopenhauer’s philosophy:

“Now Causality, as the director of each and every change, presents itself in Nature under three distinct forms: as causes in the strictest acceptation of the word, as stimuli, and as motives. It is just upon this difference that the real, essential distinction between inorganic bodies, plants, and animals is based, and not upon external, anatomical, let alone chemical, distinctions.

“A cause, in its narrowest sense, is that upon which changes in the inorganic kingdom alone ensue :those changes, that is to say, which form the theme of Mechanics, Physics, and Chemistry. Newton’s third fundamental law, “Action and reaction are equal to one another,” applies exclusively to this cause, and enunciates, that the state which precedes (the cause) undergoes a change equivalent to that produced by it (the effect). In this form of causality alone, moreover, does the degree of the effect always exactly correspond to the degree of the cause, so as to enable us accurately to calculate the one by means of the other.

The second form of causality is the stimulus; it reigns over organic life, as such, i.e. over plant life and the vegetative, that is, the unconscious, part of animal life. This second form is characterized by the absence of the distinctive signs of the first. In it accordingly action and reaction are not equal, nor does the intensity of the effect by any means correspond throughout all its degrees to the intensity of the cause ; in fact, the opposite effect may even be produced by intensifying the cause.

The third form of causality is the motive. Under this form causality rules animal life proper: that is, the exterior, consciously performed actions of all animals. The medium for motives is knowledge: an intellect is accordingly needed for susceptibility to motives. The true characteristic of the animal is therefore the faculty of knowing, of representing. Animals, as such, always move towards some aim and end, which therefore must have been recognised by them: that is to say, it must have presented itself to them as some thing different from themselves, yet of which they are conscious. Therefore the proper definition of the animal would be: That which knows; for no other definition quite hits the mark or can even perhaps stand the test of investigation. Movement induced by motives is necessarily wanting where there is no cognitive faculty, and movement by stimuli alone remains, i.e. plant life. Irritability and sensibility are therefore inseparable. Still motives evidently act in a different way from stimuli; for the action of the former may be very brief, nay, need only be momentary; since their efficacy, unlike that of stimuli, stands in no relation whatever to the duration of that action, to the proximity of the object, &c. &c. A motive needs but to be perceived therefore, to take effect; whereas stimuli always require outward, often even inward, contact and invariably a certain length of time.

“… One thing, however, still remains to be urged. The difference between cause, stimulus, and motive, is obviously only a consequence of the various degrees of receptivity of beings; the greater their receptivity, the feebler may be the nature of the influence: a stone needs an impact, while man obeys a look. Nevertheless, both are moved by a sufficient cause, therefore with the same necessity. For motivation is only causality passing through knowledge; the intellect is the medium of the motives, because it is the highest degree of receptivity. By this, however, the law of causality loses nothing whatever of its rigour and certainty; for motives are causes and operate with the same necessity which all causes bring with them. This necessity is easy to perceive in animals because of the greater simplicity of their intellect, which is limited to the perception of what is present. Man’s intellect is double: for not only has he intuitive, but abstract, knowledge, which last is not limited to what is present. Man possesses Reason; he therefore has a power of elective decision with clear consciousness: that is, he is able to weigh against one another motives which exclude each other, as such; in other terms, he can let them try their strength on his will. The most powerful motive then decides him, and his actions ensue with just the same necessity as the rolling of a ball after it has been struck.”

“The most powerful motive then decides him, and his actions ensue with just the same necessity as the rolling of a ball after it has been struck.”

Think about that! As Schopenhauer asked in his prize winning essay “On the Freedom of the Will”, “Can I will what I will?” Of course a yes leads to infinite regression, “Can I will what I will what I will?” and so on…