A Terrible Freedom
One cannot blame even one’s own empirical character, because one is
always free to do anything differently than one has done it in the past.
Lossky claimed that this was
proven just by experience.
Let us take, as a counter-example, someone who has
been what we would call a righteous person. This person who has done everything
that seems correct or morally laudable up until the present. Then, suddenly
that same man who has been completely faithful to his family, to his wife, to
his children, who had been a good member of his church and society, etc., for
egotistical reasons leaves his wife, neglects his family, chases another woman,
and ruins his career.[62] Lossky said that such a case is proof
that one always has formal freedom. Formal freedom means that one can always
theoretically make a complete about-face morally despite one’s past, empirical
character, etc. Lossky held that the individual always possesses absolute
freedom to choose on the theoretical level. This possibility was witnessed to
by such sudden changes of moral character.[63]
On the other hand, it is true that if one is a drug
addict, for instance, one does not have as much positive material freedom.
Positive material freedom means that one has the actual possibility or
capability to change. When one abuses one’s body with drugs, for instance, one
numbs one's mind, ruins one’s body, and then is not able to do the morally good
things one would like to do. Still Lossky felt that despite the limitations of
positive material freedom due to such choices a substantival agent could at any
time, with great effort and no doubt with the cooperation of divine grace in the
positive case of going from morally culpable behavior to morally laudable
behavior, make such an about-face (and if he could not his previous choices in
previous incarnations or metamorphoses were to blame!).[64] A rehabilitated drug addict would be a
case in point. Even as a human person, not merely a potential person like an
inanimate object, but even as a sentient person, one can still reduce one’s own
positive material freedom by poor moral choices. If one chooses to abuse alcohol, for instance,
one will dull one’s intelligence, etc. and that will limit one’s positive
material freedom. One will still retain one’s formal freedom, one could still
say, "No, I will turn away from the bottle." However, previous
choices do still limit one’s positive material freedom.
Between
Fideism and Dogmatic Rationalism: The place of Nicholas O. Lossky in the legacy
of Silver Age Russian religious philosophy. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Institute
of Philosophy, Catholic University of Leuven (Louvain), Belgium), 188, 189.
As I studied the philosophy of
Nicholas Onufrievich Lossky while I was preparing my doctoral dissertation, I
came across an idea which frightens me deep into the core of my being even to
this day.
I doubt Lossky would have seen
it the same way, but his idea of “formal freedom” has always frightened
me. As the leading quote, taken from my
dissertation shows, any man can at any time make a complete moral about-face.
Perhaps this still seem
banal. However, imagine that you do a
complete moral about-face. What would that look like?
Lossky gives the example of the
“righteous” man, perhaps morally virtuous would be a better moniker, but he has
in mind a good Christian gentleman, perhaps even a scholar. That first instance for me is chilling. “I
could be that man!” is one possible, reasonable thought. Another is: “Except for the grace of God,
there go I!” It might be instructive to know that Lossky spent most of his
career teaching in a Women’s College.
We would like to think that our
good habits (works?) are enough to keep us safe from such a moral
about-face. “I read my Bible every day.
I pray. I go to church. I’m in an
accountability group.” All of these
things are good. All of these things can
strengthen one’s moral resolve, but none are sufficient to stop the possible moral
about-face. No, not one.
“Why not?”, you might
reasonably object. Because we never lose our ability as free moral agents to
choose evil. It might be less likely,
but it’s not impossible. Any person at
any time can do a complete moral about-face.
Lossky demonstrates the
inability of a person like a drug addict to make a positive moral
about-face. Years of abuse dull the
ability of the body and mind to make this choice. However, if such a person takes a small step
in the right direction, it’s possible to make a moral about-face, with the help
of many people.
Bad habits limit positive
material freedom, as Lossky calls it.
Positive material freedom means the ability one has practically in this
world in this life right now to effect a moral change. The limits of positive material freedom seem
obvious to us.
However, we’re tempted to try
to deduce a logical contra:
If bad choices and bad living
lead to less positive material freedom, then surely good living and consistent
good choices will lead to more positive material freedom AND to being free from
the possibility of (or reasonably free from) making a negative moral
about-face.
This, though, is a fallacious
conclusion. While making good moral
choices and living a good moral life (keeping one’s word, honouring one’s vows,
being a good parent, being a good spouse, being faithful…) does lead to more positive
material freedom than if one were leading a dissolute life, it is no guarantee
that one will not make the sudden, seemingly inexplicable negative moral
about-face.
Ultimately, this is because we
are free. We will always remain free
moral agents. God will not force us to
do good. Surely doing your moral “push-ups” will make you strong, but they are
no guarantee.
Everyone every day every time
they are faced with poor choices must decide freely to choose the wise and good
choice.
This is a terrible freedom.
[62] Cf. Воспоминания (Vospominaniia
[Memoirs]), passim and Lossky, N.O., “Can a Religious Philosophy be
Scientific?”, Hibbert Journal Vol. LI, Oct. 1952- July 1953, pp. 213 ff.
[63] See the article Философия Н. О. Лосского и
квантовая механика (Filosofiia N.O. Losskogo i kvantovaia mehanika [The
philosophy of N.O. Lossky and quantum mechanics])
<http://exciton.narod.ru/losskii.htm> (16 February 2004) by Nenashev for
an example of how one modern Russian physicist attempts to show how Lossky’s
views of positive material freedom can resolve dilemmas of quantum mechanics.
[64] See Lossky, N.O. Freedom of the Will Trans.
By Natalie Duddington. London: Williams & Norgate Ltd., 1932, esp. “The
Slavery of Man”, pp. 136 ff.
No comments:
Post a Comment