The Matter of Choice and Action
Possessing the talent of self-reflection and analysis, humans have often dwelt upon the question of human freedom. We all agree that potentially we can do what we want, and that we can achieve the ends we seek. On the other hand, no one will deny that our ability to achieve a specific goal is at least to some degree limited by our personal capacities and our social environment. Furthermore, we are likely to admit that we often feel free to choose as we want, to decide upon one course of action in preference to another. On the other hand, our freedom of choice is sometimes clearly limited.
The problem of human freedom appears to have two distinguishable but closely related components, namely, freedom of choice and freedom of action. Each of these components plays a central role in the work being done by professional coaches. Concerning the former we (as coaches) ask: “what factors are responsible for our client’s decision to commit a particular act as opposed to some other act?” Concerning the latter, we ass coaches ask: “What factors are responsible for our client’s ability to achieve the desired ends, once we have committed ourself to one alternative rather than another?” (Wood, 1957, p. 303)
In an analysis of these factors, Plato discriminated between the individual’s rather permissive acceptance of sensory data and his active power of reason, i.e. Plato believed that certain factors directly influence us, as humans, and directly determine our course of action, while other factors were only indirectly engaged via rational processes. As a result of these differences in the “processing of information” (to use a modern term), Plato concluded that there are two kinds of knowledge: (1) opinion and (2) science. Furthermore, according to Plato, the soul is dependent on the body, but the soul, insofar as it beholds the world of ideas, is pure reason. The body is an impediment to knowledge, from which the soul must free itself in order to behold truth in its purity. (Thilly, 1951, p. 85) Therefore, from a Platonic perspective, our actions are determined to the extent that we are governed by our bodies; we are free to the extent that we are rational. With the statement of this theme of reason (ergo freedom), Plato has set the stage for and anticipated contemporary theories and assumptions in the field of professional coaching.
The stage becomes even more littered with challenging questions with the expansion in contemporary philosophy beyond Plato’s distinction between choice and action. Three components are now often identified. First, there is choice. Do we have choices over what we decide to do? More fundamentally, do we have control over anything we do? Second, there is action. Do we have the freedom to take action, whatever the cause of the decisions we have made? More fundamentally, can we have control over what we do even if everything we do is caused? A third components is added. It concerns the general nature of reality. Is everything we do caused? This third component is less personal and more about how science should proceed. (Williams, 1980, p. 3)
Atomism: Mechanism and Prediction
During the same period that Platonic thought was becoming prominent in Greek thought, there was established a counter school of thought, the “atomists”. Democritus conceived of a mechanistic universe which was totally deterministic. (Avey, 1954, p. 285) He believed that everything happened in accordance with natural law, and explicitly denied that anything could happen by chance. (Russell, 1945, p. 66) Another atomist, Leucippus, stated that: “Nothing happens at random, but all things for a reason and of necessity.” (Warner, 1959, p. 46)
Bertrand Russell believes that of the classical philosophers, these highly deterministic atomists most closely resemble the modern scientific attitude—reinforced by the belief of many 21st Century neuroscientists that all human behavior will eventually be explained (and even predicted) through a full understanding of the way our neurons fire. The mechanistic question (“What pattern of neurons are firing”) is a contemporary version of the question posed by the atomist (“What earlier circumstances caused this event?”). The atomists took on the third component of the free-will/determinist argument and concluded that everything is caused. This conclusion supposedly leads to scientific knowledge. Conversely, the teleological question (“What purpose did this event serve?”) that is posed by Socratics (through Plato) supposedly does not lead to scientific knowledge (Russell, 1945 p. 66) Here is the key point: the assumption of determinism leads one to seek out and hopefully find cause. Conversely, the assumption of free will leads one to seek out and hopefully find purpose. The former is useful, in general, for traditional scientific enterprises, the latter is useful, in general, for traditional enterprises in the humanities.
Download Article 1K Club
