Without Guilt & Justice: Chapter 1, Sections 1-5

I’d like to start off by saying that I’m excited about the reading and the discussions to come. And thanks Pete for starting out.

I guess what I’ve read so far – sections 1-5 – can be summed up in the Nietzsche quote: “Of necessity, the party man becomes a liar. By lie I mean: wishing not to see something that one does see; wishing to see something as one sees it.”

This really struck me because it’s all around us – in personal and fleeting interactions, in work and in play. This idea – decidophobia – is as Pete pointed out, a simultaneous yearning for autonomy and fear of choice and it relates to the root of Nietzsche’s quote. Whether one is being blinded or finding solace in the control of religion or one is a drifter governed by caprice, most people say that they want to and do have free will, but likewise don’t want to be responsible for their own autonomy. A fear of outcomes, coupled with convenience, drives individuals' decidophobia. In deliberate or 'accidental' outcomes, one can always fall back on this idea of becoming a liar: it can be said in the end that ones' decisions and the reasons for acting, saying, thinking are transformed by a matter of framing or post facto justification. The drifter in his choice to not decide makes this the crutch on which to lean. The religious follower may do the same: “many people… manage to persuade themselves that their own moral views do not depend on any decision of their own but are simply part of being Jewish, Christian, or say, Hindu”. So may the movement joiner, etc.

And I think this relates back to the discussions of learning – teaching fear is easier than prudence and self-reliance. Having fear for something I believe is a more innate human quality because it's built upon uncertainty -- and uncertainty surrounds us. People don't want to look to the future (too far) because, as pointed out, death always looms and people don't like being too self-reliant for other reasons mentioned here. But, to have a fear for something simply means that one may have a feeling of anxiety concerning the outcome of something. Though anyone of us can reduce risk and in many situations – to a large degree – reduce and predict outcomes, the ‘what if’ still remains. I think this sort of anxiety can be embedded by the way a child is raised - by parents, the church, teachers, the media, etc. I also believe that the “one unanimous and harmonious ant heap” seems to reduce these feelings. Having your autonomy removed, and banding with others who likewise concede, makes even unpleasant outcomes easier to handle -- you did it because you were supposed to, because everyone else did or would have done the same thing, or even because you didn't have a choice (it was out of your control).

But, I guess what interests me, is where the line is drawn. Complete autonomy is looked at as this sort of self-actualized ideal and I’m not sure that – maybe in the most cynical sense – it can ever really be achieved. How exactly are we to define autonomy? People always make a decision, but at what point can an outsider (or even the person himself) differentiate from original and conditioned experience? It is obvious that institutions like the church, work, military, school and even the family (among other things) are inevitably influencing one’s self-image and self-perception so at what point is choice yours only? Is it not autonomy if you choose to let someone else decide? How would you know? How would this be measured? Pete mentioned that people stop asking critical questions -- is this a defining characteristic of having decidophobia?

This all reminds me of the Rush song “Freewill”:

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear-
I will choose Free Will.

And sorry, I'll try to keep it shorter next time.