Overview:

Human choices are pre-determined. By this, I mean that they are functionally constrained, but not that they are externally imposed. We are never zombies whose bodies are compelled to action by a force external to ourselves. We make free moral choices, and are responsible for them. These choices are determined by our own Will, but that Will is shaped by our created Nature and our environmental Nurture.

The Self-Determinination Of Choice

These free moral choices are pre-determined, but they are determined by who we are. I will make the choices that I will make, based on an infinitely complex combination of internal and external factors.

Imagine that I freeze a single moment in time and replicate an infinite number of copies of the universe. In each of them, absolutely nothing has changed. I am confronted with exactly the same scenario, at exactly the same time. My body and soul are the same in each universe. Nothing is different.

In such a situation, with an infinite set of identical universes, I would make the same choice in each.  

Keep in mind that I am the same. If I do not change, but my choice does, then my choices are independent of my self, and are not contingent on who I am. This hardly seems like a “Free Will” position to me. If choice is not determined by the self, that seems more Random than Free. If anything, self-determinism is the only position that provides a robust sense of Will that is not externally imposed either by mechanistic forces or by inexplicable random chance.

Though I could choose otherwise, I would never do so. Choices are thus pre-determined, but are not externally imposed. Choices are totally self-determined by my Will.

The Origin of the Will

So we have “Free Will” in the sense that our Will is free to choose whatever it wants. These choices are only constrained by ourselves. However, it is important to note that the “self” that does the choosing is shaped and formed by external forces.

The Will — the mechanism by which we choose — is not autonomous. It is not self-originating. It is created by God, and shaped by His Spirit and His world. We are inescabably contingent beings. We do not — cannot — create ourselves ex nihilo.

This is not to say that we are a product of our environment. It is absolutely true that there each individual has an innate, immaterial soul that precedes external developmental stimuli. Indeed, Nature probably plays a larger role than Nurture in the development of the Will.

But the Nature itself is not self-originated. As created, contingent beings, our souls, our wills, those faculties which desire and choose, are set in motion by an infinitely powerful and infinitely personal God. We do not self-originate. We do not choose who we are, as our identity precedes our choosing. At the most basic level, “Who I Am” is a function of who I was created to be.

Physical Freedom as an Analogy for Moral Freedom

To draw an analogy, man is physically free when he is free from external physical restraints. If I am handcuffed, shackled, or blindfolded, I am not “free.” In these situations, there is an external force which limits my natural capabilities.

However, even free from external limitations there are limits to my physical power. I cannot bench press 500 pounds. I cannot leap tall buildings with a single bound. I am not, sadly, faster than a speeding bullet. Some are stronger than others. Some are athletes, while others are crippled. But all people have physical limitations which are not externally imposed.

These limitations are not restrictions on man’s physical freedom. They do not (as in the case of handcuffs) externally impose artificial limitations on his physical capabilities. Being unable to move and object due to external restraint is a restriction of physical freedom; being unable to move the same object because I am too weak is not.

Similarly, being unable to choose an object due to external restraint is a restriction of moral freedom; being unable to choose the same object because it is not in my nature to do so is not.

Human Will and the Divine

The Wills of God and Man are Free, in that they are constrained only by the self. The key distinction between the Will of God and the Will of Man is that God’s self is self-originated, while ours is contingent.

God’s will is constrained by His character. He could do anything, but He would never contradict His own nature. God would never act unjustly, for example. This does not mean that His will is somehow not free, for the only constraint on His Will is Himself. God is free to do whatever He wants, but what He wants is limited by who He is.

Similarly, man’s will is constrained by his character. We could choose anything within our physical power, but we would only choose those things which are consistent our nature at that particular moment in time. (Unlike God, man has a changing, dynamic character, which makes our choices more unpredictable, but no less self-limited.) Again, this does not mean that our choices are not free, for the only constraint on our choice is internal. We are free to do anything that we want (within our physical power), but what we want is determined by who we are.

The difference lies not in the nature of choice, but in those factors that shape the Will.

Because God is wholly self-originating, His Will is entirely self-determined. God is completely autonomous, and His will precedes any external factors.

In contrast, man is not self-originating. Though (like God) our choices are determined by our Will, our will is not ultimately self-determined. Man is contingent, and our Will is a product of external factors, including our own Nature (created by God, and not by ourselves), and through our interaction with external stimuli.

The Problem of “Free Will”

The biggest problem that I have with so-called “free will” is that it seems logically incoherent to me.

I cannot comprehend any freedom other than self-determination, which is a concept that I affirm whole-heartedly. I literally do not know what “free will” means if not, “I am free from external constraint, and will make choices in accordance with my created nature as shaped through my interaction with my environment.”

What is free will, if not the freedom to make choices in accordance with who I am? And if my choices are not determined by my self, what has the doctrine of Free Will become, but random chance? How can the Will of man be more free than the Will of God?

But the contingency of the “self” is, I think, inescapable. Man is not God. We do not self-originate. And we do not create ourselves ex nihilo.

That’s already been done.

Overview.

Having established the dangers of idolatry, and recognizing that most idolatry is ultimately rooted in narcissism, I’d like to turn my attention now to the question of how one should respond to this information. Recognition of wrongdoing should always elicit a response, for the question of idolatry is not merely an academic question. But this response may take many forms, which are well worth exploring.

In this effort, I’ve found Freud’s Civilization and Its Discontents valuable for its observations about the nature of desire and the narcissistic nature of the human libido, and been especially blessed to read this academic paper by Dr. Donald L. Carveth about the strengths and weaknesses in the Freudian view of guilt.

What will follow is a sort of “baptized” view of Freudian psychology, as understood and expressed by a complete layman. I don’t have any real expertise in the area of psychology, except insofar as I have a psyche. My views are not essentially Freudian, but I think that a few of the arguments of Freud and his followers are very instructive when we consider the role of narcissism in the experience and expression of guilt.

Eros and Thanatos in the Heart of Man.

As Pascal noted in his Pensees, man is created to be Great, but has become wretched. As a result of our nature – created in the image of God, yet fractured by sin – man is pulled in two separate directions. Freud places these base impulses in the “Id” or subconscious, meaning that they are basic and instinctual, rather than being produced or shaped or even experienced rationally. He labels these basic, dueling impulses: erosand thanatos.

Erotic impulses are those rooted in love. Though there may be an element of narcissism here, the erotic desire is directed toward the good of the object. Whether or not the object is valued for its own sake or for the sake of one’s own gratification is not really, in this context, particularly relevant. What is important is to recognize that the erotic impulse leads to creation and preservation.

Thanatotic impulses, on the other hand, are rooted in hatred. The Thanatos does not seek to create, nor to protect, but only to destroy. One need not look far to recognize that there is an aggressive, violent tendency to human nature, and that the desire to gain domination or wreak destruction is not a social construction. There is a gladiatorial bent in the heart of man, which Nietzsche identified as well. Man seeks to destroy.

These two impulses duel with one another in the human psyche, pulling man in opposing directions. What we think of as “guilt” is actually a single label that we apply to two distinct psychological experiences, one rooted in Eros, the other in Thanatos.

Erotic Guilt.

The idea of Eros is that it is an expression of object-love. An experience of guilt that is founded in our erotic impulses, then, will be born out of love for the object that we have wronged. When a man who loves his wife dearly realizes that he has hurt her feelings, he will experience this sort of guilt. There are two defining factors of this sort of guilt:

First, it is externally focused. That isn’t to say that the guilty party seeks to blame others for his misdeeds. Rather, the focus is not on how awful he is, but rather on the object.

Second, it leads to efforts at reparation. Because this type of guilt (concern) is rooted in love for the other, the guilty party wants to do whatever is possible to undo the damage that he has done, and to restore the object to happiness and well-being. This type of guilt (concern) sees a wrong, and seeks to take practical steps to make it right. It is a productive and healthy psychological experience that brings about positive results.

The Unconscious Need For Punishment.

By contrast, the recognition of wrongdoing may also be rooted in the thanatotic impulse to destruction. The experience of guilt, rather than being rooted in love for the object, may actually be an action of thanatos in which the aggressive death-instinct is turned inward against the self. If man is intrinsically aggressive and destructive, the moral awakening that limits our actions does not also remove the subconscious impulses behind those actions. Instead of making man truly docile and peaceful, then, such action merely represses the ferocity of the thanatotic Id, and directs our aggressiveness inward against ourselves. As the thanatotic impulse is denied external outlet, its repression can lead to expressions of self-loathing, self-punishment, and self-destruction. It creates an “unconscious need for punishment”.

There are a few things to note about the “unconscious need for punishment” in contract to the experience of true “guilt (concern)”.

First, this “unconscious need for punishment” is essentially narcissistic, in that it is motivated by thanatos, rather than eros. The experience of feeling bad is brought about repressed aggressiveness, and not any real concern for the object. The person who responds to a transgression by crying out “I hate myself!” is not speaking out of love for the other. Any damage done to the object is unimportant, except insofar as it is ammunition for self-abuse.

Second, this “unconscious need for punishment” lacks any ending point. There will not come a time when atonement has been made for wrong, and the self-punishment can cease.

Third, this “unconscious need for punishment” does not seek restoration, restitution, or redemption. There isn’t a point to the self-abuse beyond the abuse itself. Because it is not motivated by love for the object, it will not lead to positive steps to restore the object to its former state, or undo the practical effects brought about by whatever wrong action caused the self-destructive feelings.

Self-Punishment As Guilt-Evasion 

Based on the above observations, it should be clear that the “unconscious need for punishment” is not an expression of remorse that is rooted in love for the offended, but rather an expression of narcissism that is rooted in hatred that seeks an outlet for its aggression. In a very real sense, self-destructiveness is a means of evading real guilt in order to avoid having to come to grips with the wrongdoing, and of avoiding having to make restitution.

Dr. Carveth cites a Dr. Safa-Gerard as outlining several potential causes for guilt evasion, all rooted in the idea that the guilt is too “unbearable” for the person to handle:

First, the individual may be unable to hold positive and negative self-assessment in their head concurrently. In this case, the recognition of wrongs committed (love-based guilt) drives out any possible recognition of positive attributes, and causes one to fall into hopelessness, despair, and self-punishment. The difficulty, then, is in expanding one’s cognitive horizons, probably through an external agent engaging rationally and reminding one of positive attributes that he or she possesses concurrently with the negative ones, thereby undermining the “all-bad” self-perception.

Second, the individual may link the specific “guilty” action to other guilty actions, unconscious or unspoken. There may even be a perception that one has wronged God. Because this is not brought rationally to light, and is kept unexpressed, it is thought too damning to be redeemable, and the individual remains unable to process the guilt and take practical steps to change, instead wallowing in self-pitying, self-punishing despair.

Third, the recognition of guilt (concern) is an admission of love for an external object, which forces the individual to recognize his or her lack of autonomy, and constructs a sense of vulnerability, which some are simply unable to psychologically accept, preferring to shut out all love-based thinking even if it means resorting to self-punishment as a means of evasion.

 For each of these problems, it seems as if the answer is a healthy view of self, which is willing to recognize good as well as bad, is willing to honestly assess the real conscious and unconscious causes of guilt, and is not afraid of the erotic, but rather is willing to admit concern for others.

Underview.

In summation, then, true “guilt” is rooted in love for the offended object, and motivates practical change and efforts at restitution. Real guilt is a healthy and emotionally mature response to wrongs committed, real or imagined. The “unconscious need for punishment,” on the other hand, is intrinsically narcissistic, and functions as a means of guilt-evasion rather than as an expression of love-based sorrow. A psychologically healthy, emotionally mature person will have a well-developed view of self that allows him or her to express eros-driven productive guilt, rather than engaging in the unconscious need for punishment as a means of evasion.