Simone De Beauvoir's The Illusion Of Free Will

Freedom and Causality

The idea of freedom is one that is crucial to the world as we know it today. The burning question of whether we are really free to become whatever we desire or subjected to a cause which determines our future is popularly debated upon. The German philosopher, Paul Rée, in his works, “The Illusion of Free Will”, states that every act of will is preceded by sufficient cause. This cause, be it genetics or worldly experiences, determines one’s actions, and free will is therefore an impossibility. Simone de Beauvoir, the French existentialist, in her works, “The Ethics of Ambiguity”, argues that it is not causality that governs will, but rather free will that shape one’s actions and the future. Her existentialist claims state

Whilst both these thinkers provide strong arguments for freedom and causality, I will be arguing that de Beauvoir’s views on free will is the most suitable for human action. Rée’s opinions, though not incorrect, are not sufficiently justified and lack the depth that De Beauvoir’s views hold.

Paul Rée’s works refute the argument of free will with propositions backed by the principle of causality. The premises of his argument lie on the concept that every action occurs because of a prior cause. This action is the result of a chain of events, within parameters

This is because I am a free being, who can attain higher levels of freedom within oneself and reality. Her view is a more liberal view, contrary to Rée’s restrictive view. Ultimate freedom may never be attained in reality, but we can always work towards this freedom. Feminists, activists and fighters for liberation may prefer Simone de Beauvoir’s views for its transparency and simplicity. In some way, we are all fighters in the quest for freedom from a world that we did not create. Her arguments hold a better account for human action, and hold a scope for human beings to grasp the best form of themselves, which is a decent way to comprehend