Education and Free Will: Spinoza, Causal Determinism and Moral Formation

by Johan Dahlbeck

Education and Free Will critically assesses and makes use of Spinoza’s insights on human freedom to construe an account of education that is compatible with causal determinism without sacrificing the educational goal of increasing students’ autonomy and self-determination. Offering a thorough investigation into the philosophical position of causal determinism, Dahlbeck discusses Spinoza’s view of self-determination and presents his own suggestions for an education for autonomy from a causal determinist point of view. The book begins by outlining the free will problem in education, before expanding on a philosophical understanding of autonomy and how it is seen as an educational ideal. It considers Spinoza’s determinism and discusses his denial of moral responsibility. Later chapters consider the relationship between causal determinism and autonomy, the educational implications of understanding free will and how free will can be utilised as a valuable fiction in education. This book will be of great interest to academics and postgraduate students in the field of education, especially those with an interest in moral education and philosophy of education. It will also be of interest to those in the fields of philosophy and psychology and specifically those focusing on the free will problem, on Spinoza studies, and on the relation between moral psychology and external influence.

142 pages, Hardcover

Published September 13, 2018

Reviews

[Eric Burke · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was an exceptionally clear and well-written exploration of the pedagogical implications of embracing Spinozist “hard” causal determinism. Eschewing the traditional folk psychology of “free will” due to its lack of basis in our modern understanding of the laws which govern the physical universe, Dahlbeck encourages us to consider the Spinozist approach to the gradual increasing of an individual’s understanding of natural causation as a kind of moral approach to education that avoids the many problems associated with indoctrinating individuals with the false belief of their being self-caused at a fundamental level. By this logic, by increasing the accuracy of an individual’s understanding of themselves as a “mode” of the universe, a teacher is effectively increasing the odds that he or she will act in a manner consistent with the good of not only themselves but of the moral community as a whole — thus opening the door to the possibility of an alternative approach to “moral education” and even “moral responsibility” that does not require a reliance on the false belief of free will. At the same time, Dahlbeck acknowledges the impossibility of convincing most people that in reality they are not in fact the free authors of their feelings, motivations, or behaviors, as well as the impossibility of anyone constantly remaining conscious of our lack of real agency on a day-to-day basis. For this reason, Dahlbeck advises our embrace of free will as a “useful fiction” insofar as it might be deployed as a temporary “placeholder” for the mind (in much the same way as the ‘self’ or perhaps even ‘time’) while we strive to increase our personal and collective understanding of the universe and natural causation, given our inability to ever fully access or understand the complex chains of causation that really drive our behaviors and those of others. In sum, the book encourages us to reconsider our approach to thinking about the purpose and objectives of education in light of an open acknowledgement and even embrace of the limits of human cognition and exceptionalism. If any of the above seems utterly implausible or impossibly convoluted, I would encourage you to read the actual book instead of my poor excuse of a review. I promise it will be time well spent.