Cognitive Dissonance

The next two books for the reading group in my Philosophy Meetup are causing my some cognitive dissonance.  The first book is Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning, published in 1946.  I just finished reading the first part of his book (expect some review notes to be posted soon).  And the next book for January is Determined by Robert Sapolsky.  

Consider, for example, the contrasting theses in these two passages:

“… everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.  And there were always choices to make. Every day, every hour, offered the opportunity to make a decision, a decision which determined whether you would or would not submit to those powers which threatened to rob you of your very self, your inner freedom; which determined whether or not you would become the plaything of circumstance, renouncing freedom and dignity to become molded into the form of the typical inmate”.  Victor Frankl Man’s Search for Meaning (1946) 

“…when you behave in a particular way, which is to say when your brain has generated a particular behavior, it is because of the determinism that came just before, which was caused by the determinism just before that, all the way down.”   Robert Sapolsky Determined (2023)           

While these 2 claims may initially appear to be conflictual, I actually do not believe that is necessarily the case.  I haven't yet read Sapolsky's book, but I will post my tentative resolution thesis now, before doing so to see if it turns out to be compatible with this argument. 

My tentative resolution:  Our search for meaning (which we experience as the exercise of what we call "free will") is actually an evolutionary adaptation.  That is, humans that could see hope and purpose in the horrific tragic circumstances of life, by altering their attitude about living in such adverse conditions, enjoyed greater survival and reproductive success than those humans who wallowed in the despair.  Gilbert et al. refer to this ability to adapt to adversity as the "psychological immune system".  

Now of course one might retort that such a concession means that free will is not real.  My response to that is it is as real for us as any other belief or emotion (e.g. anger, lust, love, etc.) we have.   So I do not need to categorize the subjective feeling of free will as something that is "real" beyond the confines of evolutionary psychology.  Furthermore, the belief that we have responsibility over our attitudes of how to respond to life's circumstances has a real impact in the casual chain of actions (even if, in some sense, it is determined or primed).  

I look forward to reading Sapolsky's book to see if his account permits this type of response.

Cheers, 

Colin