Extract
[...] Thus, intention would not be a free decision, but determined by the affects. « To be free' would therefore be, to act without being controlled by one's affects in order to be able to do what one wants. How can one do it? Can one succeed in controlling one's affects? In a third step, we can advance the idea that man is nonetheless capable of having control over his actions, and thus recovering his freedom. Descartes evokes the idea of enlightened freedom, according to which choose what I know to be the best option', going in the direction towards which reason leads us. [...]
[...] Thus, intentions are not always sufficient to ensure action, as they can be hindered by forces that sometimes escape our control. Another illustration of this phenomenon could be addiction: a person dependent on alcohol may have the intention to stop smoking, but their immediate needs make it extremely difficult to achieve this intention. Subsequently, social and cultural factors can also be decisive in our action. We can act against our intentions out of fear, for example, out of a desire to be accepted in a group. [...]
[...] Conclusion Acting against one's intentions can appear as a contradiction, a sign of weakness or instability. But philosophical analysis shows that this opposition can have several meanings. It can reflect a Inner division, as with Ovid or Freud, or be the sign that our intentions are themselves the fruit of unconscious or social determinisms, as explained by Spinoza. But this contradiction can also be the very place of freedom, when the individual, as with Kant, chooses to act against a non-moral intention, or he discovers, with lucidity, that his intentions do not really belong to him Thus, acting against one's intentions can be a form of alienation . [...]
[...] It is the very condition of the voluntary act: without intention, there can be no free action. This would be equivalent to to want and not want at the same time, what constitutes a logical contradiction. This idea is based on a vision rationalist view of human being, inherited notably from Descartes, for whom will is free by nature. The philosopher asserts that 'nothing depends on us except our thought,' and that man has free will, that is, the ability to choose freely. [...]
[...] Acting on his intentions would therefore require a deeper work on oneself than a simple effort of will. Freud, in the same spirit, shows that analysis allows us to bring to light the unconscious desires that guide our intentions. By becoming aware of their origins, we can choose to refuse them. This allows us to reappropriate our will, no longer to submit to our unconscious, and therefore to act freely against certain intentions that no longer correspond to us. Example: someone considers getting married quickly, but, after reflection, understands that this desire is motivated by a fear of solitude. [...]
