The CAUSA SUI is the best self-contradiction that has yet been conceived, it is a sort of logical violation and unnaturalness; but the extravagant pride of man has managed to entangle itself profoundly and frightfully with this very folly. The desire for "freedom of will" in the superlative, metaphysical sense, such as still holds sway, unfortunately, in the minds of the half-educated, the desire to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for one's actions oneself, and to absolve God, the world, ancestors, chance, and society therefrom, involves nothing less than to be precisely this CAUSA SUI, and, with more than Munchausen daring, to pull oneself up into existence by the hair, out of the slough of nothingness. If any one should find out in this manner the crass stupidity of the celebrated conception of "free will" and put it out of his head altogether, I beg of him to carry his "enlightenment" a step further, and also put out of his head the contrary of this monstrous conception of "free will": I mean "non-free will," which is tantamount to a misuse of cause and effect.
Some human drives and beliefs are built upon self-contradictions. For example, Causa Sui, the idea that a thing can be its own cause, is a self-contradiction that has led the “half-educated” to believe in the argument for free will. They desire to act with full responsibility, absolving God or Culture from any influence on them whatsoever.
The arguments of "free will" and “unfree will” are logically invalid (causa sui), and yet it is a desire that has contributed to the formation of values.
One should not wrongly MATERIALISE "cause" and "effect," as the natural philosophers do (and whoever like them naturalize in thinking at present), according to the prevailing mechanical doltishness which makes the cause press and push until it "effects" its end; one should use "cause" and "effect" only as pure CONCEPTIONS, that is to say, as conventional fictions for the purpose of designation and mutual understanding,—NOT for explanation. In "being-in-itself" there is nothing of "casual-connection," of "necessity," or of "psychological non-freedom"; there the effect does NOT follow the cause, there "law" does not obtain. It is WE alone who have devised cause, sequence, reciprocity, relativity, constraint, number, law, freedom, motive, and purpose; and when we interpret and intermix this symbol-world, as "being-in-itself," with things, we act once more as we have always acted—MYTHOLOGICALLY. The "non-free will" is mythology; in real life it is only a question of STRONG and WEAK wills.—
Why is “free will” a causa sui? Free Will is the idea that one causes one's own actions. However, there is no real, physical thing called “cause and effect." Cause and Effect is a concept we use to understand and characterize the world, not to explain it. Therefore, to apply cause and effect as a way of explaining one's agency (in-itself) makes no sense.
We created cause and effect. Then, one day, our imagination forgets that we've created it and asserts free will, confusing the symbol-world (cause and effect) with the physical world (in-itself). It's remarkable how simple misinterpretations can lead to hundreds of years of wasted thought.
It is almost always a symptom of what is lacking in himself, when a thinker, in every "causal-connection" and "psychological necessity," manifests something of compulsion, indigence, obsequiousness, oppression, and non-freedom; it is suspicious to have such feelings—the person betrays himself. And in general, if I have observed correctly, the "non-freedom of the will" is regarded as a problem from two entirely opposite standpoints, but always in a profoundly PERSONAL manner: some will not give up their "responsibility," their belief in THEMSELVES, the personal right to THEIR merits, at any price (the vain races belong to this class); others on the contrary, do not wish to be answerable for anything, or blamed for anything, and owing to an inward self-contempt, seek to GET OUT OF THE BUSINESS, no matter how. The latter, when they write books, are in the habit at present of taking the side of criminals; a sort of socialistic sympathy is their favourite disguise. And as a matter of fact, the fatalism of the weak-willed embellishes itself surprisingly when it can pose as "la religion de la souffrance humaine"; that is ITS "good taste."
We all encounter the feeling that “something must be done." It is as if we did not have a choice. This feeling is suspicious to Nietzsche and can be described in two personal manners:
Full Responsibility - one doesn't relinquish their responsibility at any price. They must have faith in themselves, a sort of pride and control.
No Responsibility - motivated by inner self-contempt, these people don't want to be responsible for anything (and guilty for nothing). They shift responsibility onto others.
No Responsibility individuals believe in the “unfree will," and therefore are not responsible for anything. Even criminals are not guilty; they are not responsible either! Since no one is responsible, they tend to sympathize with everyone, leaning towards a socialistic compassion. These individuals live under the “religion of human suffering,” on account of this "unfree will".
And yet, before, we proved that “free will” is not a real in-itself thing, but a creation of our own minds. Therefore, these individuals have chosen a life of suffering, and they believe it to be good and necessary!
To reply you need to sign in.