Content warning for brief descriptions of sexual assault.
“Now isn’t that always the way? The books you read in class always seem to have some strong connection with whatever angsty adolescent drama is going on.” – Olive Pendergast, Easy A
I took a study break from writing a five-page philosophy paper to go on a date. I had a good time, until we sat together and he went further than one should after only knowing each other for a few hours. I pushed his hand away and thought of ending things then and there; but I decided to stay until the end of the date and consider whether I should end it later.
On my way home, I asked myself if I’d felt distressed because of the reminder of previous trauma I had, or if what he had done by itself was what scared me. At the time, I didn’t have more time or space to think about it, since I had my paper due.
When I sat down to write, I was faced with the task of explaining Rogers Albritton’s stance on why we have a perfectly free will, that is, one without constraints. To Albritton, even the chains on a chained person don’t limit the person’s desire to be set free, as the ability to walk free and the freedom to desire to walk freely are different. I had to contrast Albritton’s belief that an addict (with an altered state for making decisions) is free, with that of another philosopher, Frankfurt, who argues an addict doesn’t have free will. Frankfurt has a framework that establishes a hierarchy of desires.
I wrote:
“The hierarchy begins with a first order desire, which would be to want to do or not to do something…A second order desire is to want to have or not to want to have a certain desire of the first order. The addict’s second order desire would be to either want to want to take the drug or for the addict to want to refrain from taking the drug. A second order volition is the desire for the first order desire to be your will. An unwilling addict’s second order volition would be to want the desire to quit taking substances to be the action that leads him to quit… After the addict’s desire to quit substances is what leads to him quitting substances, he is free.”
After I submitted my paper (and, at last, had some free time), I thought of a second order volition on my terms. I knew I wanted to end things with the guy. It was my gut instinct. I knew that what he did wasn’t harmless. He did more than what I was OK with, especially as I remembered his heavy breathing, knowing that he became aroused.
However, I felt somewhat conflicted because there were many parts of our conversation and parts about him that I liked. I knew it was possible that I could overcome my fears and take a chance with him, but I also knew I didn’t want to depend on the happiness he might give me to make up for the fears I anticipated. My situation wasn’t as bad as the addict described in my paper, but I still had to break from a pattern I’d become accustomed to from previous experiences: excusing bad behavior in the hope that the positive elements of a happy relationship might outweigh it. I formulated my second order volition as wanting the desire to remove him from my life to be the motivation that moves me into the action of ending things with him.
After much deliberation, I ended things. I felt extremely distressed afterwards, but realized it was because it was the first time I’d stood up for myself and taken back power; that sensation was completely unfamiliar to me.
My philosophy paper that pondered over restrictions of a free will paralleled my conflict with what action I actually wanted to take. Thinking of my situation in an alternate framework of preceding desires allowed me to prioritize what would make me feel best in the end.