Addiction: philosophy of freedom in a world of incentives

There is a popular myth that financial advisors like to repeat: “you need to control your spending.” At one time, I was guilty of this myself. But let’s dig deeper…

Pleasure is the satisfaction of desires. We are born to desire and satisfy our desires. In the brain, the decision-making “apparatus,” this process is controlled by the neurotransmitter dopamine. Thus, this craving is sewn not only into our ontology, but also into biology.

"If you work with one neuron, it's neuroscience; if you work with two, it's psychology." - Harvard Medical School saying.

People are able to get pleasure even from something that harms them. For example, the habit of suffering or being offended. It would seem - why? But even in these states, people find internal benefit. Psychologists call these rudimentary, childish behavior strategies. Feel sorry for yourself - it became easier. Pouted - got a candy. These scenarios are learned from an early age and can unconsciously control people in adulthood, even if they no longer work.

In neurobiology, this is the so-called "dopamine loop" — a phenomenon where a person gets stuck in a learned cycle of pleasure-seeking. The most obvious example in today's reality is scrolling through the TikTok feed. Moreover, as Wolfram Schultz's experiments on monkeys have shown, the greatest dopamine spike occurs due to uncertainty. Each new video is like a little casino: maybe the next one will be even more interesting. We get a dopamine rush not from the content itself, but from the anticipation of something "tasty."

"With achieved self-awareness, the assertion and denial of the will to live."

— Arthur Schopenhauer, "The World as Will and Representation." Book Four. On the World as Will. Second Meditation.

Arthur Schopenhauer was a radical determinist who denied any freedom of will. He argued that a person cannot act differently from what their essence allows. Even if they recognize their mistakes and suffer the consequences of their actions, this suffering does not change their will but only demonstrates its inevitability. According to Schopenhauer, even repentance is not a sign of freedom but an acknowledgment of one's predestination. When a person suffers from remorse, they remain the same — with all their inherent tendencies and desires.

Schopenhauer argued that intellect can understand, but it does not control the will. Moreover, people are not always aware of the motives that drive them. In psychology, this is known as hidden motives — when the true cause of behavior is replaced by rationalization. For example, a person may believe they work a lot for the sake of their family, but in reality, they are running away from emotional intimacy, which scares them, or proving their worth through success. They may sincerely believe the stated motive, unaware of the deeper cause. This explains why the same scenarios repeat again and again — the will remains the same, even if the consciousness is already suffering.

"When knowledge came, at the same time love rose from its depths."

— Arthur Schopenhauer, "The World as Will and Representation."

According to Schopenhauer, a person can only be changed by catharsis — a profound shock, an existential jolt, that disrupts the usual chain of stimuli and responses. The old will weakens not because it was persuaded or convinced, but because the person suddenly stopped desiring the same things. Old stimuli no longer provoke a dopamine response — they have lost their allure. This is the shift in essence. It is not behavioral correction, but a true metamorphosis. In fact, this is what happened to me — the mistakes accumulated and crushed me. I didn't "quit" my bad habits; they simply "fell away" from lack of necessity — they became alien, lost all their value.

But is life really so deterministic? Philosophers do not agree on this point.

Daniel Dennett was a compatibilist. He believed that the awareness of one's freedom and moral responsibility for one's actions are possible even in a deterministic world. Will, in his view, is a function of complex systems.

A stone thrown from a height cannot hover in the air or fly off into space — its trajectory is governed by the laws of physics. But a person can reflect, analyze, predict, and make meaningful choices — and in this, though limited, but real sense, they are free.

I deeply love and respect the teachings of both of these philosophers. And it seems to me, or at least I want to believe, that they are both right. I will try to bring together the opposing ideas of these two great thinkers through the philosophy of existentialism.

Honestly, I have questions for the existentialists (Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Sartre…). Their philosophy assumes that a person is already in a state of maturity and reflection, capable of enduring the anxiety of freedom and making a truly conscious choice — not a reactive, automatic one, but a genuinely free one.

But the problem is that most people are far from this state. They have not yet become themselves. Heidegger defines this with the term Dasein — "presence," "being-there." It is the thrown, unfinished existence in life, always in the process of becoming. However, for this perspective to unfold, a person must at least become aware of their incompleteness — and that is a rare occurrence.

According to Heidegger, most people are Dasein in a state of inauthenticity (Uneigentlichkeit). It is oriented toward things and immersed in the everyday, dissolved in "the They" (das Man). In this state, the very possibility of being oneself is not even recognized, let alone the readiness for an existential choice.

It seems to me that this is the weakness of both Dennett's compatibilism and the existentialists' positions — they assume a subject that still has to be created. Through experience, crisis, and reflection. Through the collapse of the old system of stimuli. This is like the difference between entertainment and art. The first, while we are in the process, lifts and sustains our mood. The second expands the boundaries of consciousness, sensitivity to beauty. This is why people spend so much time on social media, in front of the TV, or playing video games, and so little in galleries or reading complex literature.

"If you don't know who you are, the stock market is the most expensive place to figure it out."
— Adam Smith (pseudonym of George Goodman)

For an alcoholic, drinking alcohol is pleasure. For a drug addict, using drugs is pleasure. In this, they see the meaning of life.

Spending money is also pleasure. Great pleasure! People say it themselves: what’s the point of money if you don’t spend it?

Controlling expenses is like trying to convince an alcoholic not to drink or a drug addict not to shoot up. Why do alcohol and drugs exist if they are not to be used? Is this an exaggeration? Not at all. We are simply drawing the line in the wrong place, and I’m about to try to prove this to you.

Scientifically, addiction is called - addiction. It’s not just a bad habit, but a pathological drive to seek pleasure despite destructive consequences. In the case of spending, it’s exacerbated by social pressure, the desire for status, and the need to stand out.

Buying an expensive item gives a dopamine spike and simultaneously confirms one's sense of significance. This is almost an irresistible desire — pleasure, because it is approved by culture, fueled by marketing, and rooted in the social hierarchy. No amount of budgeting works because this is no longer about money — it's about ontology and biology.

However, dopamine also governs our achievements, helps us solve complex problems, gain knowledge, propose and test hypotheses, and make scientific discoveries… Essentially, we are all dependent in one way or another, the only question is what we derive pleasure from.

In this sense, Dennett’s position is like treating alcoholism through "coding" and willpower, which, in practice, most often doesn’t work. What worked for me was what Schopenhauer said — catharsis, a deep internal crisis.

"Every philosophy is always theoretical, ... by its very nature it only reflects and investigates, not prescribes. Becoming practical, guiding behavior, re-educating character — these are its old claims, from which it should now, having matured in its views, finally abandon.
... Virtue, like genius, cannot be taught: for it, the concept is as barren as for art, and can only serve as a tool."
— Arthur Schopenhauer

I think the problem lies in the worldview. We think, make decisions, and act, each within the context of our own worldview. And ours is holistic; the theoretical physicist has one, the astrologer and numerologist have theirs, the atheist has theirs, and the believer has theirs. The question is simply the quality of the knowledge on which a person bases their worldview.

The word "horse" for a Russian from the village of Kukuevo may evoke Nekrasov's "little horse carrying a bundle of firewood," for a Turkmen, it may bring to mind an Akhal-Teke, and for us, it might conjure up the image of beshbarmak and qazy.

This is why the intimidation of old age, calls for prudence, persuasion, and arguments — do not work. Not because they are logically false, but because there is simply a different logic at play. A person does not change simply because they are convinced. They must already be a person with a certain "baggage." Or at least, they must desire transformation — be receptive to it.

And here, it seems to me, begins the real field for work — not imposing discipline from the outside, but nurturing awareness from within, through restructuring the worldview — in the dialogue between the inner and the outer. This is what a personal financial plan should be based on: it is not about money — it is about the person. About the worldview. About will. Through building the internal architecture of identities into a differentiated personality and the crystallization of values.

At the beginning of the 20th century, physiologist Alexei Ukhtomsky formulated the principle of dominance, which explains how stable foci of excitation arise and are maintained in the nervous system. These foci suppress other processes and determine the behavior of humans and animals. The simplest example: if a person experiences a strong desire, say, to go to the bathroom, other stimuli fade into the background — the goal is clear, and no obstacles are seen.

At the end of the 20th century, neurobiologists Gerald Edelman and Giulio Tononi developed the concept of the dynamic core, which describes the mechanisms behind the emergence of consciousness. According to this theory, consciousness arises through the temporary coordination of the activity of many neural ensembles, which depends on current experience and perception. For example, the recognition of objects and faces occurs through the interaction of the visual cortex, memory, and emotions.

I am not a biologist, but intuitively, I believe that both of these mechanisms — dominance and the dynamic core — govern human intentions. If we can learn to consciously influence these processes, perhaps we could free ourselves from the social pressure described by Baudrillard and make our leisure truly a personal choice, rather than a product of someone else’s business. In this case, Keynes' utopia of a world where people live for creativity and self-development could become a reality.

"Being Dasein means: being-ahead-of-itself-already-being-in-the-world as being-with... This structure expresses what we call care (Sorge)."
— Martin Heidegger.

But attention is not just physiology. In the very act of choice and focus, the existential structure of human being manifests itself. What attention is fixed upon is not merely a reaction to a stimulus but an expression of care (Sorge) — a fundamental stance in which a person is always already involved in the world, anticipating themselves and being among others.

In other words, behind neural dynamics and motivation lies a deeper — existential — dimension: a human being is that creature which cares, that is, it is involved, oriented, and existentially directed. It is through this "existential awakening" — the realization of one's abandonment, finitude, and choice — that it is possible to break free from the state of automatic conditioning, from submission to the societal.

The modern person speaks of "finding oneself," most often implying external markers: profession, status, lifestyle, work. They search for identity in the external — in desires imposed by context, in others’ models and expectations.

But if care (Sorge) is not a choice or a characteristic, but the fundamental structure of being, then the search for oneself is not a movement outward, but a return inward.

Identity, in this light, is not something that can be constructed externally, but something that must be discovered and structured internally. Not created, but revealed. No, actually, first created — filtered, named, and assembled from the implicit but present, and then revealed.

"Dasein is that which it has not yet become — it projects itself onto possibilities, but is already thrown into the world, into its facticity."
— Martin Heidegger.

The search for oneself turns into a process of existentially gathering the scattered — the crystallization of identity, the realization of what I already am, but have not yet expressed. It is not self-designing according to the pattern of fashion or career, but a return to the authentic — to that which has always already defined its intention to be.

When a person gathers their identity not from the outside, but from within — in the experience of their own abandonment, in the authentic care for themselves as a possibility — they first gain a stable point of support. This point is not in the world of things and roles, but in the way of being oneself — being discerning in relationships with oneself and the world. Only on this foundation is true discipline possible — not as an external coercive form, but as a natural consequence of the coherence, the structuredness of the inner world.

Readers may get the impression that I am absolutizing the internal resources of the individual — as if identity arises exclusively from within. Certainly, it does not emerge in a vacuum: we are shaped in dialogue with culture, history, and society. As Berger and Luckmann have shown, a person not only internalizes external norms but, having achieved integrity, is capable of returning their meanings to the world. This movement — from the internal to the external — is the true act of maturity: a person becomes not just a product of their environment, but a full-fledged actor in the transformation of social reality.

This is why dependence is not merely a biochemical reaction or a behavioral mistake: it touches the very fabric of identity and the person’s relationship with the world. It is a form of escape from oneself, from internal emptiness, from uncertainty that the person cannot bear. They don’t know who they are, and they cannot endure this ignorance — so they replace it with pleasures, routines, external identities that can be “tried on.”

And conversely: when existential crystallization occurs — when a person recognizes themselves as Dasein, as an already-being and caring being — they become capable of choice. Then, rejection of dependence is not a feat, but a byproduct of an internal turning. And discipline is not asceticism, but a form of self-love and the possibility of changing the world.

One could say that an "ontological dominance" awakens in the person — a stable configuration of meanings that gathers their attention, will, and actions into a single vector. In this vector, the need to struggle with temptations disappears — because they lose their attractiveness. The internal structure is stronger than external stimuli.

Personal finances are one of those spheres where a person’s internal makeup manifests most clearly. Money is not just a medium of exchange; it is a projection of will, attention, and values. How a person earns, spends, saves, and invests is not only economic behavior, but also an expression of their ontological state — a mirror of cultural settings and social scenarios in which this will was formed. Therefore, financial maturity is not isolation from society, but the ability to choose the best for oneself within it — Sorge.

If inside there are fragmented impulses, dominated by Das Man, чужed goals, trends, fears, and desires — then finances are controlled externally. Money comes "unhindered by means and ways," and slips through one’s fingers because there is no point of assembly. Attempting to "pull oneself together" through sheer willpower doesn’t work: the will disintegrates because there’s nothing to attach to.

But when internal structure arises, when a person discovers Sorge within themselves — true care for themselves as being-in-the-world — then financial behavior changes qualitatively.

Life becomes truly productive, and money starts working in the direction set by conscious identity and real life goals. An internal measure emerges — what could be called financial ethics and discipline, but it no longer needs constant control: it has become part of the way of being.

Thus, personal finance becomes a continuation of existential awakening: a way of caring for oneself not as a set of needs but as a unique trajectory of existence.

In other words, our attention is our choice, our compass. It shows who we are becoming and what we get involved in. Therefore, the question is not how to "properly" manage money, time, or efforts, but what constitutes the center of gravity in our life — the dominant, the dynamic core, the vector of will.

External pressure weakens, and financial discipline grows from within when a person starts seeing, feeling, and wanting differently. This is true transformation — not by the force of will, but by a shift in essence.

And if we truly want sustainable change — in life, behavior, or money — we should start not with a budget, but with ourselves and our worldview. Not with restrictions, but with awareness. Only those who see can choose. Only those who choose can be free. If we are still dependent on something — let it be a responsible dependence on the authentic self!

Manage your life and personal finances wisely.
Knowledge is power!