Over the past four weeks I have been reacquainted with the theories of Free Will and Determinism. As I mentioned in an earlier blog, theses theories were presented to me in the beginning of my philosophical studies and I had long since forgotten about them. These theories are of a purely external sense, meaning their 'source of power' comes from something outside of the minds in which they are understood. For these theories to hold any reasonable ground for a human, their mind would have to be quite sure that their sensuous world is filled with truths and meaning by which they allow themselves to be guided. The positing of an external 'power,' such as a god or a force through which Free Will is decided and Determinism is employed, is of the same ilk of ones understanding of the sensuous world; i.e a human of particular conscious style thinks that all meaning or truth is outside of themselves, in the world around them or the force above them. This style of thinking gives these theories of Free Will and Determinism their foundational existence. If one allows themselves to think that the world is simply coming to be around and irrefutably outside of them, and that this world can only encroach upon them with no reciprocal relationship, that leaves the entirety of the heavens open to the workings of some unknown being.
As I understand it, approaching the sensuous world as something in which my presence has no affect upon, is utterly wrong. This style of consciousness is absolutely a product of my continuous philosophical studies and of mental experiments in which I work hard to dislodge my mind from all the ways it has been constructed by the understood "ways of the world." Being so, these theories of Free Will and Determinism hold no ground for me.
For example, in the movie The Adjustment Bureau, the character David Norris refused to accept the instruction of the Bureau. Throughout his life it seemed that many things had been determined for him; suffering the loss of his family, his image as a politician and his resulting future. After he runs into the love of his life, by chance in the bathroom, he has a realization that he is in complete control of himself, and continues to give a speech in which he reveals the ways in which his campaign has been designed to subconsciously entice voters. Because of the chance meeting of this woman he loves, David is set off by his own passion; something he knows to be fully and truly his own. The Bureau, having other plans for David, work very hard to keep him from his love, for she is not in their plan. Their decided plan has already given David's life meaning and relevance in all things but this woman; her appearance shows David meaning in something which he never planned to know. Even when the Bureau is forced to reveal itself to David, and threaten him with both life altering and ending consequences, he refuses to allow it. By the end of the film, through his unrelenting rebellion against the Bureau and belief in his own passions, both David and his love are released from the determining imposition of the Bureau.
This example, though it is as Hollywood as can be, is a great analogy for the refusal of these theories, or more appropriately, the "so what?" attitude that one has the ability to take on. One only has to realize their potential to posit their own meaning, their own spirit and decided perception of the world. This, of course, opens the door for many societal and religious repercussions, but does not eliminate the potential for one to lead a wholesome and harmonious life.
No comments:
Post a Comment