Desmond: Free Will or Fatalism?

Morpheus: Do you believe in fate, Neo?
Neo: No.
Morpheus: Why not?
Neo: 'Cause I don't like the idea that I'm not in control of my life.



In case you haven't noticed, two of my favorite things are L O S T and The Matrix trilogy. But I thought the above quote would be a good entrée into a discussion of fate versus free will as embodied in Desmond David Hume's character. We don't seem to have as much of Desmond's backstory as, say, Jack or Locke. But I think there is enough there - as well as in his on-island experiences - to warrant a discussion.

Perhaps no other subject has received as much attention - in the ivory towers of academia as well as the booths of smoky pubs - as free will.



Even English philosopher Galen Strawson has lamented:

The facts are clear, and they have been known for a long time. When it comes to the metaphysics of free will, André Gide's remark is apt: 'Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again.'

The debate continues; some have thought that philosophy ought to move on. There is little reason to expect that it will do so, as each new generation arises bearing philosophers gripped by the conviction that they can have ultimate responsibility. Would it be a good thing if philosophy did move on, or if we became more clear- headed about the topic of free will than we are? It is hard to say.

As the 18th Century English literary figure, Samuel Johnson, once opined with regard to free will: "All theory is against freedom of the will; all experience is for it." Didn't he hit the nail right on the head with that one? In almost every moment of our lives we feel free to do whatever we choose, and we don't feel like we are caused to choose by anyone or anything. In our more clear-headed moments we concede that we are influenced by certain factors, but we are not determined to act in ways that are out of 'our' control. As I sit here typing, I could choose to have another cup of delicious coffee - or not; I could choose to pack up my computer and instead go for a run, etc. I have absolute control over my choices and, therefore, my life.

Or do I?

I can certainly sit here and deliberate over whether or not I want another cup of coffee. I can think about how delicious it is, how the caffeine might help me think more clearly about this blog post, and how the extra antioxidants in the coffee itself might be beneficial to my body. Or I can think about how jittery an extra cup of coffee will make me, and how annoyed the people sitting next to me in the café will be while my leg keeps bouncing up and down uncontrollably, or how long it will take me to fall asleep tonight because I've exceeded my personal caffeine tolerance.

But who or what is the arbiter in this decision? Theoretically it would seem that I could go on and on like this, deliberating until the cows come home, never arriving at a decision. What tips the scales one way and not another? This line of questioning actually touches on topics such as the nature of the self and causal determinism. But more on that later. Let's look at Desmond's life, as much as can be gleaned from his experiences both on the island and off it.

First of all, the look on Des's face in this moment of his Catch-22 episode pretty much captures his dilemma, wouldn't you say?



You can see the pained deliberation, torn between reaching his beloved Penelope and saving Charlie's innocent life. We know he does the 'right' thing and saves Charlie instead. Is this Desmond exercising his free will? Could Desmond have chosen otherwise? Most of us would say he could have.

In contrast to this traditional and, most would say, commonsense view of the freedom of human will, is the idea of fatalism. The concept of fatalism basically comes in two flavors. The first one says that human beings do in fact have free will, but it doesn't matter: all events in the world are predestined. It doesn't matter what one does, the outcome will inevitably and inexorably be the same. The other variety says that human beings do not have free will, and thus everything is determined to happen exactly as it does.

The mix of both views seems to be espoused by the shopkeeper Desmond meets when he goes to find a ring for Penny - Mrs. Hawking:

Desmond: Oh, my God! You knew that was going to happen, didn't you? [she nods] Then why didn't you stop it? Why didn't you do anything?

Mrs. Hawking: Because it wouldn't matter. Had I warned him about the scaffolding tomorrow he'd be hit by a taxi. If I warned him about the taxi, he'd fall in the shower and break his neck. The universe, unfortunately, has a way of course correcting. That man was supposed to die. That was his path...just as it's your path to go to the island. You don't do it because you choose to, Desmond. You do it because you're supposed to.

However, it should be noted that we don't know if Mrs. Hawking is a true exponent of fatalistic thinking, or if she's merely trying to manipulate Desmond in the grander scheme of things. We don't even know who she is, for Pete's sake. But her notion of the universe having a mechanism for 'course correcting' sounds an awful lot like fatalism. However, her formulation here also seems to impute some property of purpose to the universe - but that gets into an area we really don't have time for in this post. That's a quasi-religious issue.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Mrs. Hawking is a true exponent of fatalism: the idea that no matter what one does, the ultimate outcome will be the same - it is 'fated' to happen in a certain way and no other. As a knockered Desmond tells Charlie and Hurley: "You can't change it, no matter what you try to do! You just can't change it!" Clearly the experience of turning the key, having the (apparent) chance of going back in time to make things right, yet still ending up in the 'bloody snow globe' of the island has had an effect on poor Desmondo. Given all that, I can appreciate his despondency.

But does Desmond need to adopt such a defeatist attitude? Obviously his experiences are unique and profoundly disturbing - and convincing - at least to Desmond. I don't think any of us can say we've experienced anything similar - at least not sober. But I think there is a way to see fatalism for the misguided philosophy it is.

Indulge me for a moment. It seems that modern neuroscience combined with the well-supported scientific theory of evolution by natural selection (i.e., common descent with modification) shows that human beings are completely included in the natural order of things, including being subject to the laws of cause and effect. The brain is a physical organ like the liver or the pancreas, subject to the relevant laws of biology, chemistry and physics. The theory of determinism basically says that every event is the result of prior events. To have true free will, one would have to be able to circumvent or otherwise bypass this chain of cause and effect; otherwise one's choices are not free because all of the factors that led to that choice have been determined. And if we were omniscient, we would be able to trace all of those causes, back to the moment we were born. In that regard, free will could be seen as 'super-natural'.

But fatalism could also be seen as super-natural, in the sense that whatever is causing the inevitable outcome in question is not influenced by human action. That doesn't seem quite fair, now does it? But my assessment is what I could call backward-looking. Sure, we can (theoretically) trace all of the causes of our actions and show how they were determined, but what about forward-looking? Can we start at the present time and project all of the cause and effect relationships into the future so that we will know what will happen? I would say no, because the future hasn't happened yet. (Although, J. Wood has a provocative and seemingly plausible account of 'Minkowski space' that might prove my theory wrong - at least in the L O S T universe. See his blog post about it for more info.)

So, if the future hasn't happened yet, then how do we know what the outcome will be? It has been argued that the future is not inevitable, and that we only discover the future as we live it and make choices. Our decisions and actions contribute to determining the course of our own life and those affected by our lives. One could say that the total aggregate of all human action is what produces the future. On this view, the future is not fixed. What we do, and the choices we make, do indeed matter. And we may have gotten a subtle clue to this when Desmond took a cricket bat to the face for the bartender:



It's always tricky to try and speculate about the show because, not only do we not have the whole story, but the powers that be haven't yet given us a definite ontology of the show - and for good reasons.

Desmond seems to epitomize the idea of free will. He seems to realize this in that bar when he took the hit for the bartender, and he regrets not making things right with Penny - making the assumption that he could make things right, if only he could go back in time again. He even desperately tries to save Charlie repeatedly. But what if, as our best and most current science seems to indicate, free will is an illusion? Do Desmond's choices and actions still affect the future outcome of events? Is there a middle ground between contra-causal free will and outright fatalism?

Yes - if we combine the fact that human choice and action affect future outcomes with the notion that humans can deliberate and make voluntary choices. Some of you might recognize this description as the philosophical position of compatibilism. Compatibilism says that determinism is true, but that human beings nevertheless have free will - at least the varieties of free will worth wanting. The contemporary English philosopher Galen Strawson describes the compatibilist position this way:

According to compatibilists, we do have free will. They propound a sense of the word 'free' according to which free will is compatible with determinism, even though determinism is the view that the history of the universe is fixed in such a way that nothing can happen otherwise than it does because everything that happens is necessitated by what has already gone before.

Suppose tomorrow is a national holiday. You are considering what to do. You can climb a mountain or read Lao Tse. You can mend your bicycle or go to the zoo. At this moment you are reading the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy . You are free to go on reading or stop now. You have started on this sentence, but you don't have to... finish it.

In this situation, as so often in life, you have a number of options. Nothing forces your hand. It seems natural to say that you are entirely free to choose what to do. And, given that nothing hinders you, it seems natural to say that you act entirely freely when you actually do (or try to do) what you have decided to do.

Compatibilists claim that this is the right thing to say. They believe that to have free will, to be a free agent, to be free in choice and action, is simply to be free from constraints of certain sorts. Freedom is a matter of not being physically or psychologically forced or compelled to do what one does. Your character, personality, preferences, and general motivational set may be entirely determined by events for which you are in no way responsible (by your genetic inheritance, upbringing, subsequent experience, and so on). But you do not have to be in control of any of these things in order to have compatibilist freedom. They do not constrain or compel you, because compatibilist freedom is just a matter of being able to choose and act in the way one prefers or thinks best given how one is.

So I think it's safe to say that for Desmond to adopt a fatalist position toward life is unwise at best and flat out wrong at worst. Additionally, Desmond does have the power to affect the future even though he doesn't have what most of us would call 'free will'. But suffice it to say that Desmond's actions can alter the future in ways that are beneficial to him and to others. After all, he kept Charlie alive long enough to secure apparent rescue for the survivors, right? The time travel aspect of the show keeps all of this speculation up in the air somewhat, at least until we know more about what exactly happened to Desmond when he turned that fail safe key.



An interesting aside would be to explore Desmond's apparent 'cowardice' in light of determinism and free will and what Sartre has to say about it. But this post is already too long. Maybe I'll return to it in a later post...








Lost