Existentialism vs. Causality

This has really been on my mind the past day or so after a discussion on the novel Native Son.

All of me really wants to believe in the ideas behind existentialism, and i take alot of comfort in knowing that i am in control of my own life, and my choices make me who i am. However hard determinalism which is a widely accepted theory, also seems as if it could make sense no matter how much i dislike the idea.

A teacher once told me that life is like a game of pool, everything is determined by the breaking shot. after the balls have been scattered, it is just a matter of knocking them all into the pockets. All the moves have been pre determined by the break.

If this is the case, then can anyone be held responsible for anything? A man only murdered his wife because he grew up with a violent father, who in turn was only violent becuase he was cheated on by his first girlfriend, who only cheated because she was used to her mother having several boyfriends at a time and thought it was typical and acceptable, and so on…If so, what is the point of existence at all if a person isn’t even in control of their own life.

What are your thoughts?

I used to consider myself a “card-carrying existentialist”, and still do to some degree because my theories of why people believe in things such as God resemble Kierkegaard’s views heavily, but the question of freewill has bothered me heavily.

I think it was David Hume who actually said freewill needs determinism, otherwise everything is random and not really in our control, but that at the same time determinism and freewill appear to be incompatible.

So, in my opinion, it’s more likely that we don’t have freewill than that we do, but does it really matter? People will continue to believe murder is wrong, whether or not they believe they have freewill. I seriously doubt I have freewill and still believe murder to be wrong.

The facts of our origin and past we cannot change. (Where we were born, who are parents are,etc.) But we have the ability to choose how we view those facts and what we do in the present moment.(Cognitive freedom-thinking things through.) If we view ourselves as victims of our circumstances, we set ourselves up for failure. (The so-called self-fulfilling prophesy.) On the other hand, we can use our experiences as resources to face the challenges of the present. (“What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger.”) We are free to determine what we do with our lives now. We can, within limits, create ourselves. The situation is often ambiguous and our time is finite. But it is possible to face our anxiety, clarify what we value and go after those goods. (Not just material goods.) It is possible to create a satisfying life for yourself.

What about Others? (Anyone who knows their 20th century existentialism knows what I’m talking about!)

That seems like you are leaning towards that idea of soft determinalism, but to contradict that idea, the way you end up viewing yourself is preditermined by your background and such. Everything that a person does is done because of this idea, even though that person may “think” they are choosing. This whole idea of choice is what is confusing. According to Existentialism, we make our own choices which make us who we are, while Causality states that who we are makes our choices. Is choice an illusion or a reality? that is the real question.

:evilfun: If only somoene would make a really cool movie about this with awsome fight scenes and robots that take over all of hummanity :evilfun: