Re: free will and suffering from uncertainty
This is a continuation of the previous thread about Loneliness and meaningful work. I am publishing it separately because it stands on its own for the most part.
To use a metaphor, I have accepted that there are dark corners around me, which could be a vector of attack by some predator. Even though I would like to explore them all before going to bed, I am too tired to do so, as my energy is limited. No matter how much I try to shed light to every corner, more of them are revealed, but my body can only stay awake for so long. I eventually fall asleep, admitting that uncertainty surrounds me and its resulting fear is an emotion I can only ever accept and live with.
What I cannot escape about this idea of acceptance, is that it often feels that I do not have a choice in what thoughts and perspective I have in a given moment. I do not disagree with the value of accepting our limitations, and using that acceptance as a means of being present. But that does not stop myself (and others) from continuing to worry about said predators. Even though there is an understanding of the unproductiveness and impracticality of this state you are in.
The point of acceptance is not to choose which thoughts will occur such as, for example, to only think positively, but to take what happens for what it is, without judging it through the lens of “should”. If you are feeling a certain way, trying to force yourself to feel differently in that moment will only make you suffer.
When we set goals, we do them with the recognition that they involve a process of transformation. There is a change from state A to B, typically with intermediate steps. This means that moment-by-moment we are not at the goal and we may be making small steps laterally or even backwards. Although the momentary experiences are happening despite the longer-term plan, we still set ourselves up on the given path, such that we persist on what we are doing. There are times when we can push forward and others when we lack the resolve to do so. It then is all about the bigger picture of what is happening, not just the micro view of each moment in isolation.
Acceptance entails the recognition of our multifacetedness as a species. We place disproportionate value to rationality, thinking that it is somehow the superior faculty and the one to which every other force “should” be subordinated to. Though we know that we have emotions and needs of the body which cannot be reduced to rationality. For example, we understand viscerally what an aesthetic experience is, such as when we witness the awe of a sunset (which may not be with every sunset): we cannot explain it in purely rational terms, except by means of reduction. And “reduction” is exactly what the word suggests: you are taking something away from it. Some aspects of the world can only be felt.
Acceptance of multifacetedness, then, empowers us to be more lenient with people and our self. Instead of expecting every action to be purely rational, we understand that there is more to the human experience. Our life cannot fit into neat dichotomies of right versus wrong, except in specialised cases which are not generalisable. You cannot, for instance, describe a storm in terms of good against evil, but only as a fact which is. Thus, all the “should” and the “ought to” are couched in terms of a certain tolerance for indeterminacy, else nuance; tolerance of the subtleties of grey between the analytical extremes of black and white, as it were.
Greeks have a saying since antiquity which loosely translates as “there is no such thing as pure evil, for the world is one of admixture where bad things still have something good to them”. The more faithful translation is “nothing bad not intermixed with good” («ουδÎν κακόν αμιγÎĎ‚ καλού»). The inverse is true, namely, there is nothing purely good in our world. This is what nature teaches us through all the moments in our life. It sets us up for an outlook that is attuned to uncertainty.
The fact that you continue to worry about those predators that slither in the shadows is natural. And this is the point of practicality: you will think along those lines because such is your actuality. You will never be in a state of pure thought where everything is resolved prior to any action, such that no uncertainty remains. You cannot become “pure thought” because you are a human, with flesh and bone, forced into a world of action.
In this sense, what I suggest is to not argue against your nature, or nature in general, but to go with its flow. You will go will the flow, anyway, so better do it without kicking and screaming. There is a certain lightness to this approach, for it does not burden you with what essentially is an arbitrary commitment to be some impossible non-human human (e.g. homo economicus).
As an example, I was on a walk this morning simply trying to observe, and recognize my reaction to those observations. However, every observation was met with immediate questioning. These questions were along of the lines of “Do I enjoy this?”, “Why don’t I know if I enjoy this?”, “What do I think of this plant? I don’t know.”, etc. I recognize each of these internal questions and comments as impractical, yet I will still have them because that is what is happening. That is my experience at the moment.
These questions will persist and you will continue to recognise that they will not be resolved. Uncertainty is burdensome only to the extent that you try to address it as your sole preoccupation, only to find you are not capable to do it. The burden then, qua burden, is the flip-side of your powerlessness to this end.
This leads to further consideration that perhaps this is “who I am”. Observation may always reveal an active and wandering mind. The mind will always produce impractical questions and thoughts. And the only hope for admittance is if the mind produces it any given moment. I do not mean to present this as some gloomy outlook on life, because it also means that joy and curiosity can present itself at any moment. It only means that one cannot feel appreciation or acceptance on command. If I enjoy playing a game, or feel awe in the wonder of the universe once, it does not mean I will feel that way the second time.
It is neither gloomy nor blissful, but a state of “admixture”, as the Greeks see it. The “who I am” is dynamic. It is a process, with recognisable patterns which, nevertheless, remains open-ended. Again, uncertainty, nuance.
I have essentially converted all nuances of this conversation into a single topic of free will. The initial topic of loneliness and meaningful was just a front ;). I kid of course. However, it does seem as if one expects to make any progress towards navigating the human mind and living a life of practicality, they must confront this concern of free will.
They will confront it. Those who are lucky enough will quickly realise the futility of the endeavour and escape without suffering much damage. The rest will keep digging a hole all the way into the depths of the abyss where only depression awaits (writing from experience). I recently published an article where I basically explain how the further we probe into our own thoughts while disconnecting from the here-and-now of our experience, the more miserable we are: https://protesilaos.com/commentary/2024-12-02-exploration-otherworldly-darkness/.
A note here about free will, which I have not stressed, even if it is implicit. My view of it is that we have “some control”—or at least the inescapable impression of some control—but it is never complete control. The video I did about the three fates (choice, chance, inevitability) is consistent with this line of thinking: https://protesilaos.com/books/2024-09-17-three-fates-choice-chance-inevitability/.
We can come up with more questions and clever answers but are ultimately >tasked with living in the present of this world; a world of admixture >which for our purposes always is; a world where I cannot avoid the >impression that I am now choosing to write these words to you and where >even if I argue otherwise I still feel I made that choice and you feel >you were the intended recipient of it.
What you say above initially resonates with me, and addresses that concern. In particular: “a world where I cannot avoid the impression that I am now choosing to write these words to you and where even if I argue otherwise I still feel I made that choice and you feel you were the intended recipient of it”. I interpret this as it does not matter if there is actually any control, because you cannot escape the feeling that there is. And as long as that sense is there, there is potential to use reason and a practical outlook for progress. This is a practical perspective that makes sense.
Yet, I still face the same questions despite recognizing the impracticality of it.
I do apologize simplifying the various matters we were discussing in to a single one, but I was not able to have a sensitivity to the nuances of the topic in my current state. I am curious to see what your perspective , if there is further input at all. And I look forward to potential conversations we may have in the future!
This is fine. There is no need to apologise. We are trying to figure things out as we go. This is yet another indication of how we are always operating in a state of relative ignorance. I think what I wrote above provides food for thought to what you are wrestling with here. I am happy to elaborate on any point I made which you think is unclear.