The question of free will is one of the oldest and most enduring questions faced by humanity. It was contemplated by the ancient Greeks in their tragedies, such as in King Oedipus, where it appears that the hero’s fate is predetermined, regardless of his efforts to prevent or change it. The Greeks, and their cultural successors the Romans, spoke of the three Fates who wove and spun the destinies of individuals and cut the thread of their lives at a predetermined moment.
This question is much more clearly explained in the teachings of the East about dharma, karma, and reincarnation. Dharma is the law by which every living being has a destiny that arises from its own nature. Just as an acorn will become an oak tree, so will a human develop their full human expression over time, over a long period of time. Hence the teaching of reincarnation. Karma is the law of action and reaction by which every action, every deed we do, on any level (including invisible levels such as thoughts or feelings), has consequences, depending on the whether or not our actions are in accordance with the natural laws of life. In this way, we build karma – “good” or “bad” – which brings us the sweet or bitter fruits of our past actions. The purpose of this process is to help us learn about the laws, ensure justice, and establish the safety of the entire system, as unrestricted freedom of action without consequences leads to the collapse of universal order.
This approach implies the concept of a leading intelligence and the element of free will of actors on the stage of life’s theater. Eastern philosophers would say that Oedipus came to tragedy through the accumulation of past karma, or perhaps through the karma of his family or the culture to which he belonged. However, what falls within the realm of his free will is how to react to the fateful tragedy: with dignity and nobility, or with resentment, anger, bitterness, and hatred.
No one can force us to think or to act in a certain way; we always have the freedom to say “yes” or “no” to everything that life offers us, accepting the consequences. Our decisions, and therein lies our free will.
The stoic philosophers of ancient Rome, such as Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, took a very similar approach. They believed that many external circumstances of life are beyond our control, for example: the family or country we are born into, our health, reputation, wealth, and so on.
We can change some of these factors to a certain extent through our own actions, but not others. For example, a serf born on a feudal estate in the Middle Ages had negligible chances of escaping such a way of life. Or if someone was unjustly imprisoned in a police state, very little could be done about it. Therefore, our free will is very limited by these external aspects, however, according to the stoics, it is unlimited in our inner life and our own actions. No one can force us to think or to act in a certain way; we always have the freedom to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (or even ‘maybe’) to everything that comes our way. Life offers, accepting the consequences of our decisions, and therein lies our free will. However, for some philosophers, free will is not only limited, but it also does not exist. In medieval Christian and Islamic philosophy, there were great debates about whether humans have free will, and there were some daring thinkers who even questioned whether God, the source of everything, has free will. On one hand, there were those who claimed that we are completely dependent on God, the all-powerful creator, on whom everything depends. On the other hand, there were those who believed that God gave humans the freedom to choose between good and evil and that life would be meaningless if such a choice were not given. During the Renaissance, the idea of free will was dominant. A sense of self-confidence and optimism permeated the human spirit, and it was believed that humans are masters of their own destiny and can achieve anything they want – which was reflected in magnificent art. and cultural aspects of that period.
Several centuries later, a pessimistic philosophy prevailed. David Hume (1711 – 1776) believed that despite the ability to think, humans are completely subject to their own passions and not as free as they liked to imagine. The same idea can be found in Freud’s view of humans, who are dominated by instinctual urges that can be controlled by social norms, but are always on the verge of erupting if not controlled. What cruelties was the seemingly civilized person capable of once the superficial glaze of civilization was removed?
So what about free will? Is it possible to find a conclusive answer to that question? The fact is that both sides (determinism and free will) are partially justified, as indicated by the teachings of dharma and karma. There is determinism of karma or destiny (whichever term we prefer), but there is also free will to decide and act within given circumstances.
There is determinism of karma. Fate or destiny exist, but there is also free will to decide and act in given circumstances.
The Neoplatonic philosopher Plotinus (204-270 AD) argued that the reason we are preoccupied with the question of free will is because we are driven by necessity and powerful impulses of passion that possess our soul, believing that all of it governs us, enslaving us [similar to Hume’s view] and moving us where it leads, we have come to doubt that we are anything and that nothing is within our power…1
“Yes, there is the obstacle!”, as Hamlet said. Are we anything at all? Are we real or are we, like in the Matrix, a product of a computer simulation created by a heartless intelligence? Plotinus says that to answer this question, we must return to the very source of everything which, as he says, logically must be One, the first principle, an uncaused cause. Does this principle, which Indian philosophers simply called “That”, have free will or was the entire universe created unintentionally, accidentally, or because the first cause desired it to be so? “forehead was “forced” by necessity to create the entire universe because it could not resist, but act in accordance with its own nature?” In the first case, Plotinus shows that no chance can precede the first principle, but that it necessarily has to arise from itself, as well as everything else. And in the second case, the first principle cannot be subject to necessity because all laws, including the principle of necessity, must also arise from it, and it would be absurd to think that something that is the supreme good, to which everything strives, can be subject to anything, as Plotinus describes in his great work “The Enneads” in the chapter on free will and the One. According to Plotinus’ philosophy, the world is created by emanation: from the One, from pure fullness: It is necessary that before there is multiplicity, there is the One from which that multiplicity originates, because the One precedes every number. (V.3,12). The One is the first and indivisible. Plotinus speaks of it with awe, as the sublime goal of every living being. It is the cause and source of everything. The One is the supreme Good. because everything that exists tends towards the source from which it originated. It is above all, and at the same time in everything.
If that is the case, then we truly have free will because based on what is truly within us, we can act independently of all circumstances. In practical terms, this means that if we wake up in a bad mood in the morning, we can at least exercise our will, the highest expression of our being, and decide not to succumb to the bad mood and, in general, not to allow fatigue or something else to be the cause of our loss of human dignity.
There is the supreme Good because everything that exists tends towards the source from which it originated. It is above all, and at the same time in everything. If that is the case, then we truly have free will because based on what is truly within us, we can act independently of all circumstances.
Belief in free will does not deny the existence of chance or determinism in certain aspects of life, and these two influences can coexist harmoniously if we know how to act wisely.
1 Ennead, 6 8th January 2020.