Fate and free will in philosophical perspective

Fate and Free Will

The question of whether fate or free will have a greater affect on the lives of man is a question that has existed since man first became sentient. Fate refers to the individual being acted upon by outside forces that they cannot control. The concept of fate implies that we are not the masters of our own destiny, but rather that we are driven by forces that are beyond our control. Free will implies that individuals can have a direct influence on the outcomes of their lives by the actions that they take. This examination of fate and free will entails a comparison and contrast of three literary works. It will support the thesis that attitudes towards the role of fate vs. free will make an important change in societal attitudes.

The first work that will be examined is No Exit by Jean-Paul Sartre. This play centers on three characters that are placed in a room together in hell. All three characters have arrived in Hell through a direct action of their own. All of them made a decision to commit a horrible act on earth. Upon their death, they are placed in a room together. It is fate that places these three characters together. They could have been placed with more enjoyable companions with whom to spend eternity, but instead, they must spend a miserable afterlife in the company of each other.

Upon arrival in hell, each of the three characters is unwilling to admit that if was through some act of their own design, which resulted in their predicament. However, by the end, they all have to admit that although it was fate that placed them together, it by their own hand that they were there in the first place. They argue among themselves about whether they are together by an act of fate or freewill. They all try to justify their actions and argue that they did nothing wrong. Only Inez continues to accept responsibility for her predicament and argues that it was each of their own freewill that got them into their predicament.

Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov is another literary example that examines the question of fate or freewill as the ultimate juror of humanity. This novel is driven by several acts of fate that lead the main character through the plot. First, Humbert's obsession with Lolita is the result of an unfortunate and untimely death of a childhood sweetheart. Humbert is brought into the presence of Lolita by a fire, which forces him to look for another room to rent. It is fate that brings him to the home of Charlotte Haze, but is his own free will that makes him accept the offer.

There are several instances in Lolita where the role of fate and free will are questioned. This question is not directly addressed, but is left for the reader to decide. For instance, when Charlotte was struck by a car as she hastily darts down the street to mail letters that will ruin Humbert's romance with her daughter, was it fate or was it because she was not being careful? It could be argued either way: that fate caused the accident, or that she brought it on herself in her anger. Discovering herself to be alone in the world, Lolita feels that she has no choice but to accept Humbert's plan for her life. She feels as if she has no choice, attributing her circumstance to fate, but are there really no choices available. Is it that there are truly no choices available, or that she does not feel that they appeal to her, making free will the culprit in her future predicament?

In the end of Lolita both main characters experience a tragic twist of fate. Humbert is awaiting trial for murder, and act of his own free will. No one will argue that Humbert could have made other choices in this case. However, it can be argued whether his sudden coronary in the end was a twist of bad fate, or of good fate. On one hand, it ended his life, on the other; it saved him from life in prison. Lolita's death in childbirth brings up the same question. Was it a tragic death, or did it save her from a life of misery? Nabokov introduces the double-sided nature of fate and the idea that good or bad fate I a matter of perspective.

No Exit and Lolita explore the issue of fate vs. free will from several different perspectives. "No Exit" questions the role of fate in the predicament of humans. Lolita examines the question of fate more deeply be adding the dimension of perspective to the interpretation of the events. The audience at first feels sad that the characters died, but it also implies the life that they would live, and asks the question of which is worse. However, nowhere is the question of fate vs. free will more prevalent than in the Greek tragedy.

Fate vs. free will is one of the most common themes found in Greek plays. Soothsayers, prophets, and oracles attempt to provide insight into the role of fate. In Oedipus Tyrannus, Laius learns from an oracle that Oedipus is "doomed" to die by the hand of his own son. The word "doomed" is synonymous with the hand of fate. If someone is doomed, they cannot escape the fate that awaits. The entire play is typically spent trying to avoid the fate for which one is destined, usually without success. In the Greek tragedy, that which is predicted by the hand of fate usually comes to pass, even if in the end, it appears that it will not. This is the essence of fate in the Greek tragedy.