Freedom and Accidents

One of the enduring debates in the history of philosophy is that which concerns the question of human freedom. This debate has produced two camps representing two seemingly diametrically opposed views about freedom: the Marxists and the existentialists.

Marxists maintain that the latitude within which human freedom may operate at any given time is determined by the existing social configuration, which, in turn, is shaped by historical circumstances that unfold in accordance with the general directions in which history is moving, but which appear as unconnected accidents. Freedom is only an illusion because in the exercise of their power to choose, humans may at best only react to the various stimuli produced by social forces, which are beyond their individual control.  In other words, they are only playing out the roles which have been written by history for them, but which seem like accidents to their unsophisticated eyes.

Existentialists, on the other hand, would argue that humans are indeed free, and as such, must hold themselves responsible for their actions. Following this principle, Sartre—the most famous proponent of existentialism—characterized man’s tendency to blame the social structures or accidents for his shortcomings as an exercise “in bad faith.” He believed that the human power to choose is supreme. In fact, so great was his faith in human freedom he even remarked that God had made a mistake in endowing man with free will. He believed that in doing so, God had given man the power to thwart His plans.

Personally, I believe that both views about human freedom have merits. Indeed, we cannot ignore the Marxist ideas about the influence which society inexorably exercises on the individual. Most sociologists accept this notion. However, if we apply the same ideas to the context of an individual’s attempt to achieve personal development in spite of a hostile environment, we would have a serious moral crisis. For to evoke the Marxist dictum that “society makes man” whenever we are facing what we perceive as insurmountable difficulties, we would only be engaging in self-delusion–or act “in bad faith,” as existentialists would put it–because in such case, it is obvious that our decision to give up is as much to blame for our failure as the social structures that constrain our movements.

Below is a poem that I wrote many years ago. It touches on human helplessness in the face of bewildering myriad of occurrences—“accidents”—that man encounters day after day. The speaker in the poem encounters one such “accident.” However, halfway through the poem, it is revealed that the “accident” in question is not an accident after all. It is only a handiwork of an invisible force—very similar to (or different from) the Marxist idea I have discussed.

Enough. I am already getting ahead of myself.

I Met an Accident

It was a gloomy evening when

I met an accident

It bumped into my being and

Explained its real intent:

 

“Tonight the end has come to your

Forlorn and wretched state

It’s been laid down since days of yore–

It’s your preordained fate.”

 

It took some time for all these words

To sink into my head

But once they did, I, overjoyed,

Shook the stranger’s hand and said:

 

“It’s nice to meet you, accident

I’m glad you came along

I only wonder why, by gods,

Your coming took this long.”

 

The night as told is now long gone.

The night that changed my life

The night when accidentally

I met my future wife. Ω