Blog post #10,
Sailing Past Reason
On Living with Contradiction in the Face of Determinism and Free Will
There is a contradiction at the heart of being human.
Science tells us that we are determined. Atoms don’t choose. Chemical reactions don’t have intentions. The brain is made of atoms and chemistry. Therefore, in a scientifically coherent view of the world, human thought and action — like everything else — is the result of causes, not choices.
And yet, I choose.
I weigh options. I imagine futures. I regret the past. I hold others accountable for what they do, and I expect them to do the same to me. Every fiber of my lived experience insists that something is up to me — that I am an agent in the world, not just a node in a flowchart.
So which is it?
Am I free or am I determined?
The honest answer is: both.
And that answer is a problem.
The Logic Break
If logic demands consistency, then to say that I am both determined and free is to violate logic. And if I accept one violation, then what’s to stop me from accepting others? Am I not, at that point, just making it all up?
It’s a fair worry. After all, I base many of my beliefs on reason. I reject superstition. I don’t appeal to metaphysical entities. I hold truth to the fire of evidence. And yet, here I am — making what seems like a deliberate exception to reason because the alternative feels unbearable.
But maybe that’s not quite right.
Limits vs. Failures
There’s a difference between abandoning reason and reaching the limits of what reason can resolve.
The contradiction between determinism and freedom isn’t like believing in astrology. It’s not a comforting fiction or a hopeful metaphor. It’s a collision between two seemingly undeniable realities:
- One grounded in science — the logic of cause and effect.
- The other grounded in experience — the reality of choosing, acting, becoming.
I don’t reject reason. I follow it as far as it goes. And then I notice that it stops — that it cannot reconcile these two truths.
That’s not irrationality. That’s realism.
Not Anything Goes
Still, it’s worth asking: if I allow this one exception, do I open the door to anything? Can anyone now justify any belief just because it “feels real”?
No. Because not all beliefs are equal. I still use:
- Evidence
- Coherence
- Philosophical rigor
- Predictive success
… to evaluate claims. I haven’t surrendered those tools. I’ve just admitted that some problems are deeper than the tools themselves.
That’s not relativism. It’s a mature acknowledgment that some aspects of reality resist full integration into a single, flawless system.
Why Not Compatibilism?
Philosophers have tried to resolve this through compatibilism — the idea that freedom and determinism aren’t actually in conflict. We are free, they say, when we act according to our desires and reasoning, even if those desires are themselves determined.
Maybe that works for some. But it feels like a sleight of hand to me. It reframes the question without touching the depth of the dilemma.
I’m not just trying to rescue moral responsibility. I’m trying to live honestly with the feeling of being both a cause and an effect, both a self and a system.
Sailing Past Reason
So yes, I accept contradiction. Not lightly. Not recklessly. But because both sides of the contradiction feel true — inescapably so.
I do not believe anything. But I do believe this one impossible thing, because the alternative is to lie — either to my scientific understanding or to my lived experience.
We are not built for perfect consistency.
We are built to navigate a world that doesn’t always explain itself.
Sometimes, to remain honest, we must sail past reason — not into fantasy, but into the open water beyond what logic can chart.
This article resonates with themes explored in The Metropolis Organism — a video series examining cities as literal biological systems, where human beings function not as masters, but as necessary organelles in a living urban body.
Comments
Post a Comment