Nothing Occurs at Random

This week I have come across a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher named Leucippus. According to Wikipedia, he "is credited with developing the philosophical school of atomism. He proposed that all things are made up of microscopic, indivisible particles that interact and combine to produce all the things of the world." He developed this theory with his student Democritus, in the 5th century BCE.

But the Wikipedia article is careful to point out that there are great differences between Leucippus's 'atomism' and modern atomic theory: "Instead of the purely material atoms of Leucippus, modern atomic theory shows that fundamental forces combine subatomic particles into atoms and link atoms together into molecules."

In his work, On Mind, he wrote, "Nothing occurs at random, but everything from reason and by necessity." Yet at the same time, he rejected the idea that there was an intelligent force (or deity) controlling the universe.

I'm not sure I agree with him. "Nothing occurs at random, but everything from reason and by necessity." In which case, where does free will fit in? If everything occurs "by necessity", then what difference can we, as human beings, make to the world? 

I would rather believe that, although there are many forces at play in how events in our world come to pass, nevertheless, the actions of individual human beings can make a difference. There is a theory that a small stone, placed in exactly the right place in a river, can change the course of that river. In human terms, the actions or words of a single person, done or said at exactly the right time, can change the beliefs of a whole society, its awareness of a particular situation that people have (up until that point) accepted unthinkingly. For example, Rosa Parks sitting down on a bus, and refusing to get up because a white person wanted her seat, is an example of one small action ultimately making a huge difference.

So I believe that it is possible to make a positive difference, by our actions and words. That nothing is inevitable, although I completely understand why things may seem to be so. It takes a lot of courage to go against the accepted flow of one's society, to stand up for the possibility of a new and better way of doing things, a new and better way of human interaction.

I suppose that the second part of Leucippus's quote may cover this: that "everything [occurs] from reason"... so it is when a person (or people) use their innate reasoning powers and come up with new understandings of the world, that change becomes possible.

Or, just possibly, it is when a person listens to the "still small voice" of their conscience, or of God inside them (depending on your beliefs) that they become able to grow and change and interact with the world around them in a more positive way.

To conclude, while we may believe that nothing occurs at random, there are very many forces at work in the world, which influence the things which do occur, including human free will, reason, and conscience.

Not Choosing is Also a Choice

The French Existentialist philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, once wrote, "I can always choose, but I ought to know that if I do not choose, I am still choosing."

When I read those words, I recognised their truth straight away. I think that what he is saying, is that each human being has free will (I would say, God-given free will, with which I'm sure Sartre would disagree) and so it is up to each and every one of us to exercise that free will, by making choices in our lives.  Because if we choose *not* to make a choice about something, then that is the choice of apathy, and the only thing that achieves is to make us passengers in our own stories, rather than drivers. (For example, people who do not exercise their right to vote, believing that their single vote will make no difference. It does.)

According to Wikipedia, Sartre's "primary idea is that people, as humans, are 'condemned to be free.' He explained, 'This may seem paradoxical because condemnation is normally an external judgement which constitutes the conclusion of a judgement. Here, it is the not the human who has chosen to be like this... Their being is not determined, so it is up to everyone to create their own existence, for which they are then responsible. They cannot not be free, there is a form of necessity for freedom, which can never be given up.'"

It might be argued that there are situations we might find ourselves in, when no obvious choice is possible. But I think Sartre is saying that it is always possible for us to make a choice, even if the only choice we can make is how we respond to our situation. But that we do have the responsibility to make that choice. As he wrote, "it is up to everyone to create their own existence, for which they are then responsible."

For example, during the last month, I have been told to sit with my foot up all day long, except for taking a brief hurple around the downstairs rooms once an hour. And I have chosen to obey that dictum, so that my foot will heal better and more quickly. I have also chosen to make the best of it, by setting up a table alongside my chair, on which my journals, pens and laptops sit, ready for use. I bought myself a cheap lap tray, which has been a boon and a blessing, because it has enabled me to write and work without having to attempt balancing anything on my legs. I've also chosen to embrace the chance of spending more time writing and crocheting than I normally would...

I could have chosen to moan, whinge and complain about the enforced inactivity, but I have chosen instead to "make the best of it". And I believe that the choice to make the best of whatever hand fate or life deals us, is the finest choice in the world. Because it gives us agency in our lives. And that is precious.