Synopsis: Dannie Kohan has every part of her life mapped out. That is – until one night she has a dream that everything she has worked for will suddenly be transformed into a life unexpected. She tries everything in her power to prevent this dream from coming true. Will she succeed?
Author Rebecca Serle implicitly explores a question that has plagued philosophers since the beginning of time. Do we have free will, or are we bound by fate? 1 Her character Dannie captures the essence of this question in the quote “I used to think that the present determined the future. . . . That the future was simply a mound of clay waiting to be told by the present what form to take . . . . And [yet] I’m standing here, the very place of my dreams.” Throughout the book, Serle captures the internal struggle of Dannie to reconcile what she thought she knew about our freedom of choice and that ultimately that may turn out to be an illusion. Overall, this was a beautiful story with implications beyond the narrative told. It poses the question of free will to the reader to grapple with while they are either sympathizing with Dannie or condemning her actions.
I wanna explore the philosophical underpinnings of free will and fatalism so that one may reference the debate while reading this book. Free will can be defined in many various ways. However, most aptly put – it is the choice to choose a particular course of action. 2 The mental processes in one’s mind are independent, to a certain extent, of any causal factors. On the other hand, fatalism can be defined as no matter what actions we take all events will occur according to destiny. 3 In other words, there is no escape for some preordained plan of your life. These two competing notions are familiar to us in the most fundamental way. Subsequently, it raises a series of questions and concerns about how we operate our daily lives and more broadly speaking, our society.
If we have free will then we don’t have a destiny, right? This is in fact true with regards to fatalism. Every choice that we make will have a consequence (that may be out of our control). But, we are the agents responsible for making the choices. At first glance, this is nothing but an assumption that a majority already operate under. However, when examined more closely this can have anxiety provoking consequences. One example is that you may never meet a person you will marry. If all of your choices lead you to people you are incompatible with, then there is a chance that you won’t attain the goal of spending your life with another. This is also true for your career and so on. Ultimately, the notion of free will invokes the concept of responsibility (both in the moral and non-moral sense).
In contrast, if we examine the tenants of fatalism there is a similar but distinct picture painted. One can be destined to not have a soulmate. Therefore, the emotions and headache that one might experience is futile. Noting will change. Those entrenched in poverty can only look to fate to determine whether or not they will acquire any wealth. But with regards to responsibility, who do we hold accountable? If the criminal was destined to rob the store, why should we hold him/her accountable? They could not have acted different in which they would not have robbed the store. This retort is invoked to challenge the notion of fatalism. It takes the equally powerful human notion of fairness and justice and challenges the prior.
How do we choose which one to believe in? Is there any way they can be reconciled? This is a tricky conception and Serle deals with it in a beautiful way. While reading In Five Years, I recommend that one first decide where they stand in the debate regarding free will and fatalism. Do you believe we have a destiny to reach? Or, do you believe that we are the creators of our destiny. Then track the character development of Dannie. Do you find yourself following alongside her transition in thinking? Or, do you think that this is just another philosophical debate interwoven in a novel?
— Yours Truly,
Michael A. Westbrook
References
- I chose to use fatalism Serle (whether by design or not) utilizes doctrines of fatalism and not determinism. There is a blurry but nonetheless distinction between the two. Furthermore, the consequence of such distinction is that determinism is easier to reconcile with free will than is fatalism. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/
- Free will has been defined in many different ways and each with their own success and drawbacks. There are two notable examples. The first is the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (a person has freewill if they could choose to do otherwise). The second is that a persons first-order desires and second order volitions must be in accordance (i.e. I want to eat cake AND I want to want to eat cake). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/alternative-possibilities/#ObjeFranStylCase; https://www.jstor.org/stable/2024717
- Fatalism can be general or more specific depending on the theory. Some, in an attempt to reconcile it with free will, recognize fate as only a destination. It is the persons free will choices that will get them there through various paths. Others take a more absolutist approach and maintain that fatalism affects everything and that nothing we do is not fated. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fatalism/
Ivory Tower 