by Carl Nelson (July 2025)
This essay is intended to continue the discussion begun by Armando Simón, in his essay “Free Will is a Mirage” in the June, 2025 edition of the New English Review.
My older brothers are identical twins. One day when he was very young my older brother Gary came home quite upset and said to mom, “Mom. Is I Gary, or is I Larry?”
My mother told him, “Why you’re Gary, of course.”
“Well, that’s what I thought,” snapped Gary. “But _______ (an acquaintance) told me I was Larry!”
This episode, for me, paints a fairly revealing account of the argument regarding “free will.” As Gary appeared to be to the acquaintance, he was Larry. His fate was fixed. But Gary knew better. He knew himself to be Gary and for help went running to mom.
Isn’t this much the case, as we enter (and move through) life? We are seemingly fated to be what we are. A squirrel is a squirrel. A dog is a dog. And I am me, even though I go to sleep to dream myself as all sorts of things. Yet, I wake up again, and here I am… just as I left off. You look in the mirror each day, and there is no escaping it: there you are! (Same old protruding stomach… same receding hair line.)
The fatalists among us generally describe this situation as thus: Nobody actually changes in this life, we just become more of what we are as we age.
This might very well be true of a well-lived life. But what are we?
Armando Simon writes: “Perhaps the best evidence of determinism and lack of free will are the studies of twins. To choose one pair of twins: separated at birth and raised by different families, upon being discovered in adulthood, they were found to have identical traits at an unnerving level.”
I’ve also read studies done of identical twins and some of the coincidental aspects of their lives are indeed, uncanny. They’ll select the same product brands, wear like outfits, etc. I have two first hand experiences with identical twins. The first was that of my two older brothers, Gary and Larry. The second was that of our adopted son, Thawit, who we found later to have an identical twin brother Thawi, who grew up in England. (This is a bit of a story in itself. His brother had never been told he had an identical twin. So, it was quite a surprise when our son located him on Facebook.) Of course, they look alike. But they also shared like interests, (had created artwork which resembled the other’s), shared an interest in clothing fashion and brands, music, and cooking.
Nevertheless the idea of a fated life arranges best in hindsight. In foresight, it lacks reliability.
In hindsight, much can appear foreordained and fated. But if fatalism were proven, future predictions would have more that the mere statistical standing of an aberration. Prophets would be everywhere! Scads of people nowadays will claim to know just what a certain person would say in a certain situation. But how many are right? Personally, I’m often taken aback by how people I thought I knew respond to an event. And, my goodness, a lot of us know the awkwardness of having misjudged our audience.
Armando notes that: “A person knows how his son or wife behaves and can easily anticipate their behavior. Likewise, we all have close friends whom we know and can anticipate how they will act.”
But I also find that I am often wrong in anticipating behaviors. For example, I was using a concoction which I would apply in bed for a medical condition I had. I didn’t think, and I let it stain the sheets. I thought my wife would fly off the handle at my thoughtlessness. But, instead, she noted (after I’d taken all the bedding off) that we really didn’t need to wash the sheets—but we could “see if the stain would come out.” I can generally judge what my wife’s reactions might be—but it would still be chancy to wager on any of them specifically.
One of the most common remarks I hear both in the arts and on the social media is the comment, “can we really know somebody?” All the time we encounter actions by people we “thought we knew” and just shake our heads.
On the other hand, there are actors who are quite adept, who are quite good at convincing their audience that they have totally comprehended an individual. You’ll hear this said all of the time. That there are actors so good, that they have totally “become their characters”. And they are so good at selling it, that audiences consistently like the actor in the role much better than the real person. And as far as popular opinion fashions the truth, the actor’s version of the individual triumphs.
But if we really can’t fully know another individual, how much can we say contributed (or will contribute) to their fate?
Fatalists would imagine all that is within us, and all that there is without of us, and top of this believe they can quantify the measure of each so as to reach the inescapable conclusion that we are the fated narrative of our cumulative attributes and desires which comprise our endowment—which necessarily germinates our fate. But this is quite a stretch to take on faith, or even examples.
As writers phrase it, character determines plot. Or as the fatalists who repeat science believe, our nature is written in our genes. Or as the Bible relates it, we struggle with Original Sin. And I would wager that these generally accepted insights are true.
Nevertheless, much of what is regarded under the evidences of fatalism category might much more likely simply be the product of common sense. Sure, a man could decide to quit his job and sail to the South Seas, or escape it for the day and go to the beach. But the reason he doesn’t is likely not because he is genetically pre-disposed to prefer cubicle life. Likely, he has more important priorities than his own pleasure, and common sense disciplines him—not his proclivities.
That many of the events the fatalists would consider fated may very well be nothing but the simple workings of common sense would certainly meet the criteria of Ockham’s Razor, “which says that if you have two competing ideas to explain the same phenomenon, you should prefer the simpler one.” (Google) Squirrels will climb trees and dogs will bark. Squirrels can try to bark but it comes out more as a chuckle. And dogs are generally flops at climbing trees. But they recognize this, and move on. Surely, people tend to ride their bicycles facing forward while the chimp chooses to ride it in from a multitude of comical postures. But this is not because the chimp has free will whereas we do not. It’s just common sense. Riding a bike is most successfully done facing forward, unless you’re auditioning for the circus.
It is paradoxical that those who, on the contrary, most ardently believe in nurture over nature, also believe that we are fatally determined by this nurture. In their manner they are also fatalists. Their belief is that nurture determines us, that our fate is something our substance is bent towards, rather like a bonsai shrub. In other words, they bequeath agency to the external world, while denying it to the individual. We are what our surroundings make us. For example, they hold that currently instead of having a sexual type, we exhibit a gender preference. Quixotically, it is a collective free will which designs the individual’s free will. In other words, Gary is Larry. His acquaintance interpreted the dominant understanding correctly. Now, if Gary would just shut up! we would all be on the same page and could move forward.
But he won’t, which is why we keep continuing this discussion.
It doesn’t seem fair to say that life is fated, until you’ve selected various lives at birth and described just how each will go—and then find out if you’re right. This would comprise a proper scientific proof. Until then your fatalism is simply a belief. Personally, I tend to believe just the opposite, that life is a chaotic maelstrom of free will, rather like the weather. With most people prioritizing their own desires while trying to play the cards they are dealt as successfully as they are able. If there is one thing life has seemed to tell me at my advanced age, is how many times I am wrong. (Jeeze! I could have made so much money during the dot.com burst.) The nephew who I picked to be the greatest spoiled brat, turned out to be quite friendly and considerate. The niece who seemed most headstrong became quite deferential. Granted, I also see this other side to them, but even though…
Really, the facts are not all in, nor will they ever likely be. So, it’s probably most reasonable to simply describe and live by what we believe. So I will leave the fatalist to believe what they will.
Nevertheless, to me, free will and fate exist as a dialectic; neither of which can exist without the other. Without form or structure, free will cannot exist as there would be no here nor there, no object of our desire. And without free will, form and structure would be nonsensical. What would they matter if they were or were not? So, I view free will and fate as two partners in a symbiotic process. Fate is the hand you are dealt, and free will is how you chose to play it. Fate is a squirrel, and free will is what that squirrel does with its attributes. I see fate and free will working like a hand, where fate represents the four fingers, and free will the opposable thumb. The four fingers are oriented towards the task to be done. The thumb allows the fine movements necessary to the requirements of the task. Just as the phrase “free will” contains the dialectic: “free” and “will” (which attach the inviolate and the directed).
It seems there are two cases which illustrate the intermingled relationships of fate and free will. One would be the bestowed fate of identical twins. Another would be the acquired fate of marriage. And both shared fates seemed to have resolved their difficulties by choosing activities which complimented the other’s choice.
Actually, growing up with two older identical twin brothers was like watching fate and free will fighting it out every day! Larry felt that Gary should naturally want what he wanted, and Gary felt the reverse. So that Larry wanted what Gary wanted, and Gary wanted what Larry wanted. Or, they both wanted different things, which was just darned… stupid! On this they could agree. There was a lot there to fight over! They may not have had free will, but their fate certainly disagreed with itself.
At one point, somewhere in their high school years our dad hatched the idea of bringing some calm to the situation by buying boxing gloves and setting them in the garage to hammer out a settlement. But this didn’t work either. Nothing changed. To this day, they still get together regularly, get in a big hash about something or other, then cool off and it’s back together chatting about this and that again. They both owned and flew airplanes. They loved to discuss planes and new technologies. They would discuss the places they visit with limited access: Oregon beaches, Canadian lakes, fly-ins, etc.. They are always either building or fixing something and could entertain themselves with endless discussions regarding the pros and cons of this and that method. I would listen to them as if it were the background music to my own wandering thoughts.
Our son and his twin are much the same and descended into argument somewhere midway through their first meeting at their 16th birthday. Then they calmed down and begin chatting again. Our son tends to dominate. He has tried to listen a bit more with our coaching. Our son speaks English with a Thai accent. His brother speaks English with a British accent. “What the hell are they going off about Global Warming for?” our son asks. “The place is cold and damp as hell.”
Politics have split them.
My twin brothers, growing up, appeared to be both each other’s closest friend, and each other’s prime adversary. It was as if they were fighting over the same life. (I’ve never asked them how they would describe it.) They eerily displayed many of the same traits. They worked together as teens fixing radios and TVs on their downstairs “test bench” to make money. They wrestled each other as freshmen in high school as they were the only ones in their weight category of around 110 pounds. (I think it was possibly their lack of wins which caused them to try out their moves on me at home.) They dressed with the same nerdy period style with taped black glasses and pen pocket plastic shields. And they both got their masters in Electrical Engineering.
While they appeared identical to others, I could easily tell them apart (even from the backside). Their unconscious strategy, if there was one, was to compliment the others abilities. For example, my estimation was that one was a little stronger, while the other was a bit more coordinated. One was the more extroverted while the other was the more introverted. (I gave them a Jungian type test at one time. One typed as an ISTJ, the other as an ESTJ.) One (the introvert) lived a more minimalist life, (less is more), of outdoor experience, while the other lived a more extroverted life (like Dolly Parton who believed “more is more”.) with its successful trappings. The introverted one worked on developmental projects whose span was about seven years and moved from company to company, while the other worked for large corporations rising through management. They married college roommates and retired to travel: one by sailboat throughout the Pacific, and the other by airplane over to Europe, and then by custom bus around the US and Canada. It would seem that throughout it all one would take the back seat to the other and vice versa over their shared traits, though one tended over all to dominate. Each chose the other side of the same thing. They were engineers who worked different problems, one worked the aeronautic industry, while the other worked on the early picture phone for Bell Labs and then medical applications of analyzing pathology slides. (Me, I mostly sat by myself, humming, as when watching them at work/arguing at their test bench.)
It would seem that situation is which logic is most apt to fail are those in which unknown factors are not factored. (When we can’t know it all.) And certainly, this would be the case in arguing the nature of fate. So we are left using our empirical knowledge and navigating by common sense.
Marriage is a situation in which two individuals, freely willing, choose to join their fates. The fact that marriage is seen as a portion of an individual’s series of life events, would seem to indicate the importance of fate in bringing structure to an individual’s life. We seem ‘fated’ with the need to be harnessed to something greater than ourselves. Free will alone is unfulfilling. One must feel ‘fated’, that is, to be a portion of something, some more important process.
Some will be married to the church (priests), others to their work, but the need is the same. And the analogy of marriage with the hand holds. The marriage, just as the hand, has an intention and an action to perform. The opposable thumb offers the skill to manipulate events so as to produce the wanted (‘fated’) outcome.
Likewise married partners freely chose which responsibilities to pledge to the marriage. They use their free will, much like opposable thumbs, to direct their contribution to the mutually adopted combined fate (or goal ) of their marriage. My wife does the laundry and cooks dinners. I do the shopping and yard work and dishes. My duty includes fixing things and the heavy chores. The wife arranges most of the social schedule.
One reason marriage tends to fail among Progressives, I believe, is because collectives can’t design a marriage very well. Their collective imagination devolves into The Haidmaid’s Tale dystopia. Their free will tends to be collectively arrived at, in which divergence would be an apostasy. This causes them to either go fanatical one way or the other, or to diverge altogether (separate). They lack the opposable thumb.
Table of Contents
Carl Nelson‘s latest book of poetry titled, Strays, Misfits, Renegades, and Maverick Poems (with additional Verses on Monetizations), has just been published. To have a look at this and more of his work please visit Magic Bean Books.
Follow NER on Twitter @NERIconoclast
6 Responses
Thank you for this article. Loved it!
Especially liked the conclusion, which is very true. I always have an allergic reaction whenever I hear someone say, “We all need to come together.”
Thank you, Andy.
I must admit I was flattered that my June article stating that free will is a mirage resulted in two subsequent articles this month disputing my thesis. For days, I have been wrestling with whether to respond to the opposition via another article, or in the comments section of those refutations. I have decided on the latter and will address both in the same mini-essay.
First, let me begin by stating that like most college undergraduates I went through a period of being besotted with philosophy. I finally walked away because of its penchant for verbosity divorced from any reality. Many philosophical arguments were generalities, using obscure, vague terms which were, if asked, defined by further vague terms having no basis in any real, tangible facts (Kant and Spinoza being the prime examples). It was a linguistic labyrinth with the understated implication that if the reader could not follow the reasoning, then it was because of not being sufficiently intelligent to understand. I was both disgusted and frustrated by the philosopher’s love of his own writing going nowhere, much like some politicians who speak for hours and say nothing.
This shortcoming, the reader might find interesting, is not confined to philosophy. The same phenomenon occurs in physics, except numbers are used in place of words. For example, many elegant mathematical calculations have been proposed to account for plasmas, yet in the end, have turned out to be divorced from fact. And there is string theory. Elsewhere, an ocean of ink has been spilled over terms like phlogiston, the ether, spontaneous generation, the patriarchy, each of which had no relevance to real, tangible things.
This is why, in the end, I abhorred theories (even in my field) and decided to focus on experimentation (though I admit to ironically have postulated one hell of a theory).
Anyway, in my original essay on free will, I gave numerous concrete examples on the absence of free will, with the proviso that there was an important difference between certainty (of acting in a specific way in certain circumstances) and probabilities (of acting in a certain way), oftentimes depending on the variables involved. For example, determinism becomes much more improbable if the person is told that he is acting in a predictable manner; consciousness of the fact is a new variable which alters the equation—not to mention eliciting a feeling of resentment. I repeat: I gave numerous, specific examples of determinism. I even presented specific scenarios (challenges) to prove me otherwise.
As much as I hate to be critical (though I usually relish it), I must criticize Andy Thomas’ and Carl Nelson’s rebuttals.
Almost all of Thomas’ refutation is . . . nothing but generalities. Chaos theory, quantum mechanics, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. I wrote specifics. These are just generalities. I further object to the phrase “predetermined;” that has nothing to do with me. I also object to having “faith in determinism.” My position has nothing to do with (albeit nonreligious) “faith;” it is a matter of coming to a conclusion based on facts. It is the same as saying I do not believe in evolution, but rather I know evolution is a fact, based on the facts.
Thomas does refer to one specific element, that of alcoholism, for which he has first hand knowledge. He was able to avoid the end result of severe alcoholism by choosing to walk away from it. This is an excellent point. It is a pillar of substance abuse that a person can only become clean and sober when he/she hits rock bottom. Some, however, do not make that U-turn. This is a matter of probability. Research is desperately needed in the field to ascertain what, exactly, is the difference between both groups of people: personality traits and/or environmental circumstances (such as the death of his friend).
Apropos of this, I have noted several famous persons who were born and raised in a dismal environment; most others who were in the same boat remained at the bottom of society while certain others vanquished the handicaps (e.g., Andrew Carnegie, George Lopez, Abraham Lincoln). The probability was infinitesimal, yet they did.
During the late Sixties, early Seventies, unlike many in my generation, I avoided doing drugs “to broaden my mind.” Part of the reason was a sense of self-preservation, part of it was defiance; in the latter case, the proponents of drug use railed against social conformity while insisting on their own type of conformity. I know now that I have an addictive personality, and if I had plunged into it, I would have become the worst addict imaginable. I would not have had free will.
Carl Nelson, on the other hand, relies much less on generalities and he does address the matter of twins separated at birth that have identical interests and habits. But he states that these similarities only become obvious in hindsight, not foretold. Well, duh. There is an almost infinite set of interests, habits, and other behaviors to choose from prior to checking similarities. Take two unrelated individuals and comparison of all those behaviors will yield almost no similarity, but with twins, the similarities will jump out. Nelson writes that his twin brothers, though having similarities, nevertheless had slightly different emphasis (what I personally found particularly fascinating and cannot explain is that one tested as an extrovert and the other an introvert).
This has turned out to be much longer than I wanted but I want to leave with another, very disturbing, specific example of determinism. Mind you, once a woman becomes aware of this (an intruding variable), she may choose differently.
Why do women wear red lipstick? Different shades, but all are red? Why not green lipstick? Why not different shades of yellow lipstick?
If you have ever read The Naked Ape, you know why. Humans are biological animals, whether you like it or not and are thus pushed in certain directions. Whereas in most animals, sex is strictly for reproduction, and very transitory, with humans it is all important and it is the mechanism for bonding between men and women. The folds of skin around the vagina are referred to as lips; they become enlarged and reddish during sex; fellatio is a common sexual practice. Do the math.
Women have had no conscious idea why they have always used red lipstick.
Determinism.
Thanks for the long and thoughtful reply Armando I share many of your same misgivings about philosophy and you express them well. In rebuttal to your points I would only say that strong correlation does not prove a theory, but does indeed make one suspect a causal reason. I wonder if they have ever done an experiment in which they have birthed identical animals, then grown them together in identical environments to see, if indeed, it creates identical behaviours when surprised by an unusual circumstance – and then compared this response with the response of non-indentical animals as a baseline measure. As to women and their red lipstick, it’s been interesting to me to have known several older women who do not feel ready to go out in public without first donning red lipstick. “Now I am dressed and ready,” they would say.
Intriguing article. You mentioned the boys married college roommates. It would have been very interesting and perhaps revealing if you had offered a brief comparison of the boys’ life companions. Personalitywise, that is. I know, I know, you would risk having the syllogisms beaten out of you by the four of them, but still, it wold have been enlightening.
Yeah, a person can only risk causing so much enlightenment. Thanks for the comment, Old Sceptic