The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon

In this novel, Stephen King weaves a story of a young girl who fights between her inevitable fate and her will to survive.  Different characters and themes throughout the book show the different aspects of free will, determinism, and compatibilism.

In my opinion, Trisha’s image of Tom Gordon can be seen as the very embodiment of free will.  She envisions him as her hero and protector.  On the pitcher’s mound, he stands still, unlike the others, and starts by showing that he is in control.  With the odds against him, he still manages to make the save.  Trisha uses this as a metaphor for her own situation.  She knows that it seems to be pre-determined that she will not survive.  However, her faith in Tom Gordon is what keeps her going, making her own choices, refusing to give up the fight to survive.

There is the also interesting matter of Trisha’s belief that saying something is true, is what in fact makes it true.  She at first refuses to admit to herself that she’s lost.  Once the circumstances make this obvious, she can no longer deny it, and finally admits it.  The reader’s guide described this as a symbol for her loss of control.  She hoped that if she kept trying to find the trail, and didn’t say she was lost, it wouldn’t be true.  This happens again while she’s listening to the Red Sox game on her Walkman.  When the announcer describes a batter as “dangerous,” Trisha is distraught, thinking, “Why did he have to start in with that ‘always dangerous’ horsepucky when any fool knew that only made them dangerous?”  Her thought process seems to be that believing in something is what makes it real.  I think this ties in to her fear of the creature hunting her.  In the beginning, she refuses to believe it, assuming it’s only her imagination in the woods at night.  But by the end of her story, there is no denying that she’s being stalked by something, and she has become brave enough to face the bear alone, fighting “its” plan for her and choosing her own path.

There are several different forms that determinism takes in this story.  The original path was the hiking trail that Trisha strayed from.  Throughout the novel, she expresses her regret over leaving the path, telling herself that things would have been much easier had she stayed on it.  However, when one wonders what events would take place after the end of the novel, it’s very likely that the experience would bring the family closer together.  Perhaps Trisha’s parents remarry, or perhaps her brother stops arguing so much.  There’s also an implication of newfound religion at the end of the novel.  “The smile which lit his face from the eyes down” implies that Trisha’s revelation of Tom Gordon’s God being a saving force is shared with her father, possibly overcoming his belief in the Subaudible.  It could be argued that even this was planned, in order to bring Trisha’s family closer together and perhaps open their minds to God’s existence.

In our group meeting, we discussed the “evil creature” as another force of determinism.  Once Trisha was lost in the woods, the mysterious evil “thing” was in control of her destiny.  She only had control over small choices of survival, unable to find any other human life or escape what was hunting her.

In the end, however, she made it out of the woods, defeated the bear, and was reunited with her family.  The end of the story implies that compatibilism was the force most strongly at work.  Like in The Adjustment Bureau, determinism was an evil force that the protagonist set out to fight against in the pursuit of free will.  Whether it was the literal path on the hiking trail, God’s will, or the God of the Lost’s plan for Trisha, there was undoubtedly a force (or several) of determinism at work in the woods.  Trisha was strong-willed enough, partially thanks to her own imagined encouragement and advice from Tom Gordon, to keep surviving until the bear was killed and she could make it back home again.

The different events in this story clearly convey free will, determinism, and compatibilism.  The struggle and mutual existence of both choice and predestination in Trisha’s experience show the existence of compatibilism in her story.

The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon

The book The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon written by Stephen King was evaluated this week by looking for determinism or free will components. This book is about a young nine year old girl named Trisha who goes hiking with her brother and mother. When doing so, she steps off the trail for a short moment, and then she quickly becomes lost in the woods. She only has a backpack containing a few items that allows her to survive. She also uses her knowledge about nature learned from either her mother or her school teachers to gather other food and water supplies. Trisha also has a few imaginary and real characters that accompany her throughout her journey through the woods of Maine and New Hampshire.

In the beginning, Trisha is on the hiking path, and this can be compared to determinism. The path was pre-set before Trisha even came to it; therefore, her initial journey through the woods was determined for her. Trisha then uses free will to step off the path and that decision changes her life. Once she steps off the path, her plan is changed and she now has a new path to follow, which is to either survive or not survive. This new path can be interpreted as having both free will and determinism in it. She uses her free will for small things, like deciding what to eat or how to walk through specific areas of the forest. The God of the Lost is another component in Trisha’s journey that has a more of a determining factor.

The God of the Lost comes in the form of a giant monster with a wasp filled face, but later this monster is revealed only being a bear. The ‘thing’ as Trisha originally called it was watching and following her all throughout her journey through the woods. This ‘thing’ could be interpreted as the one who is planning and controlling Trisha’s journey. It could have been the reason Trisha slept surrounded by trees. Trisha’s path through the woods could have also been driven by her not wanting to be followed or near the creature. So Trisha was going in an unknown direction through the woods, but to her it was known that she was going in a direction that was not the same as the creature. Although, Trisha did decide for herself that she needed to follow a waterway through the woods to insure she will have water, and because she believed it could lead her to people.

Another component of Trisha’s journey was Tom Gordon who is a real person, but Trisha imagined him throughout her journey to keep her company. Originally, I believed that Tom was only a part of Trisha’s journey just to keep her company, but that opinion changed when they reached the posts. In the end, when Trisha found the abandoned post and she was looking for more posts to follow their path. Tom pointed out the next post along her path, which gave her the confidence to follow that path. Tom also encourage Trisha when she was face to face with the God of the Lost because she used Tom’s pitching style. In this moment, Trisha chose to not let the bear kill her, and instead she tried to injure it by pretending to pitch like Tom Gordon.

Since this book has both components of free will and determinism, then it must overall be considered compatibilism. Compatibilism in this book is shown as Trisha having a set path, the original hiking trail, and then her choice of free will to get off the path changed her original plan into taking a new path. In the end, Trisha is on the new determined path, but she uses free work to survive when she’s face to face with the God of the Lost.

The Girl Who loved Tom Gordon

 The book The Girl who loved Tom Gordon, by Stephen King shows how the path of our lives can change dramatically completely changing the way in which we look at the journey in our lives. I think in someway the most telling part of the book is when Trisha says that in someway she feels as if she was older than her brother in spirit. I imagine this is because the path her life was put into a better perspective. She realized that in a lot of ways she was unable to control the natural world around her. This is something that she didn’t realize and that most people don’t really think about until they are about to die.

            At the beginning of the book when she gets lost she panics and irrationally tries to find the trail and brakes down in the process of trying to find the path. She went from having what seemed like a set path to being completely lost in the woods. Her choosing to exit the trail away from her brother and mother was Trisha’s way of choosing her path. In this way she is demonstrating her free will by literally choosing her own path. Even along the path that she chose to walk once she was lost allowed her to make decisions that defined her fate. For example, she got to choose to things she ate which sometimes poisoned her and other times offered her vital energy to survive. She even had the choice in most cases to choose the direction that she wanted to walk in even when she came to a cross road. These are all aspects of her journey that she had control over and therefore had free will However, there are other aspects of her journey that proved far from being in her control.

Some aspects of Trisha’s journey that did have an influence over her decision-making and the defining of her path include the mature around her, the God of the lost (dark scary monster), and The voice of Tom Gordon. Nature played a significant role in the determination of Trisha’s journey. When she first gets lost the narrator explains how lucky Trisha had been to have no bad whether in the initial days of her being lost. She didn’t encounter any bad whether except for the last night which may have been a major reason for why she was able to survive. There were also variables in her path that offered food from plants or perhaps cliffs that put road blocks in her path that also played a huge part in whether she survived and which path she chose to take. The so-called monster that lurked in the woods I interpreted to be somewhat like a figure of death. He often times came during the night when Trisha believed that she was in great danger, never knowing whether she would make it through the night. However, she always escaped without being attacked by this creature. I believed this to be her foreshadowed death in the woods that she continued to fight till the bitter end. Lastly, we had the voice of Tom Gordon Which acted as a positive voice that sometimes gave her direction in order to find safety. For example, Tom was the one to point out the gate that she found in the meadow, which pointed her in the right direction of the road. While she still had control over the way she walked she was highly influenced by this internal voice that remained separate from her own thinking. These all acted as forces of determinism.

           

All aspects being considered, I believe that this book can best be categorized as an example of compatibilist. This is because while she did make most of the decisions in direction throughout her journey there were also major influences in her decision to keep moving and depletion and increase of energy. She did not have full control over what she decided to do and how she was able to survive. For this reason it serves mostly as an example of compatibilist

Group Meeting #3

Bible Passages & Articles

In the 4 readings assigned to us this week, the different perspectives on free will versus determinism, and everything in between, is discussed and challenged in the Biblical world.  Certain passages seem to advocate for the free will humanity holds, while others seem to argue that God has determined each event of the future.

Psalm 139:1-8 could, as the reading discussed, be seen as heavily deterministic.  Most importantly expressed was the author’s faith in God’s omniscience and omnipresence.  By asking, “Where can I go from you Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence?” the author (suspected by most to be David) implies that God is with him wherever he goes, both mentally and physically.  His omniscience is expressed throughout the psalm, such as in the line, “You are familiar with all of my ways.”  His omnipotence, however, is the only one left not explicitly expressed.  It’s not that the author doesn’t believe God is fully powerful; it’s just that he doesn’t clarify whether God’s ability to be all-powerful means that God chose to dictate every aspect of human life.  The article we read suggests that advocates of determinism would read this passage and assume that God’s creation and omniscience would be linked to form a God that determines our lives and choices.

Mark 10:17-22, on the other end of the spectrum, was favored more by advocates for free will.  It cannot be disputed that the rich man in the story was given a choice.  Growing up he chose to follow the Ten Commandments, he made a choice to ask Jesus how to receive eternal life, and he made a choice to walk away sadly.  Although this Bible passage does not specify whether the man followed Jesus’s suggestion or not, it was always assumed in my Sunday School classes as a child that he did not end up selling his possessions.  If that was the case, he did indeed have a choice in the matter.  Even if Jesus saw his heart and knew what was most important to this man – his wealth – the man still held the final decision in his own hands.

Jonah 1:1-2:10, in my opinion, is the clearest point of argumentation of the texts so far.  It tells us in a straightforward manner how Jonah and God acted.  There are no assumptions of whether it was intended to be determinism or free will.  It’s not a parable or a poem; it’s rather a documented event.  There is, on one hand, the absolute plan God had in mind: He wanted Jonah to go and preach to the people of Ninevah.  He set events in place and spoke to Jonah so that this would take place.  This could set up an argument for determinism.  Jonah, on the other hand, made choices of his own.  First he disobeyed and ran from God, then told the truth to the sailors, then chose to accept God’s will and escaped the fish.  This could set up an argument for free will.  The “uneasy tension,” as the article describes it, is compatibilism at work.  God’s plan versus human choices is what set the story in motion.

Ecclesiastes 3:1-15 seems to be yet another argument for determinism, as does the accompanying article.  The repetition of the idea that there is a predestined time for every event, along with the discussion of God’s creation and actions, set a tone of belief in His will coming to completion, regardless of humanity’s choices.

Altogether, these Bible passages set up different arguments for each side of the answer to the question of who is the author of our lives.  The linkage and plausibility of each of them only strengthens my agreement with a compatibilist viewpoint.

Biblical Texts

This week a few biblical passages were read to add to our free will-determinism discussion. The first text was Psalms 139:1-8, and its describes everything that God knows about the author. It says, “Before a word is on my tongue you, Lord, know it completely” (verse 4).God even knows what you will say before you say it, so this means even the words you speak are determined by God. This passage also describes how God is omnipotent, omniscience, and omnipresence. Since God has these qualities, it explains how he is able to know everything going on with everyone. God also has everything planned out, “All the days ordained for me were written in your book, before one of them came to be,” (verse 16). This passage describes that God has determined the future path for everyone on Earth. Determinism is supported by this passage because the author of this passage doesn’t have a choice at what will happen with his future, but instead God has already determined everything.

Jonah 1:1 through 2:10 was also read this week, and it falls in the middle of the free will-determinism discussion because it favors compatibilism. In this well known bible passage, Jonah decides that he is not going to follow God’s commands, but instead he is going to do the opposite of them. He travels in the opposite direction that God commanded him too and Jonah ends up at sea. While he was out at sea, a terrifying storm comes and Jonah knows that God is punishing him for disobeying. Jonah ends up getting thrown into the waters and a whale swallows him. The storm immediately stops and Jonah lives inside the whale's stomach for three days. This story follows the compatibilism side of the argument because it has both free will and determinism. God had a plan for Jonah, and even though Jonah didn’t initially listen to him, the plan is still fulfilled. The free will side of this story is Jonah making his own decision to hide from God and not listen to his commands. Therefore, compatibilism, in in this text, is when God knows the ultimate plan, but Jonah can make his own decisions.

The biblical verse that follows the free-will side of the discussion is Mark 10:17-22. A rich man approached Jesus and asked how he could have an eternal life with him. Jesus said, “Go, sell everything you have and give it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me,” (verse 21). This rich man was given the decision of his destiny; he was the one who made the choice of following Jesus or not following Jesus. This is free will because the future of this man is in his own hands. Jesus gave this man options for his future, and the rich man is the only one who can make that decision. 

All three of these passages are in the bible and they all support a different position of the free will-determinism argument.

Religion blog post Feb 19, 2016

The biblical reading that stood out to me the most was Psalm 139. In Psalm we see a demonstration of how god is omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. However something that I found to be interesting is that the text did not link Omni science with omnipotence. By this I mean that they did not Link the idea of power and knowing. This could mean that while God know the path that we are on that he does not determine it. Or perhaps that how’s every choice we will make but without influencing it. This writing reminds me a lot about emanation theory. Emanation theory says that all secondary things flow from the more primary thing. For example, we all flow from god so we all have part of god within us and our mind and soul. With this theory in mind he could have great knowledge and power to know what we will do or intend to do without defining our path. With being apart of us he does become part of our decisions but the question still lies within whether we have free will. He presents emanation theory in a lot of ways, asking questions like, “ where can I go from your spirit” (Psalm 139:7). Asking these questions helps to understand the vastness of God but does not tell us his influence on our decisions. While this reading suggests that God is omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence I don’t see this reading as clear argument for determinism but rather one for compatibilist. This is because while the Psalm will show us how god is one within us and in everything around us, it does not express the impact that God has on our decisions. Stemming mostly from an emanation theory prospective I would argue compatibilist because that would imply that god is within all of us and that we all see the one (God) meaning that we strive to be what is most good.  However, we are also allowed to move farther away from the one becoming less good. We see a better example of this in Mark with the story of the rich man. In this story the rich man is given the ultimate decision to sell all his things and give it to the poor or not to. In other words, he can chose to move closer to what is most virtuous and good or he can move farther away from what is good. This is a better representation of compatibilist in the sense that he is given a decision but knows the path that he should take. In both cases, I would argue that they are drawn to making decisions that they believe to be good, but in the end have the free will to make a decision.

The Adjustment Bureau

The characters in this movie brought to mind each of the main theories on determinism versus free will, and which is better for the fate of humanity.  The rebellious free will against the institutionalized form of determinism, and the realization of it bringing in compatibilism, questions the pros and cons of each form of decision-making.

David, of course, represents the free will of humanity.  His primary goal throughout the movie is to foil the Bureau's Plan and live his own life, both in career and with Elise.  His belief in the purity of absolute free will is what compels him to fight the agency and create his own choices in life.

Most of The Adjustment Bureau obviously represents the deterministic point of view.  Their main objective is to set in path a sequence of events that will lead to a definite end.  The moral dilemma that they represent is whether the reasoning behind their actions makes the actions themselves ethically all right.  I realize this begins to delve into our second perennial question of who is to decide what's morally right, but the two topics are certainly connected.  They do what they do to "train" humanity how to make good decisions, just like riding a bike, as they compare it.  They do it to keep humanity safe from its own harmful choices. But it's arguable that we as humans have the right to build our own destinies, without outside influence on how we think and act.  The motivation behind the agency is reasonable, but most would agree it's immoral because it takes away any free will while leaving the illusion of it.

The character Harry, as stated in the reading, represents Compatibilism, both consciously and unintentionally.  He works for The Adjustment Bureau, making sure that the major events in humanity go according to The Plan.  However, he purposely seeks out David to tell him about the organization and answer some of his questions.  Giving him more information seems to go against The Plan, but he still does his job to insure that everything goes as it should.  It's a conflict and an impossible dilemma.  When be willingly helps David through the doors, he makes a choice of his own free will, defying what he has always done.  He also represents Compatibilism unknowingly.  By falling asleep at the beginning of the movie, he sets into action the re-kindling of David and Elise's romance.  This process follows through Newtonian determinism, which sets into line circumstances that allow the pair to continue meeting.  Although Harry tries - and fails - to amend his mistake, the string of events he puts into action allows David to make choices of his own free will.

An interesting component of this question of who writes the script of our lives is the fact that David is aware of The Adjustment Bureau.  If we are aware of determinism in our lives, does it make us more likely to fight for our own free will?  If we could be conscious of the definite outcomes of our decisions, would we be able to fight against pre-determined events to create our own paths?

In the end, it is implied that the unseen “Chairman” has a goal of training humanity so that it can one day make good decisions on its own, just as David and Elise did in choosing each other, despite what the effect might be.  It ends on a note of hope that we as a society can use the cards we’re handed in life and play them in a way that gives us our own choices.