So Bakker doesn't believe in free will? Okay, fine. Well, not fine. I completely disagree. Just because humans are moved by causes, doesn't mean that they can't choose which causes move them. And this choosing itself is removed from that cause.
For instance, I can't help it that I like ice cream. I'm born that way. It's not an instance of free will. But I can
choose to not eat ice cream. In that case, my inborn tendency to like ice cream isn't causing my action. I made a choice. Sure, one might say that this choice comes from my desire to stay fit and trim--a desire which is born into me by my genetic predisposition to avoid unhealthy behavior. Or to be sexy and procreate.
However, even though both of these opposing "causes" are born into me, doesn't mean that I can't choose which one to follow. The fact that sometimes I choose one over the other proves that there is another factor--which I call "free will"--that goes beyond either. Otherwise, why wouldn't one always overpower the other? How can genetic predispositions become stronger or weaker? My genes certainly don't change.
I make choices. And so does Kellhus. My problem isn't merely that Kellhus is ultimately, paradoxically forced to choose between motivations beyond his control, but that he chooses
this particular motivation to follow. By the end,
he believes in an irrational figment. He believes in his own lie. He allows himself to be tricked by a fiction he created himself. Rather than thinking that perhaps he IS going crazy (as Moenghus suggests), he believes the halos on his hands are real signs of divinity.
Now, unless Bakker is saying that God is real, and that all the Inrithi were justified in their blind worship, I don't see how this makes sense. But if Bakker IS saying that, then everything else he said doesn't make sense. It would mean all along, the Inrithi weren't blindly following a tradition--the tradition was real. They had the truth all along. And therefore their worship was rational and justified.
Another point: if Kellhus is just a limited as the rest of us, then what explains his apparent difference? Sure, maybe there's a continuum of willpower, one that diminishes like a differential in calculus, approaching--but never quite reaching--complete ultimate freedom. But this still doesn't explain how
the most enlightened person in the series can become so misguided--unless, that is, Bakker is saying God is real and Kellhus really is his prophet. If so, I find that disappointing.
However, I must add that I do like the fact that even Kellhus has his limits and no person can fully escape the paradoxical nature of being human. I'll give Bakker credit for that sophisticated position.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
