The Kraemenator

@ Stephanie and every one who commented on her post

You have just read these words. Did you make a conscience decision to read them or is the universe and time structured in such a way that you had no choice but to read these words? That, I believe is the question at the heart of Slaughterhouse Five (albeit, somewhat oversimplified).

The concept of inevitability is certainly popular in human culture. Many different religions believe that their deity has a “plan” for people and any attempt to change the will of god is futile. Even if you are not religious and “believe” in science, the idea of inevitability still persists. According to science every  effect that occurs has a cause. Since the universe is governed by a specific set of laws, and since neither matter nor energy is thrown into the universe willy-nilly (everything was created at the moment of the big bang) then theoretically, the future has already been decided for us. I, for one, am not comforted by the possibility that my future choices have been made by future me already because of the way the world is constructed.

This, of course, brings up the question of whether we have free will or not. Personally, I think this depends on your definition of free will. You, as a person will always have a choice in what you do, however, your reaction to certain events will be pre-determined by who you are. For example, if you love your family very much, and all of a sudden they die, you have the option to feel happy overjoyed; you have free will, but you won’t, because you loved your family.

Some people who commented on the post brought up the idea that “…if they REALLY knew they were going to lose [at a war], for sure, they wouldn’t try at all.” Meaning that, if  Country A knew that their attempt to defended themselves from country B would be futile, then they wouldn’t even try and would probably just surrender (of course, they might not for the same reasons that there are kamikaze pilots). However, if they indeed surrender, then the 100% accurate prediction that they had would turn out to be false (you can’t lose [by fighting] at a war if you surrender right away). This implies that the future can be changed simply by knowing what it is, but then, if you know what the future is, and then change it, then it isn’t really the future anymore is it?. Though I’m now getting into complicated physics and I don’t think that Vonnegut was trying to explain String Theory through his tale of Billy Pillgrim.

However, I do think he was trying to explain the nature of life. I think he compares time to a mountain range because, like moments in time mountain ranges are so diverse. As humans, we go through time, travel across the mountain range without being able to see whats beyond. You might find sheer – seemingly insurmountable - cliffs at one point and a nice, natural trail to follow at another. There will be breathtakingly beautiful views, and ugly landslides on the mountain, just as in life there will be moments of hope and inspiration as well as times of death and despair. But, if you had the power to look at the entire mountain range, instead of just the part that you were walking across, would you choose to look at the landslides from the bottom of the valley or the beautiful forests from the peak?

And as we can look into the past that is our memories, what will we chose to focus on, the landslides or the forests, the beauty or the horror?