Doctor/River meta: Destiny and free will - how exactly does it all work?
Note: This is not a ‘religious’ post, even though I start off with a big chunk of theology. I am just playing with ideas that interest me. :) (No spoilers in the post, but beware the comments!)
Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do to-morrow. But if He knows I am going to do so-and-so, how can I be free to do otherwise? Well, here once again, the difficulty comes from thinking that God is progressing along the Time-line like us: the only difference being that He can see ahead and we cannot. Well, if that were true, if God foresaw our acts, it would be very hard to understand how we could be free not to do them. But suppose God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call ‘to-morrow’ is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call ‘to-day’. All the days are ‘Now’ for Him. He does not remember you doing things yesterday: He simply sees you doing them, because, though you have lost yesterday, He has not. He does not ‘foresee’ you doing things to-morrow; He simply sees you doing them: because, though to-morrow is not yet there for you, it is for him. You never supposed that your actions at this moment were any less free because God knows what you are doing. Well, He knows your to-morrow’s actions in just the same way - because He is already in to-morrow and can simply watch you. In a sense, He does not know your action till you have done it: but then the moment at which you have done it is already ‘Now’ for Him.
C.S.Lewis, Mere Christianity
I always loved this idea, and it makes an awful lot of sense to me. (Anyone else out there love theology?)
Anyway - when I began to think about the dynamics of Doctor/River I remembered it. Because they do seem ‘destined’ to be together. So, do they actually have any free will, any say in their future? The Doctor (and we, the viewers) know River’s future. River knows the Doctor’s future. How can they then be free to choose what happens to them, if their futures are already written [quite literally]? Well, this is where the above bit of theology comes into play.
They know each other’s future, true. But when they’re together - in their shared Now - anything could happen. The past and the future are of little importance when they could be killed Now, when the world hangs upon the choices they make Now.
Actually, at this point I’m going to have to quote the_royal_anna, because what she writes about Buffy and Spike fits the Doctor and River so perfectly that it almost takes my breath away (especially the second paragraph):
I'm a Spike/Buffy fan. Do I believe Spike is Buffy's one true love? No, hell no. For me, that's kind of the point of being a Spike/Buffy fan. I don't have any romantic ideals about this relationship - or, if it comes to that, any relationship. And these two come back to each other, again and again and again, not because it is their destiny but because it is their duty. They share enough history to owe it to each other to be there for each other.
And, goodness, such a history it is, but the relationship is never defined by that history. If anything, it is defined by the mutual acknowledgement that their history establishes the basis for the relationship, but the relationship exists always and only in the here and now. They never stoop under the weight of their history.
See?
Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do to-morrow. But if He knows I am going to do so-and-so, how can I be free to do otherwise? Well, here once again, the difficulty comes from thinking that God is progressing along the Time-line like us: the only difference being that He can see ahead and we cannot. Well, if that were true, if God foresaw our acts, it would be very hard to understand how we could be free not to do them. But suppose God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call ‘to-morrow’ is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call ‘to-day’. All the days are ‘Now’ for Him. He does not remember you doing things yesterday: He simply sees you doing them, because, though you have lost yesterday, He has not. He does not ‘foresee’ you doing things to-morrow; He simply sees you doing them: because, though to-morrow is not yet there for you, it is for him. You never supposed that your actions at this moment were any less free because God knows what you are doing. Well, He knows your to-morrow’s actions in just the same way - because He is already in to-morrow and can simply watch you. In a sense, He does not know your action till you have done it: but then the moment at which you have done it is already ‘Now’ for Him.
C.S.Lewis, Mere Christianity
I always loved this idea, and it makes an awful lot of sense to me. (Anyone else out there love theology?)
Anyway - when I began to think about the dynamics of Doctor/River I remembered it. Because they do seem ‘destined’ to be together. So, do they actually have any free will, any say in their future? The Doctor (and we, the viewers) know River’s future. River knows the Doctor’s future. How can they then be free to choose what happens to them, if their futures are already written [quite literally]? Well, this is where the above bit of theology comes into play.
They know each other’s future, true. But when they’re together - in their shared Now - anything could happen. The past and the future are of little importance when they could be killed Now, when the world hangs upon the choices they make Now.
Actually, at this point I’m going to have to quote the_royal_anna, because what she writes about Buffy and Spike fits the Doctor and River so perfectly that it almost takes my breath away (especially the second paragraph):
I'm a Spike/Buffy fan. Do I believe Spike is Buffy's one true love? No, hell no. For me, that's kind of the point of being a Spike/Buffy fan. I don't have any romantic ideals about this relationship - or, if it comes to that, any relationship. And these two come back to each other, again and again and again, not because it is their destiny but because it is their duty. They share enough history to owe it to each other to be there for each other.
And, goodness, such a history it is, but the relationship is never defined by that history. If anything, it is defined by the mutual acknowledgement that their history establishes the basis for the relationship, but the relationship exists always and only in the here and now. They never stoop under the weight of their history.
See?