Wow, this episode raises a lot of questions concerning fate, predestination, and if we truly do have free will or any control at all over our own destinies! I suppose this harkens back to the first epi of Season 3 when Juliet said "how silly of me to think that free will still actually exists on this island!" :blink:

I suppose the character that would most embody the belief that "fate" chooses our path for us would be Locke, and Jack's character would represent the "free will" side of the argument. Reminds me of Man of Science, Man of Faith - wasn't that the 1st episode of Season 2??? Funny how the 1st epi's of Seasons 2 AND 3 both had direct references to fate vs free will. :rolleyes:

With all the tie-ins to famous philosophers on the show, TPTB may be trying to spark a modern philosophical discussion concerning these beliefs... :cool:

I suppose the character that would most embody the belief that "fate" chooses our path for us would be Locke, and Jack's character would represent the "free will" side of the argument. Reminds me of Man of Science, Man of Faith - wasn't that the 1st episode of Season 2??? Funny how the 1st epi's of Seasons 2 AND 3 both had direct references to fate vs free will. :rolleyes:


Yes exactly what I used to think. But I could have sworn that TPTB has said that "Man of Science, Man of Faith" is in reference to Jack and him not knowing what to believe. Maybe I'm wrong but I swear I remember them saying this :39:....maybe not. But if its true it kind of puts a whole different aspect on that epi. if you ask me.

And yes that Juliet quote is confusing too. Maybe the whole island itself is based on fate vs. free will and THAT is what decides your outcome.

Wow. I would have NEVER thought that I'd be questioning my own beliefs about whether fate played a hand in getting our Losties to the island... but now... I am confuddled to say the least.

TPTB said in a recent article that Michael was the only one of the Losties not to have done something heinous in his past life prior to arriving on the island, and that killing Ana and Libby was the start of his "redemption". Does that mean that his decision -- free will at its finest, IMHO -- is what sealed his fate?

Mind boggling to say the least.

Wow. I would have NEVER thought that I'd be questioning my own beliefs about whether fate played a hand in getting our Losties to the island... but now... I am confuddled to say the least.

TPTB said in a recent article that Michael was the only one of the Losties not to have done something heinous in his past life prior to arriving on the island, and that killing Ana and Libby was the start of his "redemption". Does that mean that his decision -- free will at its finest, IMHO -- is what sealed his fate?

Mind boggling to say the least.

Wow, your "spoiler" info is making my brain hurt. Especially when you put it in relation to the conflict between fate & free will in this episode! :shock:

I go with the idea of both... There might be a greater plan at play (predestination/fate) but what each of us does will affect that path. Right now Des isn't making the correct decisions for his life - he needs to live bolder and exude more of that free will.

I suppose the character that would most embody the belief that "fate" chooses our path for us would be Locke, and Jack's character would represent the "free will" side of the argument.

And perhaps Desmond is in between, caught in a fight between a pre-determined universe and his own free will. The philospher David Hume favored the theory of compatibilism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism), where both free will and determinism exist, and are compatible.

And perhaps Desmond is in between, caught in a fight between a pre-determined universe and his own free will. The philospher David Hume favored the theory of compatibilism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism), where both free will and determinism exist, and are compatible.
thats kind of what i took out of it aswell good insite

And perhaps Desmond is in between, caught in a fight between a pre-determined universe and his own free will. The philospher David Hume favored the theory of compatibilism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism), where both free will and determinism exist, and are compatible.
That's interesting to know about Desmond's namesake, and probably a clue from TPTB that this is going to be a recurring theme for the remainder of the series. I'm sure his name wasn't chosen accidentally in this case.

I Have a roommate which suggests that there is no such thing as choice. Basically everything which happens, happens based off experience, biological patterns in the body, desires, etc. Basically, can you really control that you like something? What if you choose to refuse something you like? Well, it's because you have certain backgrounds which control your "choices."

As the Merovingian in the Matrix Reloaded said, "There is only cause and effect."

Besides, it wasn't possible for Desmond to change his fate, to push the button. He tried to do it. In fact, he was going to propose to Penny, but he couldn't do it!

If he was able to (again, not possible) there would have been a time paradox. He would have had "memories" which could not be fulfilled! Such as pushing the button, and having the ability to have "flashes before his eyes," that, too, would have been a time paradox. How would he obtain this ability, if he would never push the button?

I Have a roommate which suggests that there is no such thing as choice. Basically everything which happens, happens based off experience, biological patterns in the body, desires, etc. Basically, can you really control that you like something? What if you choose to refuse something you like? Well, it's because you have certain backgrounds which control your "choices."

As the Merovingian in the Matrix Reloaded said, "There is only cause and effect."

Besides, it wasn't possible for Desmond to change his fate, to push the button. He tried to do it. In fact, he was going to propose to Penny, but he couldn't do it!

If he was able to (again, not possible) there would have been a time paradox. He would have had "memories" which could not be fulfilled! Such as pushing the button, and having the ability to have "flashes before his eyes," that, too, would have been a time paradox. How would he obtain this ability, if he would never push the button?

thats quite right!in fact David hume was the man who helped behaviorism to evolve,like no other.even if he wasnt even aware of the term or psychology in general,in his time.Cause and result,action-reaction and inner drives and instincts are what make the world go round,according behaviorisms manifest.