I believe that free will exists. Freedom is not about being unbound by anything, nor is it about being immune to external factors. Rather, I believe freedom is defined by the extent of the “room for choice” an individual possesses.
Granted, when a person chooses a specific action, it is often difficult to select multiple options simultaneously. One might argue: even if there were other choices, how does a selected action differ from a situation where no other options existed, given that those alternatives were never realized? However, the process of choosing from a visible array of options is fundamentally different from having only one possible path from the start. Some might say that the end result is the same, but that is merely a retrospective view—a “post-hoc” observation. While it may appear that way after the fact, the act of choosing from multiple alternatives differs vastly in its process from a predetermined single outcome. Furthermore, selecting one option from many implies a conscious decision to avoid the others. This cannot be said if only one path existed from the beginning.
When we define freedom as the existence of choice, external factors do not bind our will; instead, they shape the available options. Ultimately, what restricts us is neither natural law nor external influence, but rather our physical position. Our relative choices differ depending on where we are situated. It is when we compare these position-dependent options that we fall into the illusion or fantasy that we lack the freedom to choose.
Moreover, the fact that we all occupy different positions does not mean we are playing entirely different games. Despite our different locations, we are all subject to the same physical laws of nature. It is impossible for a chooser or an observer to make a choice or observation from the exact same position as another. We can only act from our respective relative positions. In this sense, these acts are not “fixed.” They are determined only in the sense that they have not yet been chosen or observed, and they become indeterminate through the very act of choosing or observing.
When selecting one option from many, the “subject” of that choice is, simply put, the chooser. The subject can be defined as the origin of an action. When the chooser is human, they choose based on various circumstances and emotions, influenced by genetic factors, physical laws, and social environments. As humans, we cannot perceive these external factors without our five senses. These senses give rise to emotions—joy, anger, sadness, and pleasure—all of which act toward the causes that triggered them. Since these causes are the origins of the emotions, the true “subject” of the emotion lies not in the person feeling it, but in the external environment that provoked it.
Even if we scrutinize external factors, it is difficult to find a clear, singular subject. The finite human body cannot collaborate or co-work with the entirety of the external environment. The only thing a human can move directly is their own finite body. In this sense, the “subject” is a concept that could be called an illusion, born out of this overwhelming complexity. On the other hand, anxiety—one of our fundamental emotions—functions as a drive to escape the external causes that create it. Viewed this way, the human emotion of anxiety may be the very clue that allows us to break free from the constraints of external factors.
