Doctor/River meta: Destiny and free will - how exactly does it all work?

[elisi]

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?

Comments

[promethia_tenk]

Oh, the timey-wimey. I loveses the timey-wimey. It feels good on the brain *stretch*

Little to add because I think you hit the nail on the head :-)

Your C.S. Lewis quote--I think I came across the exact same idea in a Medieval lit class once. You wouldn't think 12th century religious scholars would have such a good grasp of fifth-dimensional thinking, but there it was.

(Anyone else out there love theology?)
For an atheist, I'm practically obsessive.

Love the comparison to Spike/Buffy. I mean, I don't know anything about them, but as you say, that seems to fit perfectly.

I'm always a bit confused when other people are bothered by time loops. Like, I hear the concerns about predestination and "which came first?" but . . . I dunno, it all fits together. Like two people on a see-saw. Either one can move up or down their half, maybe add more weight, and inevitably it affects the other end. But the person on the other end is still free to act in turn and the system as a whole continually balances itself out.

[elisi]

Oh, the timey-wimey. I loveses the timey-wimey. It feels good on the brain *stretch*
Doesn't it just? Mmmm, timey-wimey.

Little to add because I think you hit the nail on the head :-)
Well that's a compliment and a half! Thank you! :)

Your C.S. Lewis quote--I think I came across the exact same idea in a Medieval lit class once. You wouldn't think 12th century religious scholars would have such a good grasp of fifth-dimensional thinking, but there it was.
Oh I wouldn't be surprised, there were a LOT of great thinkers around since forever. (C.S.Lewis certainly doesn't claim the idea as his own, he just uses it as an example.)

For an atheist, I'm practically obsessive.
Why does that not surprise me? ;)

Love the comparison to Spike/Buffy. I mean, I don't know anything about them, but as you say, that seems to fit perfectly.
They were my first proper 'ship, and I think they imprinted on me. (Well my very first ship was probably Peter Wimsey/Harriet, but you know - same dynamic.) And (since I know most of Anna's posts off by heart since they are AWESOME) that quote has been nagging me, because it fits Doctor/River so well! V. happy to find a good context in which to drag it out.

I'm always a bit confused when other people are bothered by time loops. Like, I hear the concerns about predestination and "which came first?" but . . . I dunno, it all fits together. Like two people on a see-saw. Either one can move up or down their half, maybe add more weight, and inevitably it affects the other end. But the person on the other end is still free to act in turn and the system as a whole continually balances itself out.
*nods* And, of course, once you've introduced time travel, there is always the possibility of re-writing time, of getting out of the loop. They choose not to do that, but they *could*. (Of course then we get all kinds of timey-wimey-ness problems, but it's only a closed system because they obey their own rules.

[promethia_tenk]

Well that's a compliment and a half! Thank you! :)
You're most welcome.

Oh I wouldn't be surprised, there were a LOT of great thinkers around since forever. (C.S.Lewis certainly doesn't claim the idea as his own, he just uses it as an example.)
Just goes to show, I guess, that the human brain has been wired in the same way for a very long time. I rather like Medieval lit as proof of the basic continuity of human nature: mostly sex and violence, big helpings of religious and political fundamentalism, occasional moments of transcendence, and every once in a long while, a little prototypical Relativity Theory. Mmmmm.

Why does that not surprise me? ;)
Heh. One of my friends is getting a Masters in Theology out at Berkeley. I'm rather tempted to join her.

They were my first proper 'ship, and I think they imprinted on me. (Well my very first ship was probably Peter Wimsey/Harriet, but you know - same dynamic.)
Mine was Princess Leia and Han Solo. I liked the banter and, I presume, the equality, although my twelve year old mind would probably not have quite formulated it that way. (Who are Peter Wimsey and Harriet?)

*nods* And, of course, once you've introduced time travel, there is always the possibility of re-writing time, of getting out of the loop. They choose not to do that, but they *could*. (Of course then we get all kinds of timey-wimey-ness problems, but it's only a closed system because they obey their own rules.
Yes! Nothing to stop one person or the other from hopping off their end of the see-saw and sending the whole system crashing down, but you usually try not to do that to people you like.

[elisi]

I rather like Medieval lit as proof of the basic continuity of human nature: mostly sex and violence, big helpings of religious and political fundamentalism, occasional moments of transcendence, and every once in a long while, a little prototypical Relativity Theory. Mmmmm.
*grins* People are people are people. I think that's one of the things I like especially about Doctor Who - wherever they go, people are just people. I think that's a very important message.

Heh. One of my friends is getting a Masters in Theology out at Berkeley. I'm rather tempted to join her.
::tries not to be jealous::

Yes! Nothing to stop one person or the other from hopping off their end of the see-saw and sending the whole system crashing down, but you usually try not to do that to people you like.
Heh. Yes rather.

Mine was Princess Leia and Han Solo. I liked the banter and, I presume, the equality, although my twelve year old mind would probably not have quite formulated it that way.
I think twelve year olds are quite smart, and know what they like. :)

Who are Peter Wimsey and Harriet?
I literally had to do a doubletake reading that. [insert lots of exclamation marks, question marks and eleventyones!] Guess I just presumed that everyone in fandom knows and loves Lord Peter Wimsey, aristocratic sleuth extraordinaire! Honestly, run away to a library and find Dorothy L. Sayers and borrow everything of hers that you can find! (Sherlock? Poirot? Pft. They've got nothing on Wimsey!) Not only are the murders very clever, but the books themselves are wonderfully written, and can be re-read ad nauseam, being excellent novels on their own merit and full of brilliant characters. OK, now I'm gushing, but! It's Peter Wimsey! And he has the best manservant ever: Bunter (As proper and ever prepared for anything as Ianto, but without all the emo stuff). Oh and then Harriet shows up - to spoil you a little, then Peter first sees her in the dock, accused of murdering her lover, and he falls head over heels in love. Then he (of course) manages to clear her of this charge and find out who did it, and then asks her to marry him. Her response? Well, she owes him her life, and quite frankly she can't think of a worse, more unequal place to begin a relationship. (Not to mention that she doesn't even know him.) So thanks, but no thanks.

So. Much. Win.

ETA: Just realised that I'm making Peter sound like something of an idiot. He's not. What he is, is *exceedingly* intelligent, and painfully aware of the impossible situation he's put Harriet in. (He is one of the best fictional characters ever. Oh, and 'The Nine Taylors' is one of the best books ever written. It doesn't feature Harriet, but it's outstanding. Aaaaand now I'll go away.)

[promethia_tenk]

^^^^Hmmmm. That does sound very intriguing. Have made a note of it for the next time I go to the library =D

[elisi]

Yay! Dorothy Sayers is one of my favourite authors, hands down. :)