Sikhi and the Problem of Free Will

- an investigation and a proposed resolution

The problem of free will is an unresolved and perhaps irresolvable problem of philosophy. In one sense, it is the oldest philosophical problem, in another, it is ever changing and new. Why do we say that? Well, the way we ask the question depends on our understanding of the nature of the world – for example, if we believe in a world that is run at the whim of divine spirits (animism) our understanding of free will allows for, well, some of it; while if we believe in one, all powerful, all knowing God (monotheism), there is little room for any. There is a vast spectrum, in various world cosmologies, in between these two positions, and more, beyond.

Since the progress of the history of ideas in human civilisations rarely waits for resolution of one set of problems (or, questions) before moving on (and on), we are left, like an email inbox in present times, with more and more ‘unread mail’ each passing epoch. In short, we have more questions than answers.

But, questions we must ask. In this essay, I will, however, also seek to work towards a resolution in the end.

*

Now, the question here is, how does Sikhi deal with the problem of free will? The corollary to this is, how does Sikhi reconcile with major philosophical debates about this question?

When we talk about philosophical questions, it is a good idea to differentiate between what we might call small-p philosophy and big-P Philosophy. By the former, I mean philosophy in a general sense, referring to questions about the nature of life, knowledge and reality, an everyday thing of humans dealing with our existential dilemma. By big-P Philosophy I mean philosophy as an academic discipline.

For small-p philosophy whether or not we have free will is not even a matter for debate. That we do, that we make our choices and are responsible for them, is an obvious, known and understood fact of life, and this is the basis for our ethical systems. Also, to some extent, of our legal systems.

I say some extent, because the jurisprudential question of free will also engages with the big-P question of free will. For example, in jurisprudence there is a legal rule of mens rea, meaning, the guilty mind. The weight of responsibility for one’s actions depend on the existence (or not) of mens rea. So, if a man plans to kill someone, and does it, this is treated as the heinous crime of murder, but if another takes a human life, say, in an accident, this is homicide. Both are treated as very different crimes, with the quantum of punishment for the former being much vaster than the latter.

An accident is fundamentally an outcome of a series of causes and effects which are beyond the possibility of control by a human being. So, we cannot be held accountable for it. Or can we?

You have probably heard that the universe is an outcome of randomness. But, this randomness produces order because it has some inherent (mysterious, even for science) structure, which produces statistically consistent outcomes. These statistically consistent outcomes we might call natural laws. From an aggregation of such natural laws, across scales of time and space, emerges our universe, which to us, macroscopically, seems like a clockwork. The human perception of physical reality is, still, Newtonian.

Sikhi, too, on the face of it, takes a nomological view of reality (hukum hovey aakar), but, there is in the same instance, perhaps an acceptance of its unfathomableness, perhaps even, of its randomness (hukum na kahiya jaye). For, if all hukum was structural (aakari) wouldn’t we ultimately be able to know it? That is a question for contemplation.

Coming to the problem of free will. In this reality – the structure (aakar), which is created by hukum (nomos), which is beyond our understanding of human values or scales of measurement (nirbhau) – our existence (jeey) is an outcome of forces inherently beyond even the possibility of our knowing, and, how sophisticated we are, as an organism, ie our evolutionary trajectory, is also beyond us (hukum miley vadyayee). And, finally, the trajectory of our life, or, our destiny, is beyond our power to control, as what we gain or lose is the outcome of our position in the nomo-deterministic structure of the universe (sanjog vijog aakar chalavey, lekhe aavey bhaag).

Fundamentally, our life’s trajectory (as a time-space ‘worm’ in aakar) is determined by ‘aades’ (injunctional outcome) of the Ultimate Nomos, Akal Purakh.

I finally used the word, determine. Big-P Philosophy also veers towards determinism, at least it has since the paradigm shift of modern science. Determinism basically sees our life choices as cause and effect outcomes of the structure of physical existence around us and the biophysical processes within us, or their interaction. (There are some intriguing counters to this in recent times, which I can discuss in a subsequent essay, maybe.)

Now, I have sort of accepted that Sikhi also has a deterministic foundation. (This, in fact, might be a reason for our attitude of chardi kala, or, ascendant existentialism, since – why worry about what is already written, especially as, the ultimate writer, Waheguru, is one who writes the plot of our life, so it must be a great one!) But, there is something else I have begun to consider. A new way of looking at this.

Baruch Spinoza, writing in the 17th century, proposed a very different idea of determinism, something I call, ‘realised determinism’. Spinoza says that while the structure of reality might not allow us absolute free will, it does leave open to us the possibility of achieving self-determination. That is, a condition of existence, that wakes us up to the understanding of the ‘why’ of reality. This has got me thinking.

When our response to the question of why things happen as they do, is founded on a true understanding of the nature of reality, we know we might not have free will to change things, but we have the freedom to accept them as they are.

tera bhaana meetha laagey

The freedom, on a metaphysical level, that Sikhi gives us is that of acceptance and understanding, the understanding that all that is, is the hukum of Akal. And if our faith in that understanding is founded on the inner-strength of belief in that, again, which Sikhi awakens in us, then we have the power to emulate the shaheeds who were scalped, burned, mutilated, but bore it all with the true name on their tongues and the true light of self realisation in their souls.

Then, we do not live or die in vain, as we reject that fate, of becoming just another casualty of causation. Free will, perhaps not, but freedom of the mind, that is worth living and dying for. And that, to do either, for a Sikh, is a choice we make – as the inherently free.

–

Please subscribe to my newsletter: https://sialmirzagoraya.substack.com to get my latest articles by email.