<center></center><br/>
Hobbes woke up to the sound of a distinct knock on the door. He wasn't expecting anyone, but considering his social status it wasn't too uncommon for spontaneous visitors to come by. The sound wouldn't have woken him, were it not for the late night of writing that preceded his slumber. He had lost track of time while answering a letter to a colleague regarding the topic of free will.
Hobbes stood up and opened the door in a drowsy haze. He saw the silhouette of a familiar figure but had issues discerning its identity.
It was his cousin. He let his relative inside and offered him some stew as he made some for himself. But as he handed a bowl to his cousin, he stubbed his toe on a chipped tile and spilled the hot slab of food on his friend's bare calf.
The stew was scorching. So the cousin jumped to hit feet and cried out in pain. He held his leg and jumped in a circle as he pitied his own misfortune. But the cousin knocked over an important ornament while hopping in circles as an outlet for his pain.
Both men stopped in their tracks as they watched the ceramic trickle to the ground. The cousin forgot about his pain - guilt being the only emotion possessing him by now.
Hobbes tried to comfort his visitor but conceded that not much could be done now that the damage was done. On top of that, Hobbes assured his guests that it wasn’t his fault.. After all, had Hobbes not spilled the stew, the ornament would now still be intact.
The cousin disagreed staunchly. He had the ability not to jump, even if the pain compelled him to do so. It is his freedom as a human being that gives him the ability to decide. His stern devotion to this argument became increasingly apparent.
Hobbes sighed. His writing from last night was concerning this very topic. Well, at least he had the arguments fresh in his mind and so he began.
"The very consideration that you could have acted otherwise to the hot feeling that caused the pain in your leg is ridiculous. Free agency, as a notion, is contradictory and absurd. After all, if I knock you over, you will fall, and for you to state that you have a choice in the matter is absurd".
The cousin smiled in tandem with his sparked interest. He responded: "I think you are confusing different matters. For me not to react to the burn would be an act of the will. For that same reason, for me to react to the burn is an act of the will. It is true that I would fall to the ground if you push me so. But falling is not an act of the will. In the case of the burning sensation, I can refuse to react with enough mental fortitude."
Hobbes shook his head with disapproval. "No normal agent would act that way unless primed to do so. The cases where you end up not reacting to the burn of the stew, you would have done so out of necessity, and not free will. In our particular case, that necessity would manifest itself as the desire to prove a point. I've come to realize, over the course of my life, that this dilemma can be applied to all actions. Each of my actions is the result of all prior events relating to myself. So how then can I coherently claim that I can ignore the past and act independent of it?"
The cousin began to understand his host's argument. One domino falls on the next, and the way the second domino falls depends on the conditions of the first. That much seems clear. What still troubled him though, is that people aren't as simple as dominoes. For one, Dominoes don't have a will. So he raised another objection. "Your view gives humanity a lifeless view. Although I can agree that a leaf falls depending on the configuration of the air around it, it seems crude to simplify human behavior to that of objects. A person can have unusual emotions that sway them to act in unpredictable ways. A leaf won't fall differently when it's grumpy because it can't be grumpy in the first place. Right?"
Hobbes was intrigued by his cousin's interpretation of the argument. But he reminded his cousin that he did not give those analogies himself. He conceded, however, that the simplifications roughly represents his beliefs.
To Hobbes the root behind the disagreement was already clear. He was sure of his own worldview in which there is only matter, while his cousin was convinced of immaterial substances. As what else could be the root of his cousin's argumentative emphasis on the sporadic nature of the will? Hobbes ran into this debate many times before, and so decided to lure his cousin into the next stage.
"To me, emotions are just a crude summary of past events." Hobbes began where his cousin left off. "It's absurd to consider the emotions of leafs. But isn't our interpretation most accurate when we see the role that emotions play in influencing people's emotions the same way the wind influences the way a leaf falls?".
The cousin fell right into his trap, but still challenged the comparison: "A person has a soul, but a leaf does not. There is a profound difference between the two. Namely, that the leaf is wholly material, but that the person has an immaterial soul."
Hobbes had him where he wanted. "So you agree that our disagreement lies in a fundamental difference in our worldview?"
His cousin gave bodily clues to show his agreement.
Hobbes knew to continue. "Your view presupposes two mutually exclusive substances while mine just relies on one. We can only know what can be sensed and measured, so the very conception of anything beyond is as baseless as it is futile".
The cousin did not expect such a sudden attack. Yet he felt that he was clearly in the right. His better judgment, however, advised him to press for more details. "So you are relying on the completeness of physics? That is, you think that once we understand everything there is to know about all the things that can be sensed in our world, there will be nothing left to understand?
Hobbes responded with a simple "yes". He felt as confident of his stance as the other.
This time the cousin felt the momentum sway his way. He pushed to take advantage of it. "What makes you believe that? I'm not sure what gives you the confidence for that opinion when currently there is an infinite amount of things to learn and no complete knowledge in sight?
Hobbes released an ill-concealed sigh. The lack of sleep was beginning to catch up with him. "People have been able to advance our knowledge significantly with the development of appropriate research methods. By tying discoveries into knowledge by use of logic, the very gap in which substance dualism resides recedes. And following that pattern, which has thus far borne the fruits of unparalleled practical advances, our knowledge should be expected to eventually form a complete system."
"That's a great narrative", said the cousin, "but how do you expect your argument to sway my position. All we have up to this point are two different ways of interpreting human behavior".
"It's simple really," explained Hobbes. "The burden of answer is on you, as opposed to me, because you are making a metaphysical assumption, whereas I'm just using the tools that are available to us to give the best possible answer. The bricks that I need for my house can be sensed and verified. Your bricks cannot by their very nature. So does it not seem more pressing to address a metaphysical presumption than a rudimentary use of induction?".
The cousin momentarily broke composure as he reorganized his thoughts to counter Hobbes' shrewd remark. He soon knew how to advance. "It seems interesting how you present your explanation as the lesser of two evils and I have to agree that from the angle you presented it does appear as such. However, I can present the problem from an angle that makes your presupposition far more demanding than mine". He took a short breath. "Assume that we do know everything about the physical world and that we inspect a person looking at a red apple. As observers we know every nuance of the brain. We also see how the light from the apple enters his eye, and how the light triggers a reaction that leads the agent to perceive the color red. How could you possibly be satisfied with a mere series of physical events as the explanation for what that very redness is that the person perceives? Is it the light? Is it the matter in his brain? Answers that only make use of material substances all fall short of satisfactory explanation. How absurd is it then to take the next possible step? After all, we must look beyond material substances to find an answer.
Hobbes' twisted face betrayed a serious lack of comfort.
After a lengthy silence the cousin tried to break the tension.
"So if there is substance duality there is room for the will..."
Hobbes didn't budge.
"Which means that I could've ignored the pain of the burn given the same circumstances..."
Still no response.
It's probably a good time to leave, the cousin thought to himself.
----
[Image Source](https://www.flickr.com/photos/63794459@N07/6239384009/in/photolist-ogg1KM-gTny5u-73Rmn9-nrBMYv-77bKNk-gTnC6p-73MpAa-avmtun-5Fpp97-4oxjyr-gTnSoJ-rcvj3q-7bgU9s-7czqMD-7Yj6Cp-7Ynj17-73RjMN-6dWUhW-gTpUyt-6NFd7j-bt2cs1-7YnjG9-7Ynk4A-6Tzfex-7YnkmE-6Zb1bu-65mxsr-26VvjU-79qWeE-eZZmUD-gTnTfd-7YniLj-iKpRRY-gTnUJd-7WqetU-gTnj7N-gTnXFC-5ETJMN-gTnTsf-nafbGD-rEwZQQ-7ytPxH-4MuuUi-gTnL4E-rEQy1t-rX3fmT)
----
Check out my [portfolio](https://martinstuessy.com)
Follow me on [Steemit](https://steemit.com/@martin-stuessy)