Your piece is thoughtful, lyrical, and definitely got my brain turning. I loved how you explored the tension between choice and constraint. It’s written with this poetic stoicism-lite vibe, sprinkled with a bit of Nietzsche and wrapped in some truly clever metaphors.
That said, I wanted to offer a counterpoint, because while I agree with your core idea, that real freedom is found in how we choose within our constraints, I think the picture might be more complicated than the essay allows.
You suggest that free will isn’t about infinite options or transcending the past, but about taking responsibility for the choices we can make in the moment. I resonate with that. I want that to be true. But it reads like a clean philosophical conclusion layered over a very messy human reality.
In real life, constraints aren’t always abstract ideas, they’re material and often brutal: medical issues, lack of transportation, mental illness, financial hardship, systemic inequality. These aren’t just “stories we tell ourselves.” They are binding factors. And while agency exists, it often comes down to capacity + access, not just mindset.
I think it’s dangerous to treat all stagnation as surrender. Yes, some people are willfully stuck. But others are stuck despite wanting change, because change takes more than awareness and intention. It often takes resources. And the truth is, with more resources come more choices. That doesn’t guarantee better decisions, but it does offer the power to make them.
Take my 80-year-old mother-in-law. She has the means to replace her broken bed and fix her property, but refuses. She has freedom and options; she’s just not exercising them. And yes, that’s a form of surrender. But there are people out there who would act differently if they had that same 250k in the bank. So while willpower matters, so does circumstance. And when we reduce suffering to mindset, we risk blaming people for conditions they didn’t choose.
You nailed it when you said, “The enemy of free will isn’t determinism, but the victim mindset.” I’d just add: we need to be very careful about who we’re calling a victim and why. There’s a difference between hiding behind our wounds and being actively wounded by systems we didn’t build.
All that to say, I appreciate the spark and the sharpness of your voice. Just wanted to push back on the idea that non-action is always a moral failing. Sometimes, it’s just all someone can do to survive another day.
Thank you so much for your comment (I blushed!). And thank you for the opportunity to address some nuances.
My judgment isn't absolute or moral. My judgment concerns consciousness and responsibility, not the choices themselves.
Let me clarify with a light example: I'm on a diet, but sometimes I indulge in ice cream. Who put the ice cream in my mouth? Me. I take full responsibility for it - no blame toward myself (very important!) or the world. If the scale is higher tomorrow, I won't be surprised or angry. What I do is increase my steps by 1000 daily for one week, and voilà, the problem is solved. No guilty, no shame, no self-imposed limitation.
My mindset is completely different from my friend who got bitter because women won't date him due to his weight (spoiler: the problem wasn't the weight, but his narcissistic character combined with being overweight).
Your mother-in-law is postponing, but if she's conscious of this choice and doesn't blame anyone (including herself), then she's exercising agency, not succumbing to victimhood.
What I wanted to highlight in my piece is that people forget their inaction IS an action, often displaying way more agency than they realize they possess.
Non-action is still action when it's conscious. Non-action can be a perfect choice in certain situations! I will write an entire post about how sometimes non-action was the ideal action (I've studied Taoism).
I think we agree more than it initially appears. You're right that material constraints are real and brutal, I'm not dismissing systemic inequality or suggesting mindset alone solves everything.
My critique targets a specific phenomenon: individuals who possess self-awareness, yet use it as a justification for inaction.
The person surviving day-to-day isn't who I'm addressing. I'm talking about those who can analyze their situation perfectly but choose surrender over the agency they demonstrably possess. There's a profound difference between "I can't" and "I won't, because the universe owes me different circumstances."
Thank you for keeping me honest about this distinction.
Thank you for this response, it means a lot, and I appreciate the clarity. You’re right, I think we do agree more than it seemed at first glance. And I totally get where you’re coming from now with the distinction: it’s not about condemning all inaction, but calling out conscious avoidance when people know better and still choose stagnation.
Your ice cream example was great, and I appreciate how you frame responsibility without guilt or shame. That kind of self-honesty without self-punishment is powerful, and, sadly, rare.
Also, thank you for acknowledging that your piece wasn’t dismissing systemic constraints. That nuance didn’t quite land for me the first time, but your explanation really helped. I think I just bristle when I see the “victim mindset” called out without a clear boundary between true survival mode and chosen inertia. But you clarified that beautifully here.
I’m genuinely looking forward to your Taoism-inspired post on non-action. There’s real wisdom in knowing when not to move, and honestly, that might be the next frontier of the free will conversation: what does conscious restraint look like in a world that worships hustle?
Thanks again for the dialogue. It’s rare to have thoughtful disagreement that leads to clarity instead of conflict. Really refreshing.
Your piece is thoughtful, lyrical, and definitely got my brain turning. I loved how you explored the tension between choice and constraint. It’s written with this poetic stoicism-lite vibe, sprinkled with a bit of Nietzsche and wrapped in some truly clever metaphors.
That said, I wanted to offer a counterpoint, because while I agree with your core idea, that real freedom is found in how we choose within our constraints, I think the picture might be more complicated than the essay allows.
You suggest that free will isn’t about infinite options or transcending the past, but about taking responsibility for the choices we can make in the moment. I resonate with that. I want that to be true. But it reads like a clean philosophical conclusion layered over a very messy human reality.
In real life, constraints aren’t always abstract ideas, they’re material and often brutal: medical issues, lack of transportation, mental illness, financial hardship, systemic inequality. These aren’t just “stories we tell ourselves.” They are binding factors. And while agency exists, it often comes down to capacity + access, not just mindset.
I think it’s dangerous to treat all stagnation as surrender. Yes, some people are willfully stuck. But others are stuck despite wanting change, because change takes more than awareness and intention. It often takes resources. And the truth is, with more resources come more choices. That doesn’t guarantee better decisions, but it does offer the power to make them.
Take my 80-year-old mother-in-law. She has the means to replace her broken bed and fix her property, but refuses. She has freedom and options; she’s just not exercising them. And yes, that’s a form of surrender. But there are people out there who would act differently if they had that same 250k in the bank. So while willpower matters, so does circumstance. And when we reduce suffering to mindset, we risk blaming people for conditions they didn’t choose.
You nailed it when you said, “The enemy of free will isn’t determinism, but the victim mindset.” I’d just add: we need to be very careful about who we’re calling a victim and why. There’s a difference between hiding behind our wounds and being actively wounded by systems we didn’t build.
All that to say, I appreciate the spark and the sharpness of your voice. Just wanted to push back on the idea that non-action is always a moral failing. Sometimes, it’s just all someone can do to survive another day.
Thanks again for putting this out there.
Thank you so much for your comment (I blushed!). And thank you for the opportunity to address some nuances.
My judgment isn't absolute or moral. My judgment concerns consciousness and responsibility, not the choices themselves.
Let me clarify with a light example: I'm on a diet, but sometimes I indulge in ice cream. Who put the ice cream in my mouth? Me. I take full responsibility for it - no blame toward myself (very important!) or the world. If the scale is higher tomorrow, I won't be surprised or angry. What I do is increase my steps by 1000 daily for one week, and voilà, the problem is solved. No guilty, no shame, no self-imposed limitation.
My mindset is completely different from my friend who got bitter because women won't date him due to his weight (spoiler: the problem wasn't the weight, but his narcissistic character combined with being overweight).
Your mother-in-law is postponing, but if she's conscious of this choice and doesn't blame anyone (including herself), then she's exercising agency, not succumbing to victimhood.
What I wanted to highlight in my piece is that people forget their inaction IS an action, often displaying way more agency than they realize they possess.
Non-action is still action when it's conscious. Non-action can be a perfect choice in certain situations! I will write an entire post about how sometimes non-action was the ideal action (I've studied Taoism).
I think we agree more than it initially appears. You're right that material constraints are real and brutal, I'm not dismissing systemic inequality or suggesting mindset alone solves everything.
My critique targets a specific phenomenon: individuals who possess self-awareness, yet use it as a justification for inaction.
The person surviving day-to-day isn't who I'm addressing. I'm talking about those who can analyze their situation perfectly but choose surrender over the agency they demonstrably possess. There's a profound difference between "I can't" and "I won't, because the universe owes me different circumstances."
Thank you for keeping me honest about this distinction.
Thank you for this response, it means a lot, and I appreciate the clarity. You’re right, I think we do agree more than it seemed at first glance. And I totally get where you’re coming from now with the distinction: it’s not about condemning all inaction, but calling out conscious avoidance when people know better and still choose stagnation.
Your ice cream example was great, and I appreciate how you frame responsibility without guilt or shame. That kind of self-honesty without self-punishment is powerful, and, sadly, rare.
Also, thank you for acknowledging that your piece wasn’t dismissing systemic constraints. That nuance didn’t quite land for me the first time, but your explanation really helped. I think I just bristle when I see the “victim mindset” called out without a clear boundary between true survival mode and chosen inertia. But you clarified that beautifully here.
I’m genuinely looking forward to your Taoism-inspired post on non-action. There’s real wisdom in knowing when not to move, and honestly, that might be the next frontier of the free will conversation: what does conscious restraint look like in a world that worships hustle?
Thanks again for the dialogue. It’s rare to have thoughtful disagreement that leads to clarity instead of conflict. Really refreshing.
"what does conscious restraint look like in a world that worships hustle?" what a great question. Thank you so much for your interest
Maybe freedom isn’t about choosing everything, but about choosing well. The fewer things you allow to govern you, the freer you are.