Existentialism, or, the Usurping of Free Will by Subconscious Emotional Experiences

Might as well take a drink. The agony only worsens from here.

It seems, to me, that our emotions are an act of fate, but our dealing with them is our own decision. How many times have you felt indifferent about something in one instance that you recall being fervent about in another? Have you ever felt a burning curiosity about something, but could easily imagine having very little curiosity in the same situation at a different time? Perhaps you couldn't even imagine why you were curious in the first place, you simply were.

If you're anything like me, you tend to have very little moral outrage for anything, so when you do feel indignant about something it can be surprising.

If you're surprised by something you yourself are feeling, how can it be described as anything but "not a choice"? This, presumably, is why "you don't have a right to not be offended"; it's not only impossible for someone else to guarantee that he will not offend you, but you cannot prevent it yourself!

What you can do, however—and to get off of this potentially politically-loaded line of reasoning—is make a decision in how to re/act to those emotions and that situation. What you do is your choice and yours alone, and it is indeed your choice, and it is in fact a choice at all, not to exhaust the gamut of emphatic facts we have here, but feeling that I have not yet been emphatic enough, allow me to recapitulate:

1. You have no choice, oftentimes, in how you feel.

2. You do have a choice in how you act in accordance to those feelings, if you choose to act at all.

3. No one can make that choice for you, or remove it.

4. We have free will in some areas, but in others we seem entirely beholden to our biology, our experiences, our beliefs and our present emotional state.

5. Political contention is pernicious to non-political blogs like this one, so try to avoid that.

I will say also that our free will seems to extend only to the extent of our knowledge: if you don't know another possible route to take on the metaphorical crossroads, then you cannot possibly take that route, and if you cannot take it then indeed your free will is made irrelevant, so that you may as well not have it whatever.

So knowledge, by this logic, can expand one's free will, and ignorance limit it. Then again, knowing too much can cripple one with decision fatigue, or weaken one’s powers of thought with the anxiety born of too great of knowledge, much of which may be a terrible burden. (Don't watch a video of someone being beheaded, for instance.)

This line of reasoning was my reason for writing the post, yet I feel the post was much more interesting prior to this point, which now feels like a diversion from the actual thesis. This is why outlining one's thoughts prior to writing is critical.

At least I didn't devolve into political conjecture.