Hi Josh, first to your comment "It doesn't matter what I believe...". Well I think it absolutely does matter. One's personal beliefs strongly influence, if not determine entirely, how we interpret the book, which is why I keep on drawing the contrast between the beliefs at opposite ends of the spectrum: predeterminism vs free will. My belief in humans' capacity for free will allows, or leads me, to interpret the book in a way that gives prominence to the influence of chance. Your belief in fate leads you to deny that influence. Your next comment indicates that you agree: "lead me to view the novel through that lense". In effect, you have contradicted yourself in the first paragraph.

Your second paragraph appears to be an attempt to explain decision-making through the prism of fatalism. I'm not sure what you're making here with regard to the book, but I suppose you're trying to answer the philosophical question I raised. Unfortunately, your answer lacks sufficient clarity for me to ascertain which position on the spectrum you're taking. So try again please!

With regard to your third paragraph, I am similarly struggling to understand the point you are making. again because of the lack of clarity.

I agree with the point you make in your fourth paragraph. There is a difference in the way the fate of the two characters is presented. However, I think it is fair and reasonable to allow the writer largesse in setting the mood and allowing the scene to naturally flow. You seem to interpret this flow and mood-setting as evidence of predeterminism. Right here is the source of your misinterpretation. It's just a writer's technique.

I agree with your statement that Chigurh doesn't believe he can manipulate chance. However, he believes chance can change his path. You have missed a crucial point. First, his early capture by a sheriff, does not represent a chance event. He has allowed it to happen. Therefore, the outcome of this capture - going to jail - is an entirely predictable event. What Chigurh is saying, is that through an act of will - free will - he can change that predictable outcome of going to jail. Seen in this light, it dovetails neatly with his philosophy on chance, and that of free will that I've been outlining here.

Finally, your last paragraph is suggesting that you actually think that the force of nature that drives the characters is chance!!!
"broken in certain ways by chance". So chance is driving these characters forward. But you think that chance equals fate, and then we're back to the point I keep raising: the philosophical issue of whether people actually have choices in their lives or are all our decisions predetermined by a combination of influences such as genes, and upbringing in our respective family and society. To repeat, I think this is the crux of the argument. It is really a philosophical issue with varying gradations between determinism, fatalism, predestination, God's will at one end of the spectrum and free will at the other end. Motivational gurus like Anthony Robbins would argue passionately that we have free will - it's part of what separates us from the animal world. This ultimately is a personal decision, or dare I say, a personal choice? Or perhaps not - people living in certain parts of the world are socialised to be fatalists. Someone else growing up under the influence of Tony Robbins would believe in free will and the capacity to change their life outcomes for the better. Which do you believe in Josh? However, note that this particular act of belief itself will likely determine your life's outcome.

Physics Ends the Free Will Debate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jint5kjo ... ure=relmfu

Mate, you're kidding aren't you? How about articulating an argument yourself rather than relying on a url link to someone else's argument?

It appears Goethe just joined today and this is his or her very first post. Let's not scare this newcomer off. The video was relevant to the discussion. Goethe may decide to get involved in the discussion. Maybe this is a means of testing the waters.

Chris, I'm happy to respond to a written argument but I'm not going to wade into youtube to figure out what Goethe's argument is. This is a forum for the written word isn't it? Goethe, would you mind succintly summarising the argument from youtube in written form please?

My apologies Andrewg, I thought an explanation by Michio Kaku one of today's most preeminent theoretical physicists would be far more convivial.
Incidentally, I am not kidding my good polemicist fellow. I am using a reference to some empirical evidence laid out by particle physics observation and experimentation to add weight to the crux of YOUR argument on "free will and determinism."
I simply thought a video description might be of more value to you or others interested in the argument, as Kaku explains it so brilliantly in under 2mins.

I detest how the determinism and free will are pitted against each other. It ought to be "determinism vs indeterminism" and "free will vs no free will".
We're conflating issues here.
At any rate, I shall explain laboriously in layman's terms the world of theoretical physics...
Prior to Hisenberg's Uncertainty principle the Paradigm on indeterminism and determinism in the Physics realm at least was that of Newtonian Determinism.
Newtonian Determinism basically says that the universe is a big clock that is wound up at the beginning of the universe and has been ticking ever since in time with Newton's laws of motion. So all events (including your actions) beginning with "the big bang" up until the present and into the future adhere to Newtons laws of motion (and all other physical laws i.e chemical, biological etc..)
For example all your "free will" decisions or what is thought of as "free will" actually occur because of each an every past event. Free will is an illusion. Each event has occurred because of the antecedent event and so on and so forth.

Black Swan events also adhere to Newtonian determinism. That "random" volcano erupts because of all historical physical laws of the universe acting on it prior to its cataclysmic explosion.
Free will, thought, expression are all part of these same physical laws at the chemical, evolutionary, and neurological level. All physical matter and laws have led us up to this point in one long progressive motion...

On the most basic level, imagine some decision. ALL past events and experiences (environmental factors) combined with the physical make up of the individual (genetic expression) completely influences that decisions at that moment in time both unconscious (for example did Mr Chigur get enough hugs from his mummy?) and consciously.

Einstein was a determinist, he reasoned this from his theories on the nature of the universe. The physics paradigm at this time was, at least epistemologically, was a Newtonian deterministic Universe.

Then came the study of Quantum Mechanics and Hisenberg's uncertainty principle HUP. At the Quantum level Hisenberg found that particles such as the electron could appear in space at one point in time and/or another point in time simultaneously. There became uncertainty in the universe.
This of course Einstein hated and in reference to the field of Quantum Mechanics publicly saying the famous "god doesn't play dice with the Universe".

Modern Quantum physics has shown Einstein to be wrong. Every time an electron is observed it moves and there is uncertainty and complete randomness as to where it actually is. HUP merely opens up the possibility that past events and laws don't effect everything in the known universe and (without getting to far down the rabbit hole and making an incredible leap of inference) ALLOW for indeterminism and thus Free will.

Hi Goethe, thanks for a terrific post. I'll respond when I've got a bit more time to consider the issues you've raised.