When it comes to topics as contentious as the issue of free will, there are understandably
a number of varying stances that people take when examining it through the lens of Steins;Gate.
Opinions on this tend to vary, with well-reasoned arguments coming from both the side of free
will and the side of determinism, which, to put it very simply, is a school of thought
that states that all actions are the result of causes.
But I think that a great deal of these arguments tend to dismiss some of the subtleties that
make all the difference.
This is quite a layered topic, and looking at it as black or white is the wrong way to
go about it when the concept is pretty nuanced.
The most accurate school of thought with regards to Steins;Gate’s take on free will and determinism
is a sort of harmonious hybrid of both ideas.
That Okabe does not have true free will, but simultaneously, determinism has not quite
lead him to lack ownership in his decisions.
Strict, extreme determinism would state that Okabe has no will for his actions and that
every behaviour of his is the result of previous factors.
It essentially dismisses responsibility for one’s behaviour.
And this is clearly not the case because of how much narrative emphasis and weight is
put on Okabe’s decisions throughout.
But simultaneously, it is also true that on numerous occasions, the characters in the
story allude to a lack of free will.
In the midst of his struggle to save Mayuri from death, Okabe laments that the universe
is preventing him from saving her, as if god has conspired against him so that no matter
what he does, he will never be able to save her.
However, this is NOT determinism that he is referring to here.
The way that Mayuri dies no matter how Okabe varies the past is not at all consistent with
classical determinism, which, due to the innumerable alterations, would have lead to plausibility
and possibility dictating that a number of his attempts would have been successful.
Of course, every world line where Mayuri dies like this is within an attractor field, meaning
that one could argue for determinism here and say that every possible scenario plays
out under the umbrella of this attractor field before converging at Mayuri’s death.
But due to this convergence, there is no absurdism here, no randomness that would characterize
true determinism.
This inevitability is different.
Okabe’s helplessness here is instead about fatalism.
Sometimes referred to as predeterminism, fatalism is the belief that all events, including human
actions, are established or decided in advance.
The belief that nothing can change these events.
A very important concept to understand is the distinction between fatalism and determinism.
Both have parallels in that they both say that our lives are dictated by forces beyond
our control.
In contrast to determinism, fatalism is not about causation but destiny - it states that
we are bound to reach our ultimate fate no matter what.
These fates are predetermined and set, and unaffected by cause.
But the story categorically denies fatalism through the implementation of divergence from
attractor fields - the idea that Okabe can alter these world lines enough to avoid undesirable
events.
This throws fatalism out the window and the fact that Okabe only prescribed to it at the
height of his misery strongly insinuates that it is an undesirable philosophy that should
be overcome and dismissed.
Now, as Kurisu alludes to here, it is clear that the series advocates for certain aspects
of determinism.
Peppered throughout the narrative are little allusions to people, decisions and events
being the result of previous factors.
That all of the preceding events have lead to the current situations.
This much is clear, but what is important is that it does NOT become nihilistic and
insinuate passivity.
Okabe is the result of his past experiences, but he is still actively making decisions
every step of the way.
He chooses to save Mayuri because his will demanded it, not because of cause.
He chooses to sacrifice Kurisu.
Likewise, in alternate routes, he gives up because he makes a choice to lose hope.
If the story truly believed that every action resulted ONLY from cause and not from human
choice, it wouldn’t have put so much gravitas on Okabe’s guilt and the impact of his decisions
after he made choices.
However, oddly enough, one of the most iconic lines of the series would seem to advocate
for either fatalism or classic determinism, depending on your point of view.
This line would appear to imply that Steins;Gate has chosen everything that has happened and
that the beings of this world have no say in the matter.
However, This wouldn’t make sense since the story clearly rejects fatalism, and doesn’t
buy into traditional determinism.
We’ll return to this issue later, so keep it in the back of your mind.
I think that a problem with the term “free will” is that it seems to hint at complete
independency, when the truth is that this is never the case.
If you make a decision in the moment, it is because of something in your past that has
lead you to think that way.
There is no action you take that is not dependent on something.
That’s just how it is, our will in the moment is not ever independent of cause.
In my opinion, for this debate, a better term for free will that would clear up some confusion
would be “Personal agency.”
The ability of someone to take action.
We are not completely free of influence, but this does NOT mean that we have no ability
to act.
Any decision you make is inherently of your own volition because you yourself are making
that choice, but it results from factors and causes from your past.
In Steins;Gate, there is no spontaneous free will and there is no nihilistic determinism.
However, there is personal agency and there is cause.
Like I said, a nuanced hybrid of free will and determinism.
But what does this mean thematically?
Well, this is just the way of the world in Steins;Gate - the narrative doesn’t contain
true, completely independent free will, but neither does it advocate a passive submission
to fate.
It emphasizes the capacity for action and how one can choose to progress.
And here is the true significance of these ideas - choice.
We still have the ability to choose to press on when things get tough.
And of course, we also have the ability to choose to give up.
One of the darkest routes in the Steins;Gate visual novel consists of an empty, hopeless
Okabe mindlessly repeating the days leading up to Mayuri’s death over and over again
because he can’t find a way to progress past them without losing someone dear to him.
He eventually learns about every aspect of these days - so thoroughly that it becomes
monotonous.
He is a shell of a man, going through this cyclical world that he knows every detail
about.
Without a shred of humour, he unironically proclaims himself as the God of this looping
mini-universe he has created, with it being victim to his every whim since he can just
leap back in time and start over again without changing anything.
In a moment of unhinged insanity, Okabe realizes that he can do anything in this closed loop
and begins thinking unspeakable things.
He ponders letting Daru get hit by a car.
He even genuinely considers raping Suzuha.
Eventually, he reverts back to passive hopelessness before resolving to travel back to the seventies
with Suzuha to try and change things from there.
And so, Okabe leaves with her, never to see his dear friends again.
Evidently, the story does not shy away from some pretty morbid darkness.
But it is because of how it dips into this darkness that it’s uplifting ascent in the
conclusion is as palpable as it is.
This is very clearly a “bad” ending.
Apart from the resolution, which is depressing but manages to emphasize finding a way forward
through choice, this is the clearly undesirable thematic antithesis to what the story is trying
to say.
Hopelessness.
Submission.
Defeat.
No impact from Okabe’s actions.
At every turn, it frames fate and nihilistic determinism as thoroughly undesirable.
Through this, the conclusive messages of the narrative itself and Okabe’s constant struggle
to find the light, Steins;Gate chastises these ideas and challenges the audience to strive
for more.
Not only is Personal agency the concept that Steins;Gate champions when it comes to the
philosophical debate regarding free will, but the ability to act in the face of the
seemingly inevitable is a major theme of the story.
Maybe free will doesn't exist, but in a fictional universe that has world line after world line
of infinite possibilities accessible by our main character, does it need to to show the
importance of choosing to overcome the odds?
Our decisions are constrained and framed by our past experiences, but we still have personal
power.
Everything has a cause, but in the moments that matter, genuine decisions are made.
And so now, we can see that Okabe’s happy fate was not just the choice of Steins;Gate
in a way that made him a passenger - it was the choice of a worldline that he carved out
for himself.
When you choose to fight and push through, the world will reward you.
Okabe admits during the story that “This is the choice of Steins Gate” is a phrase
that is completely pointless, but I think if he were to give it meaning by the end,
it would be something similar to this.
That’s why S;G is inspiration to many.
It uses the multiple world lines as not just a primary plot mechanic, but a metaphorical
device to illustrate this theme - showing the sheer difficulty of struggling to reach
the light in various contexts.
In some worldlines, it is impossible to save Mayuri.
Hell, Okabe lives through hundreds of scenarios and in almost all of them, someone close to
him dies.
But to find an alternative to Mayuri’s death, all he needed was the support of one other
to get going again.
And when it came to avoiding the death of his loved ones altogether, all it took was
one other perspective.
The smallest things can turn the tide and inspire action, and S;G is saying this with
regards to both the story, and micro-situations in life.
Sometimes, every single scenario within a desperate situation may feel like a path into
the abyss.
But Steins;Gate, through it’s emphasis on personal agency, is saying that there is a
way to transcend these tiny world lines within difficult situations of our lives to find
a way through.
It is immeasurably difficult to reach for the light when everything seems to cloud it
out, but if you do, you can break through and achieve what never seemed possible.
Sure, maybe a bunch of past factors landed you in a difficult situation.
But there is always an alternative, that one way out, that one world line.
And there is always the option to choose to fight to find it.
For those who can relate, it is an extremely meaningful concept tackled in an elaborate
and metaphorical way, one that integrates some rather hefty philosophical concepts organically
and places them in secondary importance to the messages and heart of the work.
And that is why the show is able to resonate with so many - through this mechanism, it
introduces the brutal dark, establishes the world as one that has lead our main character
into a tough spot, and uses the multi-worldline theory to demonstrate that there is always
a light at the end of the tunnel.
A theme that will always be relevant.
Thanks very much for watching.