Choice;
A word that has much responsibility and consequence. In my research I have sometimes been confused on the context of this word choice, and that of free will. I have come to realize that many do use these words interchangeably, which does confuse and compound the erroneous interpretations of their true meaning. They are two words that go hand in hand, but it is choice that really defines who we are as individuals. Free will is the capacity, the inherent gift of consciousness to act, think, and move independently. It is like the open field, the potential to walk in any direction. In theosophical thought, free will is often considered the divine spark in humanity, that part which mirrors the freedom of the ALL.
Choice is the exercise of that capacity, the moment we direct free will into a particular path. Choice is the stepping stone we place along the field of potential, creating direction and momentum.
Free will is the power, Choice is the application of power.
Every thought we have is a choice.
Every emotion, feeling, sense, opinion, action, reaction is a thought. In essence, every thing in every moment of our being, in this life, is a choice that we make, consciously, unconsciously and sub-consciously.
I believe that for every thing that has happened to us, is happening to us, and will happen to us, is the direct consequences of our own choices. If we do not like what is happening, we can choose to change.
I know, I know, easier said than done. I do not know the circumstances of every one else’s life, nor do i want to, I have enough within my own life. (Though, I do believe also, that many interject their own life into the stresses, worries and problems of others life circumstances for no other reason than to escape making choices that determine their own future)
It is not easy, and the consequences of one’s choices determine the very outcome of life. It is up to each and every one of us to become aware of our thoughts, and to know that no matter the status of where we are at in life, our choices determine our fate, nothing else.
Of course, I am not the first person to ever have an opinion, or thoughts on choice. It has been debated since the time of Aristotle.
Classical Philosophers
- Plato – explored the role of reason vs. desire; in Republic, the just soul is one that chooses reason to rule.
- Aristotle – in Nicomachean Ethics, emphasized prohairesis (deliberate choice) as central to virtue; choice shapes character.
- Epicurus – argued that atoms swerve unpredictably, making room for human free choice amidst determinism.
- Stoics (Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Seneca) – while fate governs the external world, inner freedom comes from choosing how to respond.
Medieval & Religious Thinkers
- St. Augustine – deeply wrestled with free will vs. divine foreknowledge; argued humans choose sin but need divine grace to choose rightly.
- Thomas Aquinas – harmonized free will with divine providence, emphasizing rational choice as a reflection of divine image.
- Sufi mystics (Rumi, Al-Ghazali) – often wrote on surrender vs. choice; paradox of divine will and human responsibility.
- Buddhism – though often framed around dependent origination, emphasizes intentional choice (cetana) as key in shaping karma.
Enlightenment & Modern Philosophers
- René Descartes – free will as a mark of human dignity; choice reveals mind over matter.
- Baruch Spinoza – denied free will; believed choices are determined by necessity, though understanding that necessity is liberating.
- John Locke – wrote extensively on liberty and the will; saw freedom in choosing according to one’s desires.
- David Hume – argued that free will and determinism are compatible (compatibilism); choice is acting according to one’s own motives.
- Immanuel Kant – true freedom lies not in following impulses but in choosing to follow moral law (autonomy).
Existentialists & 20th Century Thinkers
- Søren Kierkegaard – choice is central to becoming an authentic self; the “leap of faith” is the ultimate choice.
- Friedrich Nietzsche – emphasized will to power; choosing one’s values in a world without inherent meaning.
- Jean-Paul Sartre – radical freedom: humans are “condemned to be free” and must choose, even in not choosing.
- Simone de Beauvoir – expanded Sartre’s existential freedom into ethics and feminism; we must choose authentically while considering others’ freedom.
- Albert Camus – in an absurd universe, choice gives meaning; rebellion is choosing to live authentically despite absurdity.
Psychology & Modern Thought
- Viktor Frankl (Man’s Search for Meaning) – even in the worst conditions (concentration camps), man has the freedom to choose his attitude.
- Carl Jung – spoke of individuation as choosing to integrate shadow and self.
- Rollo May – existential psychologist; emphasized that anxiety is the price of freedom and choice.
- Contemporary neuroscience & psychology – debates whether free will is an illusion (Libet’s experiments), yet many argue conscious awareness still plays a guiding role.
Esoteric & Hermetic
- Hermeticism (Kybalion) – Principle of Polarity: choice is shifting degrees along a spectrum; Principle of Correspondence: choosing within shapes without.
- Theosophy (Blavatsky, Besant, Leadbeater) – stressed conscious evolution; choice determines karmic path and soul unfoldment.
- Pranosophy (your path) – choice as the directing of prana, conserving or leaking energy, aligning with higher purpose.
Choice: The Hidden Architect of Consciousness
Choice. It is the most familiar of human experiences, yet also the most mysterious. From the moment we rise in the morning until sleep claims us again, we move through a stream of decisions: what to eat, how to respond, what to believe, what to ignore. Some choices are so small as to feel invisible; others so weighty they appear to determine the course of our lives. And beneath all of them lies a deeper question: Do we truly choose, or are we carried along by forces unseen?
The problem of choice — whether framed as free will, volition, liberty, or conscious decision — has preoccupied philosophers, mystics, and psychologists for millennia. It touches not only the grand themes of fate and destiny, but also the intimate fabric of daily life: our thoughts, emotions, actions, and ultimately the kind of human beings we become.
This essay will journey through the many voices who have wrestled with choice — Plato and Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas, Descartes and Spinoza, Kierkegaard and Sartre, Frankl and Jung, Blavatsky and the Hermetists. Their ideas often conflict, sometimes harmonize, but together they reveal that choice is not just a topic for abstract speculation. It is the hidden architect of consciousness itself.
The Ancient Groundwork: Choice as the Shaper of Character
Plato, in his Republic, envisioned the soul as a tripartite being: reason, spirit, and appetite. For him, justice in the soul arises when reason governs, spirit supports, and appetite obeys. Choice, then, is not arbitrary; it is the conscious alignment of the soul with reason. To choose poorly is to allow desire to rule; to choose wisely is to participate in the eternal order of the Good.
Aristotle sharpened this in his Nicomachean Ethics through the concept of prohairesis — deliberate choice. He argued that virtue is not mere habit, but the result of reasoned decision. Our character, he taught, is the sum of our choices: by choosing courage in fearful situations, we become courageous; by choosing generosity, we become generous. For Aristotle, we are what we repeatedly choose.
Yet not all ancient thinkers were so confident in human freedom. Epicurus, while affirming human agency, admitted the problem of determinism. If atoms move only by necessity, how can choice exist? He proposed the clinamen, the “swerve” — a spontaneous deviation of atoms that introduces unpredictability into the cosmos, making space for free will. Without this atomic swerve, he feared, choice would be an illusion.
The Stoics, in contrast, took a different path. For Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, the universe is governed entirely by fate, yet inner freedom remains possible. We cannot choose what happens, but we can choose how we respond. “You may fetter my leg,” Epictetus declared, “but not even Zeus himself can overcome my choice.” For the Stoics, choice lies not in external events but in the sovereignty of the inner self.
Medieval and Religious Views: Choice Under Providence
With the rise of Christianity and Islamic philosophy, choice became entangled with divine will. Augustine agonized over the tension between God’s omniscience and human responsibility. In his Confessions, he admitted that he often desired the good but chose otherwise, falling into sin. For Augustine, choice was real, but weakened by original sin; only divine grace could restore the will’s true freedom.
Thomas Aquinas, centuries later, sought harmony between divine providence and human freedom. In his Summa Theologica, he argued that God, as First Cause, ordains all, but humans as secondary causes truly act and choose. For Aquinas, rational choice reflects the image of God in humanity — freedom is a divine spark.
In Islamic thought, Al-Ghazali also wrestled with predestination and free will. He concluded that human choice is real, but always undergirded by God’s will: “You did not throw when you threw, but God threw,” he quoted from the Qur’an. For him, choice is both ours and not ours, a paradox held in divine mystery.
The Sufi mystics often resolved this tension in poetry. Rumi wrote: “Try to accept the changing seasons of your heart, for each choice is a door that God has already opened.” Choice, in this sense, becomes surrender — the paradoxical choice to yield to a greater will.
Buddhism approached the question differently. Rather than posit an eternal soul or external deity, it focused on cetana — intention. In the chain of dependent origination, intention is the seed of karma: we choose, whether knowingly or not, and those choices shape our future experiences. Freedom is not absolute but arises from awareness; the more conscious we are of our intentions, the more freedom we have to direct them.
The Enlightenment: Reason, Liberty, and Determinism
The Enlightenment era shifted attention from divine will to human reason. Descartes saw free will as a mark of human dignity, proof that we are minds distinct from matter. “The freedom of the will,” he wrote, “is so great that it cannot be conceived greater.” For Descartes, choice reveals the independence of consciousness.
Spinoza, however, denied such freedom. In his Ethics, he insisted that all things follow from necessity; our sense of free will is ignorance of causes. When a stone is thrown, it would think it flies by choice if it were conscious. For Spinoza, freedom is not choosing otherwise, but understanding why things must be as they are.
John Locke and David Hume occupied a middle ground. Locke argued that liberty lies in the ability to act according to our desires, but our will is always determined by what appears most good to us in the moment. Hume called this compatibilism: free will and determinism can coexist, because freedom is simply acting in accordance with one’s motives.
Kant redefined freedom in moral terms. True choice, he argued, is not about following desires but about autonomy — the ability to legislate moral law for oneself. To choose freely is to act out of duty to universal principles, not out of impulse. Thus, for Kant, freedom is obedience to reason, paradoxically liberating us from the tyranny of our own inclinations.
Existentialism: Radical Freedom and Its Burden
In the 19th and 20th centuries, existentialists reframed choice as the essence of human existence. Kierkegaard saw choice as the crucible of becoming. In choosing, one becomes oneself; to refuse to choose is to despair. His famous “leap of faith” was not irrational, but a radical choice beyond certainty.
Nietzsche went further, declaring that in a godless world, humans must choose their own values. The will to power is the will to create and affirm life through choice. “Become who you are,” he urged — meaning that we must actively choose our essence.
Sartre, in Being and Nothingness, took freedom to its most extreme conclusion. Humans are “condemned to be free”: even refusing to choose is itself a choice. Every action, every thought, is chosen — and with it comes responsibility. For Sartre, anxiety is the dizziness of freedom, the recognition that nothing compels us but ourselves.
Simone de Beauvoir extended this to ethics, arguing that we must choose authentically, not only for ourselves but in recognition of others’ freedom. True choice, she insisted, acknowledges the interdependence of human beings.
Albert Camus, confronting the absurdity of existence, saw choice as rebellion. Though life may have no ultimate meaning, we can choose to live, to love, to act — and in so doing create meaning.
Psychology and the Inner Life: Choice as Healing
In modern psychology, choice often emerges as the turning point of transformation. Viktor Frankl, imprisoned in Nazi concentration camps, discovered that everything can be taken from a person except one thing: “the last of the human freedoms — to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances.” For Frankl, this inner choice is the key to meaning.
Carl Jung spoke of choice in terms of individuation — the conscious decision to integrate shadow, archetype, and self into wholeness. To refuse this work is also a choice, one that leaves us fragmented. Rollo May, the existential psychologist, argued that anxiety is not to be escaped but embraced; it is the cost of freedom, the tension that accompanies the possibility of choice.
Even neuroscience has entered the debate. Benjamin Libet’s experiments suggested that brain activity precedes conscious choice, raising questions about free will. Yet many argue that conscious awareness still influences how we interpret and direct these impulses. Choice may be less about originating thoughts than about consciously shaping their trajectory.
Esoteric and Hermetic Perspectives: Choice as Alchemy
In Hermetic philosophy, the Principle of Polarity declares that opposites are but degrees of the same thing. Choice is the art of transmutation: moving from fear to courage, sadness to joy, ignorance to wisdom. The Principle of Correspondence — “as above, so below; as within, so without” — affirms that inner choice reshapes outer reality.
Theosophy, through H.P. Blavatsky and others, emphasized that the soul evolves through conscious choice. Annie Besant wrote of “self-directed evolution,” where the human being chooses alignment with higher planes or sinks into materiality. Choice determines the path of karma and the awakening of the higher self.
Pranosophy builds on these principles by focusing on prana, the vital life-force. Here, choice determines energy flow: do we leak energy through fear, self-doubt, and distraction, or conserve and direct it toward growth, harmony, and service? Choice is not abstract — it is lived, embodied, and energetic.
Choice as the Hidden Architect of Consciousness
When we weave these perspectives together, a striking pattern emerges.
Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics remind us that choice shapes character and inner freedom. Augustine, Aquinas, and Rumi show that choice is inseparable from the divine. Descartes and Kant emphasize reason; Spinoza and Hume insist on necessity; Kierkegaard, Sartre, and Camus cry out for radical freedom. Frankl, Jung, and May bring choice into the intimate realm of suffering and healing. The Hermeticists, Theosophists, and Pranosophy reveal that choice is alchemical, transforming both self and world.
What all agree upon — even in their disagreement — is that choice matters. Whether freedom is absolute or limited, whether ordained by God or shaped by atoms, whether rational or existential, choice is the pivot of consciousness. Each thought leads to another, and the pattern of those choices becomes the story of our lives.
Most people live without awareness of this. Choices blur into habits; habits crystallize into character. We think, feel, and act as if on autopilot. Yet the moment awareness dawns — I can choose — the possibility of transformation appears. We may not control all circumstances, but we can choose our responses, our perspectives, our intentions. And in so doing, we alter the course of thought, action, and destiny.
Choice, then, is not only a philosophical puzzle. It is the hidden architect of consciousness. To choose is to create; to refuse choice is still to create, but unconsciously. In this sense, choice is both our greatest burden and our greatest gift. It is the paradox that makes us human — and perhaps, more than human.
What are your thoughts? Do we have a choice with every decision that we make? Do we ultimately choose our own life path? And if this is correct, why make the choices that we do?
Your comments are welcome, and please reframe from posting negative and harmful responses on the comments of others.