'28 Days Later' Writer Alex Garland Says He Doesn't Believe In Free Will And We Live "In A State Of Rolling Hallucinations"
Alex Garland, the writer of 28 Days Later, Ex Machina, and Civil War says he does not believe in free will or objectivity and claims we live “in a state of rolling hallucinations.”
In an interview with Naughty Dog Co-President Neil Druckmann, Garland stated, “I may not believe in free will, but at the same time I don’t really believe in anything objective. So I sort of think we’re in a state of rolling hallucination and it’s why people can disagree so vehemently about politics is because they’re actually in different realities. So of course they don’t see the same thing the same way.”
READ: 'Fantastic Four' Actor Pedro Pascal Pushes Vile And Destructive Transgender Ideology
St. Thomas Aquinas refutes Garland’s belief pretty thoroughly. He states, “Man has free-will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain. In order to make this evident, we must observe that some things act without judgment; as a stone moves downwards; and in like manner all things which lack knowledge.”
“And some act from judgment, but not a free judgment; as brute animals. For the sheep, seeing the wolf, judges it a thing to be shunned, from a natural and not a free judgment, because it judges, not from reason, but from natural instinct. And the same thing is to be said of any judgment of brute animals. But man acts from judgment, because by his apprehensive power he judges that something should be avoided or sought. But because this judgment, in the case of some particular act, is not from a natural instinct, but from some act of comparison in the reason, therefore he acts from free judgment and retains the power of being inclined to various things,” he continued.
“For reason in contingent matters may follow opposite courses, as we see in dialectic syllogisms and rhetorical arguments. Now particular operations are contingent, and therefore in such matters the judgment of reason may follow opposite courses, and is not determinate to one. And forasmuch as man is rational is it necessary that man have a free-will,” he concluded.
As for Garland’s claim that he does not believe in anything objective, it’s nonsensical and self-defeating given he seemed to believe in the objective that Neil Druckmann was indeed sitting in front of him while speaking to him. Not to mention he has his hands on a table, a microphone in front of him, and a coffee cup next to him among other objects in the room.
As Pat Flynn explains, “Objective means mind-independent and hence not contingent upon our thinking about it.”
He gives an example, “The squirrel Robert outside my window is an objective reality (though his name is my invention): he would exist even if I thought about or looked at something else. Further, Robert is the original cause of my thinking about him and not the other way around.”
What do you make of Garland’s comments?
"You can't know anything for sure, and I'm sure about it!"
Seriously, that's insanity. We all live in different realities and *nothing* is objective? That goes along with "there's no right or wrong", which then turns into "my crimes aren't crimes in my reality, so I can do what I want". I'm sure we'll see him on some future Diddy list.