Choice

Choice is something we are all familiar with, but in reality, I dare say it is multidimensional. What do I mean by that?

There is such a thing as determinism, and it is divided into several types, e.g., hard determinism, which says, “Free will does not exist.” An example of this is that you did not choose your height, eye color, or parents. There is also soft determinism, otherwise known as compatibilism. Referring to the example, you are tall like your parents, but you made the decision to play basketball yourself. It sounds simple, but there is a choice conditioned by the fact that you inherited your height from your parents.

But it is precisely this most mystical choice that is one of the most attractive features for people in terms of relationships when it comes to possible situations, rather than the visual layer. To explain this more broadly, we must understand that, in reality, apart from threats and possible violence, no one can control us. And in reality, a harsh “do this and that” or “don't do this and that” is followed by a blurred “please” at the end, or possibly consequences, but I think it's natural to put it metaphorically as looking left and right at the same time.

So it's about a choice that is satisfactory to us but made of the partner's own free will, perhaps because it does not destroy our view of that partner. A partner does not have to love or be nice, and every kind word or gesture is actually voluntary and not an obligation. That is why many actions aimed at stopping a partner's behavior in a certain direction are pointless, because the only thing you can do is ask, “Why?"

Because loyalty without the opportunity to betray is not loyalty, and being honest without the possibility of being dishonest is not really being honest.

Loyalty is choosing one toy that, despite a thousand other models in the store, is the only one that can fill your world with meaning or lift the corners of your mouth. It's the first and last thing you think about. And if it broke, desperate panic whispered, “Fix it, surely there must be a way, because what would you do without it?” instead of throwing it in the corner and grabbing another toy.

When a partner is understanding and empathetic, this choice becomes more complicated because they are, in a way, fighting with themselves and their own morality. An example of this would be a situation in a relationship where person A has been cheated on and person B has not. Person B says they want to go to a party, but they see that person A is not very happy about it, so they tell them that if they are very worried, they may not go because they value person A more than the party. They don't have to do this, but they do anyway.

Person A, being mature, responds that despite previous experiences, they do not want to transfer them to the new person, that the old situation and the new person actually create a new situation. Person B, already at the party, texts Person A because they knew they would be worried and gives them some comfort in the form of a short conversation, then disappears to actually be at the party, but after 20 minutes they text Person A again and there is another short conversation.

Person B could choose not to do this because they don't owe anyone anything and are at the party to have fun, not to worry about Person A's comfort. Person A, as the one who is not at the party, worries twice as much – about Person B's safety and about their previous experiences. But they don't have to – they could go to sleep or simply take offense at Person B for going to the party, even though communication between them was unclear at the time.

And here the question arises—did person B choose person A, or did they choose their own conscience? Or perhaps it is one and the same?