In Troilus and Criseyde, Chaucer presents decision-making in a variety of ways, including through the relationship between fate, knowledge, and freedom of action, ideas which are at the center of medieval philosophy. Troilus claims not to believe in complete free will, but rather a passive free will of succumbing to one's own death wish, while Troilus and Criseyde curse the gods throughout the poem for affecting their lives so badly, essentially replacing any sense of free will with fate and condemning them to become tragic lovers. Chaucer presents Troilus's decision-making as particularly flawed in that it is relative to him alone; Troilus attempts to prove how necessary it is to love Criseyde with very little logic, instead using a decision-making process that is entirely up to his own imagination. Troilus asserts that love must exist as it can be imagined, leading him to question his decision to love at the very core of his beliefs. In contrast, Criseyde values ​​rational thought processes and her own free will, allowing her to make intelligent and informed decisions. This makes it far more intriguing when Chaucer explores the internal dialogue of Criseyde's thoughts than that of Troilus. This is demonstrated in the following quote: “Allas! Syn I am free,/Sholde I love now, and I put in jupartie/My sikerness, and slave libertye?/Allas, how can I then understand this madness?/Can I do nothing for other people/Engage dredfull joye, hir constraint, and hire peyne?'[1] (Book II, 771-776) The particular interest to the reader in these internal dialogues lies in the knowledge that Criseyde's conscious decision to love Troilus could potentially him withdraw one's freedom of thought; the "terrible joy" of others is reminiscent of her own feeling of apprehension when she first learns that Troilus has chosen to love her. However, it is important to note here that the first meeting between Troilus and Criseyde was only an arranged meeting between two friends. With this in mind, it is plausible that Troilus' decision to love may have been a marginally calculated one, as befriending a person was sometimes used as a strategy to form relationships. unions between people in court and to improve one's own social position. Troilus decides to consider Criseyde first and foremost as a friend, then as a lover: “I praised the love of friendship/and she also praised the faith to borrow from us”[2] (Book II , 962-963). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essayA totally different style of decision-making can be seen with Pandarus, who Chaucer presents as competent but still very human and approachable to the reader. Pandarus adopts the role of an unrequited lover, making him instantly appear less indecisive than a person unsure of their romantic intentions. However, Pandarus' level of irrational reasoning should not be overlooked; this is used to coerce Troilus into revealing to Pandarus his most closely guarded secret: the fact that he loves Criseyde. This shows that Pandarus tends to act illogically. The sheer tenacity of this is demonstrated in his decision to continue prodding Troilus until he receives an answer, physically shaking him for an answer: "And with this word he sang to shake,/And he says: “Thef/thow shalt”. hyre noun such »/'[3] (Book 2, 36-38). Troilus is naturally frightened by these actions,.