Do you believe in fate? Why? — TheMadFool

Do you mean as in fatalism?

Do you mean as in fatalism? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Fate and Fatalism. To me, the former is a truth while the latter is an attitude.

For me, there are two types of fate.

1. We do have control over our thoughts and actions. So, we do maintain control over our lives, which direction it takes. However, it's obvious that we live in a world where our sphere of control is limited. People, weather, stock markets are unpredictable and these affect our lives. These unpredictable factors sum up to fate. A constrained version of fate but very real and undeniable.

2. This is the full-blown version of fate where we're totally not in control of our life. Everything has been predetermined. This is controversial and I think it's called determinism. It leads to fatalism - a surrender of the self.

2 may not be true but 1 is difficult to deny. So, there is such a thing as fate.

2. This is the full-blown version of fate where we're totally not in control of our life. Everything has been predetermined. This is controversial and I think it's called determinism. It leads to fatalism - a surrender of the self. — TheMadFool

In Riddles of Existence: A Guided Tour of Metaphysics, by Earl Conee and Theodore Sider, the authors say that fatalism and determinism are not the same.

Fatalism, they continue, says that everything is set in stone. Determinism, on the other hand, says that everything is an effect of antecedent causes. The difference is that with determinism the causes could have been different--the temperature could have risen and therefore the water would have evaporated rather than the temperature dropping and the water freezing--but with fatalism they could not have been different--the temperature was going to drop and the water was going to freeze; it was set in stone.

I think that most people do not know the difference and what they call determinism is really fatalism.

However, it's obvious that we live in a world where our sphere of control is limited. People, weather, stock markets are unpredictable and these affect our lives. These unpredictable factors sum up to fate. — TheMadFool

No, I don't think that sums up fate--not the way I understand fate, anyway.

Fate has an author. All of the myriad interactions which result in an outcome are not authored, they just happen, and there is no author involved.

Fate is superstition. Determinism is a largely unprovable theory, but as a theory it follows rules. Fate (presumably) doesn't follow rules.

Here's a medieval hymn to fate (Fortuna, Fortune)

O Fortune, like the moon you are changeable,
ever waxing or waning; hateful life
first oppresses and then soothes as fancy takes it;
poverty and power it melts them like ice.

Fate – monstrous and empty,
you whirling wheel, you are malevolent,
well-being is vain and always fades to nothing,
shadowed and veiled you plague me too;
now through the game I bring my bare back
to your villainy.

Fate is against me in health and virtue,
driven on and weighted down,
always enslaved.
So at this hour without delay
pluck the vibrating strings;
since Fate crushes the brave,
everyone weep with me![3]

The Chinese proverb goes, "If you don't change direction, you'll end up where you are headed".

We all can choose to change direction but often we don't.

We all can choose to change direction but often we don't. — Rich

Or we resolve to change direction but our subsequent efforts fail.

There is no failure. Everything is a experiment and learning experience. This allows us to become more skillful navigators in life.

There is no failure. Everything is a experiment and learning experience. This allows us to become more skillful navigators in life. — Rich

If the goal was an about-face but you end up in the same direction on the same path, the effort failed.

Maybe I am misunderstanding what is meant by "change direction".

I think that most people do not know the difference and what they call determinism is really fatalism — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Well, I think the difference between fatalism and determinism is that the former is an attitude of resignation arising from the latter, which is a truth. The difference you mention doesn't cut it because it relies on entertaining alternate realities - that can be done in both cases.

Fate needn't have an author. It represents the part of our lives we don't control. People also call it luck.

I agree fate needn't follow any rules but the point is we don't have power over it.

Well, I think the difference between fatalism and determinism is that the former is an attitude... — TheMadFool

But the fatalism I am talking about is not an attitude. It is a metaphysical theory that says that everything is set in stone. Whatever happened yesterday, happens today, and will happen tomorrow was/is already set.

Determinism is different. With determinism, in order for Donald Trump to be elected President of the United States of America in November, 2016 there had to be causes.

With fatalism, it was always the case that Donald Trump was going to be elected President of the United States of America in November, 2016.

With fatalism, what is going to happen tomorrow is already set--no causes needed to make it happen.

Fatalism reminds me of what I am hearing some physicists now say: time is an illusion, and we live in a static universe.

Determinism is different. With determinism, in order for Donald Trump to be elected President of the United States of American in November, 2016 there had to be causes.

With fatalism, it was always the case that Donald Trump was going to be elected President of the United States of America in November, 2016. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

The distinction doesn't seem to make sense. The essence of both, even taking your definitions to be true, is our lives are beyond our control. The mechanism, or lack of it, that leads to this conclusion seems inconsequential apart from a purely theoretical perspective. If you think otherwise, can you tell me how the difference between fatalism and determinism is useful. Thanks.

If the goal was an about-face but you end up in the same direction on the same path, the effort failed.

Maybe I am misunderstanding what is meant by "change direction". — WISDOMfromPO-MO

It's a mindset thing, and this is where ones philosophy can create a different way of looking at life.

When someone tries to do something (choose to move in a certain direction), outcomes are always uncertain, though probabilistic in nature.

If one wishes to do an about face, and does an about face then however it is performed is learned. If someone ends up facing somewhere else, then something else is learned. Life is a process of learning. It is possible to look at it as a series of success and failures but in doing so one misses the essence of life which is a cycle of experimentation, exploration, creative expression, and learning. This is what a child does when learning to build with blocks and it continues throughout life. Observing oneself and others on such a manner creates a different feeling about life.

The distinction doesn't seem to make sense. The essence of both, even taking your definitions to be true, is our lives are beyond our control. The mechanism, or lack of it, that leads to this conclusion seems inconsequential apart from a purely theoretical perspective. If you think otherwise, can you tell me how the difference between fatalism and determinism is useful. Thanks. — TheMadFool

With fatalism there is actually a thinking and feeling agent.

With determinism, it is all about illusion created by some quanta banging into each other and somehow tricking some of us into thinking it is an illusion and some of us (the determinists) who see through it all and know that it is all about illusion (or is it an illusion of an illusion).

With fatalism there is actually a thinking and feeling agent.

With determinism, it is all about illusion created by some quanta banging into each other and somehow tricking some of us into thinking it is an illusion and some of us (the determinists) who see through it all and know that it is all about illusion (or is it an illusion of an illusion). — Rich

I'm not sure how well this view can demarcate a clear boundary between fatalism and determinism. Determinism doesn't preclude a thinking and feeling agent.

I'm not sure how well this view can demarcate a clear boundary between fatalism and determinism. Determinism doesn't preclude a thinking and feeling agent. — TheMadFool

It's there because it somehow magically emerges from quanta. There really isn't an agent. You just think you are thinking because of the illusion. However, determinists actually see through it all and know that they really aren't thinking. If course, it could be that thinking that thinking is an illusion is actually an illusion. It gets pretty complicated for determinists (illusionists).

Alternatively, one can say that genes (selfish genes that is) are thinking and feeling little beings. Now, we get into a whole new paradigm of anthropomorphism. With determinism we really have to find that which is thinking and feeling and how it all emerges into such (the so-named hard problem). It's tough to do, but thinking in terms of illusions is helpful.

Thanks for explaining determinism to me. The question that comes to mind is how do we form a coherent theory about fatalism without determinism?

Thanks for explaining determinism to me. The question that comes to mind is how do we form a coherent theory about fatalism without determinism? — TheMadFool

In this context, God (instead of illusions) is useful. Under such circumstances, combatibilism is not needed or useful. However, if you want to bring in responsibility with choice along with keeping Gid, then you introduce combatibilism which gives you fatalistic choice (I know it sounds as weird as illusions but that is what we have).

To understand all of these different philosophies, it is useful to understand the historical and social-political circumstances from which they arose. Back in history, you couldn't have a philosophy without God or else you get burned or worse. Later on and currently, you can't have spirituality (the free agent) without be being drummed out of academia where science money rules. (The selfish gene and the magic of illusions is a product of such a culture). Context always matters when learning about the source and biases of different sciences and philosophies.

The gods offered Achilles a choice between a long, comfortable, mild life that he would live for many years or he could choose a life of fame, a short life full of grand triumphs, victories such that his name would become known, revered and remembered. Rust or burn?

There were no newspapers in ancient Greece, to become known back then meant you had actually accomplished something. To be famous meant to be known for the many spectacularly good deeds.

Achilles was almost indestructible except that he had a fatal flaw in his heel, the only vulnerable part of this body. It's symbolic of his fatal flaw of pride.

He choose how he would live and he accomplished much. He died young...
He was as complicit in his fate, as we are in ours.

Ok but how does bringing in God distinguish fatalism from determinism? Presumably both require causation at some point. Perhaps determinism and fatalism are differentiated along those lines but it seems so contrived. Distinction without difference.

He choose how he would live and he accomplished much. He died young...
He was as complicit in his fate, as we are in ours — Cavacava

I can accept that. So, you do believe in fate.

Ok but how does bringing in God distinguish fatalism from determinism? Presumably both require causation at some point. Perhaps determinism and fatalism are differentiated along those lines but it seems so contrived. Distinction without difference. — TheMadFool

I agree. God is exactly equivalent to the Laws of Nature: omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. It is a matter of taste.

From an economic point of view, the Church knows the ways of God while Scientists know the ways of the Laws of Nature. It is a money flow issue not a philosophical issue.

I do not like the disinction between determinism and fatalism that much either. There is a difference under certain definitions. For example, one could be a fatalist about certain events in the future but not a determinist about other events. However, I agree the same problem fatalists have on the existential level is shared by those who do not believe in morally significant free will, such as hard determinists.

Fatalism, they continue, says that everything is set in stone. Determinism, on the other hand, says that everything is an effect of antecedent causes. The difference is that with determinism the causes could have been different--the temperature could have risen and therefore the water would have evaporated rather than the temperature dropping and the water freezing--but with fatalism they could not have been different--the temperature was going to drop and the water was going to freeze; it was set in stone. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

But how, exactly, could the causes have been different? Didn't they have causes that determined them?

No I don't buy fate.

Saying that the distinction is that fatalism doesn't involve causality, and that under it, everything is simply set in stone as a brute, more or less unconnected fact would at least make some sense conceptually, but saying that determinism doesn't amount to everything being set in stone doesn't make sense.

But how, exactly, could the causes have been different? Didn't they have causes that determined them? — Terrapin Station

Saying that the distinction is that fatalism doesn't involve causality, and that under it, everything is simply set in stone as a brute, more or less unconnected fact would at least make some sense conceptually, but saying that determinism doesn't amount to everything being set in stone doesn't make sense. — Terrapin Station

"Finally, the necessity that metaphysical fatalists attribute to everything is not the necessity of causes to produce their effects. Clearly, many things are determined in advance by physical laws and prior conditions. If everything that ever happens is determined in this way, then what philosophers call determinism is true.1 The melting of some ice that is heated above water’s freezing point is inevitable. This seems enough to say that the heating makes the melting ‘fated’ to occur. But the truth of determinism would not be even partial support for metaphysical fatalism. Fatalism is not about being physically or causally determined. It is about something more abstract, something that does not depend on how things go in nature. Determinists hold that the present and future are causally determined by the past and the physical laws, but there could have been a different past or different laws. The metaphysical fatalists’ view is that, even if determinism is not true, there are no open possibilities at any point in history. Their claim is that each thing in the past, present, and future has always been fixed and settled, whether or not it was causally determined..." (emphasis mine) Riddles of Existence (2005), 23-24, Ted Sider and Earl Conee

Their claim is that each thing in the past, present, and future has always been fixed and settled, whether or not it was causally determined..." (emphasis mine) — WISDOMfromPO-MO

What is the mechanism by which the past, present, and future becomes "fixed and settled"?

No I don't buy fate. — Terrapin Station

Why? Surely one can't ignore the fact that somethings pertinent to one's life are beyond our control. Doesn't that amount to fate of some kind?

I am familiar with this notion, but what they are discussing is logical possibility. It is logically possible that the universe had a different starting state or that the rules governing a deterministic universe were different, but this only means that it was logically possible to have had different outcomes. Ignoring the metaphysical questions like "is it possible that the rules of the universe could have been otherwise," I feel like this distinction between fatalism and determinism is splitting hairs by using a definition of fatalism that ties it with logical necessity.

The main reason we intuitively do not like fatalism is that it declares the past, present, and future events as fixed. The emphasis is on our own inability to change the way things are. We could not have done otherwise to change the past, what we are doing now must have occured, and what will happen in the future will occur, with us being unable to actually change the outcome. The notion that things must logically be the way they are, in the sense that 2+2=4 is necessarily true, is false. However, I do not see how determinism fares much better here. Yes, it is possible the starting position of the universe could have been different, and it is possible that the laws governing deterministic results could have been different, but I do not see the core of fatalism disappearing.


We could not have changed the past, given prior causes and the laws of the universe. We could not be doing other than what we are doing now, given prior causes and the laws of the universe. The future will happen and must happen, given the past causal history and the law of nature. Given determinism, this is all true, so I do not see how we avoid the main thrust of fatalism (things are set in stone, as far as we are concerned) without appealing to some compatibilist notion of free will/moral respobsibility.

"Fate" has connotations aside from "not having complete control of one's existence"

but there could have been a different past or different laws. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

And what I'm asking is how there could have been a different past or different laws under determinism? What is the answer to that? Simply claiming that it's the case isn't an argument for it (or an explanation of it).