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

What are they?

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). — Terrapin Station

I don't know how anybody else is reading it, but I think that I have misread the statement "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."

Maybe when I originally read the book several years ago I read it the right way, but in this thread I think I have been reading it the wrong way. I think that it is saying that determinism allows for open possibilities such as a different past or different laws.

I was reading it as the author, Conee, saying that there could have been a different past or different laws.

The reason I say this is because Conee continues by saying "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."

In other words, the difference between determinism and fatalism is that determinism allows for open possibilities and fatalism does not.

The statement, therefore, is not that there could have been a different past or different laws, but that determinism is open to the possibility that there could have been a different past or different laws. Fatalism is not open to that possibility. With fatalism, if things are causally determined by a past and laws, it is set in stone what past and what laws do the determining.

In other words, anybody who thinks that the possibility of a different past or different laws is unfounded needs to take it up with determinists.

I am not a determinist, so I am the wrong person to ask.

What are they? — TheMadFool

That was already explained to you by others earlier in the thread.

The statement, therefore, is not that there could have been a different past or different laws, but that determinism is open to the possibility that there could have been a different past or different laws. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

That supposed distinction doesn't make any more sense in my view--what's the difference between "open to the possibility" and "could have been."

I can appreciate that you're not a determinist so you're not sure what the idea might be, but I think it's worth considering that some views simply aren't logically coherent, and this is such a case.

In other words, anybody who thinks that the possibility of a different past or different laws is unfounded needs to take it up with determinists. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

To put a fine point on the issue:

For determinists, everything is formed at the Big Bang (the scientific Genesis story) so the so-called Laws of Nature could have been different at the time of the Big Bang. That is, humans don't have choice but the Big Bang does.

Fatalism, with its origins in form of forces of gods (as opposed to forces of nature) do not question or entertain the possibility that the gods could have done something different. The gods no best.

So one can choose between the gods knowing best and living with it, or the choice that the Big Bang made was it, so tough luck if you don't like it. Not a big difference, it is just how one views the Creator.

All philosophical ideas spring from a socio-political-economic context. Often (most of the time) differences are the result of ultimate motives and goals. There is nothing rational or logical there, though people work hard to make it seem so.

There is a difference between logical fatalism and determinism. It is logically possible that the past could have been different. There is nothing logically incoherent about the idea of the past being different if the starting positioning of the universe was different, so, in this sense, it is modally possible. There is a possible world in which the past is different from our own. This differs from logical fatalism, which requires every event to be necessary in the modal sense.

Of course, I doubt most people who identity as fatalists really mean that they think all events are logically necessary, so it is a moot point to me.

There is a difference between logical fatalism and determinism. It is logically possible that the past could have been different. There is nothing logically incoherent about the idea of the past being different if the starting positioning of the universe was different, so, in this sense, it is modally possible. There is a possible world in which the past is different from our own. This differs from logical fatalism, which requires every event to be necessary in the modal sense. — Chany

That would only follow if (a) determinists necessarily believe that there was a starting point of the universe, and (b) determinists necessarily believe that the starting point was random or variable for some reason.

But neither of those things would follow from the mere idea of determinism.

Also why would fatalists necessarily believe that there wasn't a starting point to the universe or that it wasn't random or variable if determinists can believe that?

That supposed distinction doesn't make any more sense in my view--what's the difference between "open to the possibility" and "could have been." — Terrapin Station

If one position does not allow you to entertain an idea and another does, that is at least one clear difference between those two positions.

All philosophical ideas spring from a socio-political-economic context. Often (most of the time) differences are the result of ultimate motives and goals. There is nothing rational or logical there, though people work hard to make it seem so. — Rich

Postmodernism!

Run!

That was already explained to you by others earlier in the thread. — Terrapin Station

But the difference, if I understood correctly, is as @Bitter Crank said "Fate has an author", which, to me, means God.

If this is the case, by what means does God exercise control over our lives? The only way God can be involved is through manipulating causation.

If that's true then, by Occam's razor principle, we can purge the God angle and simply subscribe to determinism.

If you don't agree with the above, why?

If that's true then, by Occam's razor principle, we can purge the God angle and simply subscribe to determinism. — TheMadFool

Or one can expunge the myriad of undefinable Laws of Nature that supposedly determines everything in the universe and replace them with God and make everything much simpler. It would seem this is the much simpler path to go which is undoubtedly one of the reasons people adopt the view that God determines everything.

But wouldn't that be complexifying the matter. We'd have to give up the perfectly good concept of causation that underpins determinism.

Opting for God would still require an explanation on how fate works. There needs to be a process through which God imposes his will on us.

But wouldn't that be complexifying the matter. We'd have to give up the perfectly good concept of causation that underpins determinism.

Opting for God would still require an explanation on how fate works. There needs to be a process through which God imposes his will on us. — TheMadFool

What is a perfectly good concept is really a matter of taste. Those who are looking for the utmost of simplicity will opt for God. A bit more complex might be gods. Even more complex would be Laws of Nature, to the extent that anthropomorphizing Laws of Nature is a bit more difficult than gods (you have to introduce things like genes and such).

Depending upon goals and motives one might come choose one causation over another. What all of these concepts have in common is the desire to eliminate choice from individuals and imbue it (anthropomorphizing) somewhere else.

"All philosophical ideas spring from a socio-political-economic context. Often (most of the time) differences are the result of ultimate motives and goals. There is nothing rational or logical there, though people work hard to make it seem so."
— Rich

Postmodernism!

Run! — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Philosophical ideas do not necessarily have to be approached from the point of view of which is more logical than the other. One can approach it, and possibly gain more insight, by analyzing how and who benefits politically and economically from a particular point of view.

Confuciusism is a good example. In response to Daoism, which was quite egalitarian, the Emperors of China promoted the teachings of Confucius that emphasized fidelity to the hierarchy. It b is not that Daoism was any more or less logical than Confuciusism, rather it was which was better at promoting certain political and economic objectives. One can study Determinism, Fatalism, and Free Choice philosophies in a similar light.

Those who are looking for the utmost of simplicity will opt for God — Rich

I must disagree. With God, we have 2, what Occam calls entities:

1. God

2. The mechanism of how 1 interacts with us

With determinism we have only one entity i.e. 2

Those who are looking for the utmost of simplicity will opt for God
— Rich

I must disagree. With God, we have 2, what Occam calls entities:

1. God

2. The mechanism of how 1 interacts with us

With determinism we have only one entity i.e. 2 — TheMadFool

The Laws of Nature can be viewed as One (the three words being considered one entity) but it appears to be much more than that (a myriad of almost undecipherable concepts, mathematical equations and such bundled together). In either case, which ever concept one chooses, they are both entities (or forces) acting upon us. In a way, God may be a bit easier to define, but whenever one begins to discuss omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent forces, it is going to get tricky.

Philosophical ideas do not necessarily have to be approached from the point of view of which is more logical than the other. One can approach it, and possibly gain more insight, by analyzing how and who benefits politically and economically from a particular point of view.

Confuciusism is a good example. In response to Daoism, which was quite egalitarian, the Emperors of China promoted the teachings of Confucius that emphasized fidelity to the hierarchy. It b is not that Daoism was any more or less logical than Confuciusism, rather it was which was better at promoting certain political and economic objectives. One can study Determinism, Fatalism, and Free Choice philosophies in a similar light. — Rich

You are preaching to the choir.