"Fate" has connotations aside from "not having complete control of one's existence" — Terrapin Station
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
What are they? — TheMadFool
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
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
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 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
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
That was already explained to you by others earlier in the thread. — Terrapin Station
If that's true then, by Occam's razor principle, we can purge the God angle and simply subscribe to determinism. — TheMadFool
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
"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
Those who are looking for the utmost of simplicity will opt for God — Rich
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
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.