fate vs. coincidence

@Nashloke,

Nashloke wrote:

Yes,it's someone else's choice but it becomes my fate.I didn't choose my family and they didn't choose to have me as their daughter.It just happened this way.Noone would choose to be born handicapped,just like noone would choose to raise a handicapped baby.

I agree with Zetherin, though I would have used less aggressive terms.

Why you have to name 'something happened which was out of my control' is beyond me. Calling it 'fate' or 'coincidence' suggest that it is in somebody's hands, nature's or the universe's or God's, which is quite frankly isn't. Why can't we all just say 'something happened which was out of my control'?

@ItMustBeKate,

ItMustBeKate wrote:

I agree with Zetherin, though I would have used less aggressive terms.

Why you have to name 'something happened which was out of my control' is beyond me. Calling it 'fate' or 'coincidence' suggest that it is in somebody's hands, nature's or the universe's or God's, which is quite frankly isn't. Why can't we all just say 'something happened which was out of my control'?

I'll say this with no certainty, but, excluding "god", what we no of nature and the universe, is it wrong to assume that there is consciousness spread through out all of it? Perhaps people would identify with fate easier if it were labeled as such based on everybody's consciousness and "intelligence". Also what is intelligence? Consciousness reflects intelligence, so are we also denying fate by saying its TOO intelligent. If so why?

@Joe,

Joe wrote:

I'll say this with no certainty, but, excluding "god", what we no of nature and the universe, is it wrong to assume that there is consciousness spread through out all of it? Perhaps people would identify with fate easier if it were labeled as such based on everybody's consciousness and "intelligence". Also what is intelligence? Consciousness reflects intelligence, so are we also denying fate by saying its TOO intelligent. If so why?

I'm more inclined to believe that "God" doesn't exist - that is, all things are interconnected, rendering all existence just being. The universe just is. In other words, we are the gods.

Fate, again, implies a deterministic hand, so then saying that our free will has power seems to be going in the opposite direction (which is what I understood you to be doing when mentioning intelligence). Why are we even trying to identify with the word to begin with? It's just a word, and we apply the meaning.

As for what intelligence is, I'm not going to comment; it deserves it's own thread.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

I'm more inclined to believe that "God" doesn't exist - that is, all things are interconnected, rendering all existence just being. The universe just is. In other words, we are the gods.

Pretty much how i feel too.

As for the meaning and application of fate? To me its to assumptious. So I might have to agree that it doesn't serve any true knowledge. it pretty much serves itself and others who use it for whatever they choose.

@Joe,

Joe wrote:

Pretty much how i feel too.

As for the meaning and application of fate? To me its to assumptious. So I might have to agree that it doesn't serve any true knowledge. it pretty much serves itself and others who use it for whatever they choose.

Precisely. It's a servant; we construct a plethora of servants daily, applying an ego-driven meaning to the world around us. I feel it's important to come to an understanding that the universe just is; there is no spectrum of "good", "evil", "profound", "petty" - we apply these concepts. This is not to say that existence does not matter, or that we shouldn't apply meaning! On the contrary, we should, but from a perspective that is neutral, not overbearing, elitist, mystical, ego-driven... basically, HUMAN Smile

And I understand there is no way to truly escape this, we can never escape ego, we are a product of our desires, but I truly feel it's important we stop, consider, and maintain a perspective that is as humble as humanly possible, as often as humanly possible.

@Welshie,

Welshie wrote:

Assuming that Fate exists then I couldn't have not decided to write that post, I was always going to decide it and it was always going to be written. You were always going to decide to reply, and were always going to reply. This would have been true even a thousand years ago; and whatever is going to happen in a thousand years time, is going to happen. .

I thought that if what happens is fated, then nothing that anyone can do can avoid it. So that even if you decided not to write the post, it would not matter. It would occur anyway. I don't think that any true fatalist would allow that a person can do anything to avoid his fate.

Of course, a person cannot avoid his fate simply by doing nothing to avoid his fate. But if a fatalist relies on that, isn't he cheating? All he is really saying is that whatever happens, happens. Of course, but that's no news. What would be news is that whatever happens, happens, even if I try to avoid it.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Of course, a person cannot avoid his fate simply by doing nothing to avoid his fate. But if a fatalist relies on that, isn't he cheating? All he is really saying is that whatever happens, happens. Of course, but that's no news. What would be news is that whatever happens, happens, even if I try to avoid it.

Yes - and the latter would be a very odd thing to believe. Firstly, it would imply the unscientific view that our thoughts and wishes exist in a different realm from that of the physical universe (including our bodies). Secondly, it is clearly untrue - if our wishes bore no relation to fated physical events, then the chances of any particular wish being fulfilled would be very low (since there are many more ways of missing a target than of hitting it). So we would live in a strange world where our wishes were continually being thwarted at the last moment by some mysterious force. But we manifestly do not live in such a world.

@ACB,

ACB wrote:

Yes - and the latter would be a very odd thing to believe. Firstly, it would imply the unscientific view that our thoughts and wishes exist in a different realm from that of the physical universe (including our bodies). Secondly, it is clearly untrue - if our wishes bore no relation to fated physical events, then the chances of any particular wish being fulfilled would be very low (since there are many more ways of missing a target than of hitting it). So we would live in a strange world where our wishes were continually being thwarted at the last moment by some mysterious force. But we manifestly do not live in such a world.

Well, a person can do something to avoid posting. He can just not post. Isn't that so. So, if fatalism means that you can do nothing to avoid some events, it is clearly just false. And if it means, whatever will happen will happen, then it is true, but empty. So, either fatalism is false, or it is true, but empty.

@Mykael Deschain,

Yes, it is kinda the difference between determinisn and free will. Has never been resolved. So I will stick with old Kant. As a phenomena my life is determined but as a noumenon my will is free. I can have my cake and eat it too!

@goethe10,

kennethamy wrote:

Well, a person can do something to avoid posting. He can just not post. Isn't that so. So, if fatalism means that you can do nothing to avoid some events, it is clearly just false. And if it means, whatever will happen will happen, then it is true, but empty. So, either fatalism is false, or it is true, but empty.

Yes, I entirely agree.

goethe10 wrote:

Yes, it is kinda the difference between determinisn and free will. Has never been resolved. So I will stick with old Kant. As a phenomena my life is determined but as a noumenon my will is free. I can have my cake and eat it too!

But isn't that tantamount to the false theory referred to by kennethamy? With my free will I try to avoid posting, but physical determinism kicks in and I am compelled to post against my will? Kant lived long before the days of neurobiology and cognitive science, and we now know that mental events are closely related to physical events in the brain. So, in Kant's terms, we know that thoughts, wishes and decisions are phenomena (or, at least, close analogues of phenomena).

So I think determinism must apply either to both physical and mental events, or to neither. If it applied to both, we would still have will, but it would not be free.

@ACB,

I make no distinction between physical and mental events. If we defer to science as the one true world then you would be absolutely correct. I am not ready to do that yet. There is still wiggle room when we consider critical thinking in the philosophy of science. Science is only part of the picture and not the "one true world". (At least for me) So in the meantime I will act as if my will is at least partially free. Or in the words of Nietzsche "Amor Fati"!

@goethe10,

goethe10 wrote:

I make no distinction between physical and mental events.

I don't quite understand. If your life (which is physical) is determined but your will (which is mental) is free, isn't that a distinction?

My first difficulty is this: If your will can roam freely but events are determined, aren't the two going to come into conflict most of the time, with determinism always having the final say? Your wishes will be fulfilled infrequently, and then only by luck. So, what is the good of having free will if it has no causative power? It's like saying: "You are allowed to demand whatever you like, but your demands will often (or usually) be ignored".

My second difficulty concerns the role of brain events. These are closely connected to the mind and hence to the will, so if the will is free (i.e. undetermined), so are brain events. But they are also closely connected to bodily events and hence to the outside world, so if your body and the world are determined, so are brain events. So we have a contradiction!

I would be interested in your views on the above. I apologise if I have misunderstood any of your points.

@Mykael Deschain,

No, I believe you got it right! Nietzsche called this type of thinking perspectivism. Do not get me wrong science makes a very compelling case for determinism! But science is only one perspective. (And I am no stranger to science, I use to do Physics at the General motors research labs) To view science as the only perspective is to replace the "God hypothesis" with "the science hypothesis" I have been around way to long to still have faith in "Truth". You might think it is strange but I find it is much easier to live with "contradictions" than to resolve issues with with any kind of dogmatism!

@goethe10,

goethe10 wrote:

... You might think it is strange but I find it is much easier to live with "contradictions" than to resolve issues with with any kind of dogmatism!

Ohhh.. I like this. Well put

@Khethil,

I too am wholly opposed to dogmatism. I believe we should always be open-minded, and never assume that we have attained the absolute truth on any matter. However, I do not believe we should tolerate contradictions, because if we do, we fail to say anything meaningful. A sentence with a contradiction in it is no more meaningful than a string of random letters! I think this is important to bear in mind.

Now, either the will can be wholly explained in terms of science, or it cannot. So we have the choice of saying (a) it can, or (b) it cannot, or (c) we don't know. If you want to go for (b), you could say something like this:

"The will is free (or partly free), but the world is partly determined. The will influences the world, so the world is not totally determined. The extent of the will's influence is uncertain, and the method by which it interacts with the world is a mystery. In particular, the demarcation points between (a) the will, (b) the undetermined (will-influenced) part of the world, and (c) the determined part of the world, are not clear."

I think that would make sense. It is consistent and undogmatic. Any comments?

@Mykael Deschain,

Scientists and philosophers do not like mysteries! As a scientist working in my lab I expect the same circumstances to lead to the same results. But as a philosopher I can say that I have reasons for my choices but that does not mean that I could have not chosen otherwise.

@goethe10,

But if you could have chosen otherwise under the same circumstances, it means that the same circumstances will not necessarily lead to the same results! Or have I missed something?

@Mykael Deschain,

No, I could simply say that I was being pragmatic as opposed to dogmatic! I repeat again: there is more than one way to view the world. If you equate science with the "one true perspective" then I suppose it is up to you to prove to me that it is. Otherwise my argument stands!

@goethe10,

I see your point, but I don't find such duality intellectually satisfying. I prefer 'seamless' explanations. Are Christianity and atheism just two different ways of viewing the world? Is there more than one truth? To me such an idea seems incoherent, but that's just my view....

@Mykael Deschain,

I know! It sometimes is very frustrating not having "seamless" explanations. I suppose that is what most of us were looking for when we started on our philosophical voyaging. But as Nietzsche remarked " we are all suspended in mid air clinging desperately to the back of a tiger". Then on the other hand anything is possible! Thank's, Paul

Philosophy Forum

fate vs. coincidence

Quick Links

My Account

able2know