Determinism and Fatalism: What's the Difference?

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » Determinism and Fatalism: What's the Difference?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

hue-man
 
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2010 08:49 pm
It appears as if the metaphysical theory of determinism is self-evident. But if everything is pre-determined by a previous cause, then doesn't that reduce to fatalism? And if the will is also subject to deterministic causality then how can the will thwart the inevitable?
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2010 08:58 pm
@hue-man,
Determinism is a claim including laws of nature, fatalism isn't.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2010 10:46 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;129794 wrote:
It appears as if the metaphysical theory of determinism is self-evident. But if everything is pre-determined by a previous cause, then doesn't that reduce to fatalism? And if the will is also subject to deterministic causality then how can the will thwart the inevitable?


I agree that determinism is intuitive for us in this scientific age. But I do think there are holes in the notion. I also agree that if we accept determinism, this might contribute to fatalism, but this doesn't isolate us from the burden of decision.

To know the future is settled is not to know the future.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 07:39 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;129836 wrote:
I agree that determinism is intuitive for us in this scientific age. But I do think there are holes in the notion. I also agree that if we accept determinism, this might contribute to fatalism, but this doesn't isolate us from the burden of decision.

To know the future is settled is not to know the future.


Indeed we do not know the future even if it is settled. I don't even know if it's true that the future is settled, though. What does that even mean? How can something that does not yet exist be settled?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 09:43 am
@hue-man,
hue-man;129794 wrote:
It appears as if the metaphysical theory of determinism is self-evident. But if everything is pre-determined by a previous cause, then doesn't that reduce to fatalism? And if the will is also subject to deterministic causality then how can the will thwart the inevitable?



Fatalism is the position that human action is inefficacious. No matter what people do, the future will turn out to be the same. We cannot avoid our fate. So, as the fatalistic soldier says, "if the bullet has my name on it, it will hit me". Therefore, there is no point in taking any precautions against being shot.

The determinist denies that whatever he does, the outcome will be the same. He believes that human actions are causally efficacious. He would deny that the fatalistic soldier is right, and that precautions against being shot will make a difference. And, furthermore, his anti-fatalistic view is supported by a mass of statistical evidence. Does anyone doubt that wearing body armor will reduce the chances of being harmed by a bullet? That would mean that body armor was a waste of money. And production should immediately stop. And that, in the meantime, no soldier should bother to put on armor. But that is absurd.

Therefore:

1. Fatalism is false.
2. Fatalism, far from being the same as determinism, is actually incompatible with determinism, since fatalism says that human action is inefficacious, and determism says that human action is efficacious, and can be proved to be statistically.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 01:38 am
@hue-man,
I have been meaning to add to the post above (#5) that: Insofar as the question, what is the difference between fatalism and determinism is a philosophical question goes (and I suppose it is a philosophical question) the above post shows that with clarification of the question, there can be a definite answer to the philosophical question. And that furthermore, a definite answer can be given to the question whether a particular philosophical position is true or false, for it is clear that fatalism is false. Therefore, there is at least one case of a philosophical question having a definite answer, and a true or false answer, too.

Some like to deny that is possible.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 08:59 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;131333 wrote:
Therefore, there is at least one case of a philosophical question having a definite answer, and a true or false answer, too.

Some like to deny that is possible.


Is philosophical knowledge any different from scientific knowledge? Isn't there only one kind of knowledge?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 09:03 am
@hue-man,
hue-man;131378 wrote:
Is philosophical knowledge any different from scientific knowledge? Isn't there only one kind of knowledge?


Well, all that would mean is knowledge of philosophy, and knowledge of science. Yes, knowledge is justified, true belief no matter how you cut it.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 09:04 am
@hue-man,
hue-man;131378 wrote:
Is philosophical knowledge any different from scientific knowledge? Isn't there only one kind of knowledge?


I don't think I said that there was philosophical knowledge. But there are philosophical questions. And here is one definite solution to one of them.

Or don't you think that the questions, what is the difference between determinism and fatalism, and is fatalism true or false, are philosophical questions?
 
hue-man
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 09:19 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;131381 wrote:
I don't think I said that there was philosophical knowledge. But there are philosophical questions. And here is one definite solution to one of them.

Or don't you think that the questions, what is the difference between determinism and fatalism, and is fatalism true or false, are philosophical questions?


I'm sorry . . . I didn't mean that you were saying that there was philosophical knowledge. I'm trying to understand the difference between a philosophic question and a scientific one. The ruling epistemology for philosophy is empirical or positivistic and the same goes for science. I suppose that philosophy is more about utilizing logic to arrive at a coherent conclusion, while science is more about empirical study. I still, however, don't understand the difference between a philosophic question and a scientific one.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 09:25 am
@hue-man,
hue-man;131386 wrote:
I'm sorry . . . I didn't mean that you were saying that there was philosophical knowledge. I'm trying to understand the difference between a philosophic question and a scientific one. The ruling epistemology for philosophy is empirical or positivistic and the same goes for science. I suppose that philosophy is more about utilizing logic to arrive at a coherent conclusion, while science is more about empirical study. I still, however, don't understand the difference between a philosophic question and a scientific one.


Well that's another philosophical question. But aren't philosophical questions about philosophy, and isn't the question, what is fatalism, and how does it differ from determinism a philosophical question? At least I don't think anyone would ask it but a philosopher. It is certainly prima-facie a philosophical question, isn't it. I don't think it is discussed in many science classes.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 09:56 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;131388 wrote:
Well that's another philosophical question. But aren't philosophical questions about philosophy, and isn't the question, what is fatalism, and how does it differ from determinism a philosophical question? At least I don't think anyone would ask it but a philosopher. It is certainly prima-facie a philosophical question, isn't it. I don't think it is discussed in many science classes.


I understand that . . . But I don't understand why some people think philosophical questions can't be answered. Philosophic questions utilize logic to arrive at a corresponding or coherent conclusion. What's the difference between not believing that philosophic questions can't be answered and believing that 1+1 doesn't equal 2?

I think that the hallmark of a philosophic question is its 'metaness' and the use of logic versus empirical study to solve them. Does that sound right?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 10:10 am
@hue-man,
hue-man;131393 wrote:
I understand that . . . But I don't understand why some people think philosophical questions can't be answered. Philosophic questions utilize logic to arrive at a corresponding or coherent conclusion. What's the difference between not believing that philosophic questions can't be answered and believing that 1+1 doesn't equal 2?

I think that the hallmark of a philosophic question is its 'metaness' and the use of logic versus empirical study to solve them. Does that sound right?


I think that some people conceive of philosophy as consisting of some vague and nebulous questions about how to live life, or discussing something like whether there is absolute knowledge or absolute truth, or questions about what they call, "totality". Of course, these questions are so designed as to be unanswerable. Just look at what people post in threads here. And, some not only do not utilize logic, they obviously disdain logic. Or they have only a very vague idea of what logic is all about, and even that idea is often wrong, People often have very bizarre ideas about the nature of philosophy.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 10:56 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;131398 wrote:
I think that some people conceive of philosophy as consisting of some vague and nebulous questions about how to live life, or discussing something like whether there is absolute knowledge or absolute truth, or questions about what they call, "totality". Of course, these questions are so designed as to be unanswerable. Just look at what people post in threads here. And, some not only do not utilize logic, they obviously disdain logic. Or they have only a very vague idea of what logic is all about, and even that idea is often wrong, People often have very bizarre ideas about the nature of philosophy.


I agree. I can't stand when so-called philosophers disdain logic and clarity in favor of obscurity. I think that the most unanswerable philosophical questions, in a positivistic sense, are the axiological ones.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 03:38 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;131393 wrote:
Philosophic questions utilize logic to arrive at a corresponding or coherent conclusion.


I agree. But I think we should also acknowledge the creative element. Logic needs material to work with.

---------- Post added 02-23-2010 at 04:43 PM ----------

hue-man;131420 wrote:
I agree. I can't stand when so-called philosophers disdain logic and clarity in favor of obscurity.


Obscurity is relative to the critic. I will grant that logic and clarity are ideal for some purposes.

I see two angles of attack on "logic and clarity." On one hand you have the transcendent position which is similar to revelation/mysticism/faith. On the other hand you have those who are passionate about logic and clarity to such a degree that they want logical and clear conceptions of logic and clarity. It's easy to mistake the two. I'm not saying that you have. But on another thread I saw Hegel accused of being a mystic, which seems to me an utter misunderstanding of his intentions.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 04:39 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;131535 wrote:
I agree. But I think we should also acknowledge the creative element. Logic needs material to work with.
Logic doesn't require creativity. The creative element of philosophy is to be found in the axiological fields.

Reconstructo;131535 wrote:
Obscurity is relative to the critic. I will grant that logic and clarity are ideal for some purposes.

I see two angles of attack on "logic and clarity." On one hand you have the transcendent position which is similar to revelation/mysticism/faith. On the other hand you have those who are passionate about logic and clarity to such a degree that they want logical and clear conceptions of logic and clarity. It's easy to mistake the two. I'm not saying that you have. But on another thread I saw Hegel accused of being a mystic, which seems to me an utter misunderstanding of his intentions.


Logic doesn't transcend human practice, but it does transcend human perspective & opinion. Logic is axiomatic, so when I say that 1+1=2 It's no different from saying that you+me=2 human beings. Is that not true?
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 04:52 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;131398 wrote:
I think that some people conceive of philosophy as consisting of some vague and nebulous questions about how to live life, or discussing something like whether there is absolute knowledge or absolute truth, or questions about what they call, "totality". Of course, these questions are so designed as to be unanswerable. Just look at what people post in threads here. And, some not only do not utilize logic, they obviously disdain logic. Or they have only a very vague idea of what logic is all about, and even that idea is often wrong, People often have very bizarre ideas about the nature of philosophy.


Logic is about Coherence and Integrity in a close system of ideas, is about Cause and Consequence, is for instance finding something like free will (whatever that means) or randomness an unacceptable proposition in every possible way...this would be enough, for half of the readers with brain and lack of patience for pretentious nonsense...(and it is)

...but Logic is also about acknowledging humbly the limits of this systems, as transitory representations of an ever unfinished gather of experimental data that introduces new variables and correlations where there was none to see before, giving therefore rise to new rational constructions and formulations, that abruptly contradict what was seen as an unquestioned accepted truth...
... in physics from Newton to Einstein, or non-euclidean Geometry for instance, or even the Grail, experimental Maths...from all of this, so called hard Sciences, (which I deeply appreciate ) we have a more then sufficient set of examples to systematize that systems are never finished and may fall, often more frequently then we expect or desire...

To conclude:

Logic relays in the Universality and consistency of axioms that refer to phenomena their property's and systematic relations.
But Logic also rests upon coded systems of meaning, language and words, or others, that are not themselves so easily circumscribed to our expectations of perfection or dreams of grandeur...

Logic alone is nothing but adding or subtracting emptiness...(it refers and does not need to be referred)

Best regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 05:10 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;131560 wrote:
Logic doesn't require creativity. The creative element of philosophy is to be found in the axiological fields.



Logic doesn't transcend human practice, but it does transcend human perspective & opinion. Logic is axiomatic, so when I say that 1+1=2 It's no different from saying that you+me=2 human beings. Is that not true?


Yes, the axiological fields are the source of the creative. I agree. But perhaps we should also look at metaphor, which has been described by some as a metaphysical concept.

At the moment, I view logic as a sort of tautological calculator. (I get this general concept but not the metaphor from Wittgenstein's TLP.) A formalized logic can help us realize what we already know. Of course a person could conceive of logic as the structure of logos or discourse, but I don't think this structure can be established, or not one that addresses the full range of language use.

As far as "you + me = 2 human beings" I agree. Of course words like "human" and "beings" don't have exact eternal meanings, but that's another issue.
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 05:17 pm
@Reconstructo,
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 23 Feb, 2010 05:29 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;131575 wrote:


He can't tell whether 1+1=2? That's really too bad. Is he all right now? (My granddaughter who is 7 can do sums more complicated than that).
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » Determinism and Fatalism: What's the Difference?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/05/2024 at 08:25:23