The original poster is asking if [causal] determinism implies/reduces to fatalism. I think it does but only if you think the laws of nature are real and causes actually have force rather than being derived in hindsight and abstract.

The second sentence, after your quote, reads: When argued for in the third way it is not now commonly referred to as "fatalism" at all, and such arguments will not be discussed here. In short, your source does not back you up, quite the contrary.

That's not the kind of fatalism that the article or (99% sure about this judging from context) the original poster is talking about. I just quoted the definition of fatalism from SEP but here's both of them.

The original poster is asking if [causal] determinism implies/reduces to fatalism. I think it does but only if you think the laws of nature are real and causes actually have force rather than being derived in hindsight and abstract.

I am the OP and I did not ask that question.

All I'm arguing is that term "fatalism" commonly implies the definition given in the first sentence of that article.

But the question was asked here, on a philosophy board, vague notions that appear in common usage are not an accurate reflection of what philosophers mean by the terms that they use.

I meant common usage by philosophers which is why I quoted Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Are you going to argue that's not what fatalism commonly means by philosophers?

I am the OP and I did not ask that question. But, in any case, I think that fatalism and determinism are incompatible, and therefore cannot say the same thing. And I think that SEP also holds that. I'll say it one more time: According to fatalism, what we do does not matter to what happens. According to determinism, what we do may matter to what happens. Therefore, fatalism and determinism are incompatible, and therefore they are not the same. QED.

I meant common usage by philosophers which is why I quoted Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Are you going to argue that's not what fatalism commonly means by philosophers?

It appears as if the metaphysical theory of determinism is self-evident.

Are you contending that the terms fatalism and determinism are interchangeable synonyms?

ughaibu;131638 wrote:

Are you contending that the terms fatalism and determinism are interchangeable synonyms?

No. . . .

Of course, only if you think causes aren't abstract and derived in hindsight.

I take fatalism not to mean what we do doesn't not matter to what happens, but that, what we do, we will always do and have no choice but to do; it's already been decided because the decision isn't freely ours, it's our fate. I think it is in this sense that fatalism can be equated to hard determinism

Are you saying the cause and effect relationship is merely imagined?

As I said, fatalism says that it does not matter what we do. Determinism says it sometimes does matter what we do. The fatalist says to the soldier, don't bother to put on the body armor. The determinist says, by all means do bother to put put on the body armor. It may save your life. Are you saying there is no difference? If the soldier has decided to put on his body armor, then his decision makes a difference. Whether he was "free" or not to put on his body armor is a different issue. If you ignore this difference than I agree that fatalism is equated to hard determinism. And, if you ignore the differences between cheese and chocolate, then cheese is equated to chocolate.

No, I most certainly see the distinction you are trying to make.

Where does Chaitin say that?

Fine, but you must admit it was a long haul.

In fact I check it out and he does n?t say that literally. . . .