The Fatal Paradox

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » The Fatal Paradox

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Mon 3 May, 2010 07:20 am
Since it is impossible to avoid one's fate, since if one did so, it would not have been his fate, how could fatalism be false-which it clearly is?
 
Owen phil
 
Reply Mon 3 May, 2010 07:28 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;159531 wrote:
Since it is impossible to avoid one's fate, since if one did so, it would not have been his fate, how could fatalism be false-which it clearly is?


I don't believe that 'fate' is inevitable at all. Choice denies fate.
That we have choices proves that: fate, determinism, inevitability, etc., are illusions.
 
longfun
 
Reply Mon 3 May, 2010 07:30 am
@kennethamy,
Isn't the only place to avoid fate to be fate.
Fate doesn't need to avoid it's own fate.It is fate, a focal point.
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Mon 3 May, 2010 07:45 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;159531 wrote:
Since it is impossible to avoid one's fate, since if one did so, it would not have been his fate, how could fatalism be false-which it clearly is?


"Your fate" could be taken specifically as designating a specific set of events that will happen to you. It could also be taken as a placeholder for whatever events will happen to you.

1. It's impossible for Timmy's dad not to be his dad.
2. It's impossible for Timmy's dad not to be Jerry (his dad).

In (1) it is true by definition, his dad is his dad, necessarily, but the statement of who his dad is, which is what (2) is about, is false. His dad could have been David in which case (1) would still be true but (2) would be false.

In the same way, whatever your fate is, is your fate, by definition, but what events your fate will be composed of, that's left open.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 3 May, 2010 07:47 am
@Owen phil,
Owen;159532 wrote:
I don't believe that 'fate' is inevitable at all. Choice denies fate.
That we have choices proves that: fate, determinism, inevitability, etc., are illusions.


Fate, by definition, is unavoidable. If what is alleged to have been fated is avoided, then it could not have been fated in the first place. (Determinism and choice are not incompatible. Indeed, choice (and not just picking) assumes determinism).

---------- Post added 05-03-2010 at 09:59 AM ----------

Night Ripper;159537 wrote:

In the same way, whatever your fate is, is your fate, by definition, but what events your fate will be composed of, that's left open.


If that means that we do not know which events are fated, I agree. But, if fatalism is true, that does not mean that it is indeterminate which events are fated. Knowing is one thing. But what is the case may, of course, be a very different thing. The famous song does not go, "whatever will be will be, and I know what will be". It goes, "Whatever will be will be. The future's not ours to see. Che sera, sera". I need not know what will happen for it inevitably to happen, if it does.

If, on the other hand, you mean by "the future is open" that some futures are not fixed, that is another story. But, of course, all that is, is a denial of fatalism. And, to deny is not to refute. It is not even to rebut. It is only, to deny.
 
Amperage
 
Reply Mon 3 May, 2010 08:05 am
@kennethamy,
IMO the best evidence that could be provided to me that fatalism is false would be to prove to me that God does not exist. The existence of a God with foreknowledge and things like the principle of bivalence are compelling factors for me.

Fatalism, to me, seems to imply a higher power at work. Someone/something to set the stage. The conscience mind/soul that I am could have been born anywhere and anytime but, through no doing of my own, I was born in this specific time and specific place. I like to think that God has a purpose for my existence and a plan for my life.

I don't really worry about things being fated because it's not like I can know my fate. But I do believe in things like prophecy and divine purpose. And as I said before without the use of a time machine we can never truly know if we could do otherwise and even then it wouldn't necessarily mean anything(think divergent timelines).
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Mon 3 May, 2010 08:07 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;159538 wrote:
If that means that we do not know which events are fated, I agree. But, if fatalism is true, that does not mean that it is indeterminate which events are fated. Knowing is one thing. But what is the case may, of course, be a very different thing. The famous song does not go, "whatever will be will be, and I know what will be". It goes, "Whatever will be will be. The future's not ours to see. Che sera, sera". I need not know what will happen for it inevitably to happen, if it does.

If, on the other hand, you mean by "the future is open" that some futures are not fixed, that is another story. But, of course, all that is, is a denial of fatalism. And, to deny is not to refute. It is not even to rebut. It is only, to deny.


I just explained how "your fate is your fate" doesn't imply that your fate is fixed anymore than "your dad is your dad" implies that the identity of your father is fixed. Also, the truth of "my motorcycle is my motorcycle" doesn't imply that I own a motorcycle either.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 3 May, 2010 08:17 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;159549 wrote:
I just explained how "your fate is your fate" doesn't imply that your fate is fixed anymore than "your dad is your dad" implies that the identity of your father is fixed. Also, the truth of "my motorcycle is my motorcycle" doesn't imply that I own a motorcycle either.


If you mean, "If something is my motorcycle then it is my motorcycle" then of course. But, generally, the expression, X is identical with X implies, something is an X. This is the problem of existential import. (What does "the identify of your father is fixed" mean. That he will always be the same?)
 
Owen phil
 
Reply Mon 3 May, 2010 08:19 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;159538 wrote:
Fate, by definition, is unavoidable. If what is alleged to have been fated is avoided, then it could not have been fated in the first place. (Determinism and choice are not incompatible. Indeed, choice (and not just picking) assumes determinism).


Why do you believe determinism and choice are not incompatable?

Ken,
"Knowing is one thing. But what is the case may, of course, be a very different thing."

To know p is to know that p is the case.
That which is the case is that which is true.
To know p is to know that p is true.
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Mon 3 May, 2010 08:19 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;159556 wrote:
If you mean, "If something is my motorcycle then it is my motorcycle" then of course. But, generally, the expression, X is identical with X implies, something is an X. This is the problem of existential import.


So then by saying "your fate is your fate", you are implying that you have a fate but you already said fatalism is false. What do you mean by fate then?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 3 May, 2010 08:27 am
@Amperage,
Amperage;159545 wrote:
IMO the best evidence that could be provided to me that fatalism is false would be to prove to me that God does not exist. The existence of a God with foreknowledge and things like the principle of bivalence are compelling factors for me.

Fatalism, to me, seems to imply a higher power at work. Someone/something to set the stage. The conscience mind/soul that I am could have been born anywhere and anytime but, through no doing of my own, I was born in this specific time and specific place. I like to think that God has a purpose for my existence and a plan for my life.

I don't really worry about things being fated because it's not like I can know my fate. But I do believe in things like prophecy and divine purpose. And as I said before without the use of a time machine we can never truly know if we could do otherwise and even then it wouldn't necessarily mean anything(think divergent timelines).


The question of why there is such a thing as fatalism (if there is) is one thing. But the question, what is fatalism? is a very different thing. They really should not be confused with each other. And we had better answer the latter before we try to answer the former. Don't you think?

You certainly know some of your fate. For instance, you know you will die.

A great (perhaps too) romantic poem about fatalism is The Rubiayat of Omar Kyam.

The Internet Classics Archive | The Rubaiyat by Omar Khayyam

One excerpt:

But helpless Pieces of the Game He plays
Upon this Chequer-board of Nights and Days;
Hither and thither moves, and checks, and slays,
And one by one back in the Closet lays.


LXX
The Ball no question makes of Ayes and Noes,
But Here or There as strikes the Player goes;
And He that toss'd you down into the Field,
He knows about it all--He knows--HE knows!


LXXI
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.
 
Owen phil
 
Reply Mon 3 May, 2010 08:50 am
@Amperage,
Amperage;159545 wrote:
IMO the best evidence that could be provided to me that fatalism is false would be to prove to me that God does not exist. The existence of a God with foreknowledge and things like the principle of bivalence are compelling factors for me.


If you provide a definition/description of your god, perhaps someone can show proof that 'your god does not exist'.

Amperage;159545 wrote:

Fatalism, to me, seems to imply a higher power at work. Someone/something to set the stage. The conscience mind/soul that I am could have been born anywhere and anytime but, through no doing of my own, I was born in this specific time and specific place. I like to think that God has a purpose for my existence and a plan for my life.


I agree that fate implies religious ideas, and so does self-importance.

Amperage;159545 wrote:

I don't really worry about things being fated because it's not like I can know my fate. But I do believe in things like prophecy and divine purpose. And as I said before without the use of a time machine we can never truly know if we could do otherwise and even then it wouldn't necessarily mean anything(think divergent timelines).


Because an event did happen does not imply that it had to happen.
p implies (necessary p), is only true when p is analytic (tautologous or contradictory).
 
Amperage
 
Reply Mon 3 May, 2010 08:53 am
@Owen phil,
Owen;159570 wrote:
Because an event did happen does not imply that it had to happen.
p implies (necessary p), is only true when p is analytic (tautologous or contradictory).
true and I guess this commits the modal fallacy but at the same time you cannot prove it didn't have to happen other than by saying you could have done otherwise and nothing compelled it to happen.

And I wouldn't claim it had to happen anyway but that it just always would happen.
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Mon 3 May, 2010 08:55 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;159569 wrote:
I think you may believe that I am arguing that there are necessarily are some things that are fated for me. But I am not.


You must be. It's the only explanation for why you would say:

kennethamy;159569 wrote:
how could fatalism be false-which it clearly is?


You were obviously trying to imply that it's an argument for why fatalism is true and therefore something is fallacious about it because you already know fatalism is false.
 
Owen phil
 
Reply Mon 3 May, 2010 09:04 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;159562 wrote:


You certainly know some of your fate. For instance, you know you will die.


How do you know that you will die?
How do you define knowledge?
How can any future tense statement be known (now) by anyone?

We believe that we will die.
 
Extrain
 
Reply Mon 3 May, 2010 09:16 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;159538 wrote:
Fate, by definition, is unavoidable. If what is alleged to have been fated is avoided, then it could not have been fated in the first place. (Determinism and choice are not incompatible. Indeed, choice (and not just picking) assumes determinism).


Agreed. Fatalism and determinism are not the same thing anyway.

"If P then Q"--is determinism: this is compatible with choice.

"Necessarily, If P then Q"--is fatalism: this is incompatible with choice.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 3 May, 2010 09:17 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;159560 wrote:
So then by saying "your fate is your fate", you are implying that you have a fate but you already said fatalism is false. What do you mean by fate then?


First of all, all of us are fated to die, just so long as we cannot avoid dying. Isn't that true? Of course, if an immortality vaccine is ever developed, then we'll not be fated to die. But, so far, we are. But that does not mean that fatalism is true. Fatalism is (as I understand it) the doctrine that whatever happens must happen, and that is clearly false, since it it clear that some happenings need not have happened. Just because we cannot avoid death, it does not follow that if we die in an accident, we could not have avoided dying in an accident. And although it is true that (as things now stand) all of us will die, it does not follow that it a a necessary truth that we will all die. If it were, then there would be no hope of developing an immortality vaccine. It may, for all I know, be true that we shall never discover an immortality vaccine. But that does not mean that it is a necessary truth that we cannot avoid death. We cannot avoid what will happen to us is, so far as I know, a synthetic falsity, but we cannot avoid our fate is clearly an analytic (and so, necessary) truth.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 01:09 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;159531 wrote:
Since it is impossible to avoid one's fate, since if one did so, it would not have been his fate, how could fatalism be false-which it clearly is?
Do you have any evidence/examples?
 
Extrain
 
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 01:14 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;160085 wrote:
Do you have any evidence/examples?


Do you have any evidence/examples to suggest fatalism is true?

It says, "Necessarily, if P then Q." Nowhere do I see that observed within my experience.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 01:32 pm
@Extrain,
Extrain;160088 wrote:
Do you have any evidence/examples to suggest fatalism is true?

It says, "Necessarily, if P then Q." Nowhere do I see that observed within my experience.
I have no evidence for either/neither, I was merely questioning such certainty that KA displayed.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » The Fatal Paradox
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/03/2021 at 08:33:34