Fatalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| It has been suggested that Theological fatalism be merged into this article or section. (Discuss) |
| This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. WikiProject Philosophy or the Philosophy Portal may be able to help recruit one. |
| This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (September 2006) |
Fatalism is a philosophical doctrine emphasizing the subjugation of all events or actions to fate or inevitable predetermination.
Fatalism generally refers to several of the following ideas:
- That free will does not exist, meaning therefore that history has progressed in the only manner possible. [1] This belief is very similar to determinism.
- That actions are free, but nevertheless work toward an inevitable end. [2] This belief is very similar to predestination.
- That acceptance is appropriate, rather than resistence against inevitability. This belief is very similar to defeatism.
Contents |
While the terms are often used interchangably, fatalism, determinism, and predestination are discrete in emphasizing different aspects of the futility of human will or the foreordination of destiny. However, all these doctrines share common ground.
Determinists generally agree that human actions affect the future, although that future is predetermined. Little to none of their dogma accentuates a "submission" to fate, where as fatalists stress an acceptance of all events as inevitable. In other words, determinists believe the future is fixed because of action and causality, where fatalists and predestinationists think the future is ineluctable despite causality.
Therefore, in determinism, if the past were different, the present and future would differ also. For fatalists, such a question is negligible, since no other present/future/past could exist except what exists now.
One ancient argument for fatalism, called the idle argument,[3] went like this:
- If it is fated for you to recover from your illness, then you will recover whether you call a doctor or not.
- Likewise, if you are fated not to recover, you will not do so even if you call a doctor.
- It is either fated that you will recover from your illness, or that you will not recover from your illness.
- So, calling a doctor makes no difference.
Arguments like the above are usually rejected even by causal determinists, who may say that it may be determined that only a doctor can cure you. There are other examples that show clearly that human deliberation makes a big difference - a chess player who deliberates should usually be able to defeat one of equal strength who is only allowed one second per move.
Arguments for fatalism, although rarely accepted, do have a bearing on discussions about the nature of truth. The logical argument for fatalism[4] says that, if there will be a sea battle tomorrow, and someone says "there will be a sea battle tomorrow" then that sentence is true, even before the sea battle occurs. But given that the sentence is true, the sea battle could not fail to take place. This argument can be rejected by denying that predictions about the future have to be true or false when they are made - ie, rejecting bivalence for sentences about the future, though this is controversial.
- ^ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- ^ Catholic Encyclopedia
- ^ The Idle Argument at the S.E.P
- ^ Aristotle, De Interpretatione, 9
- Accidental Necessity
- Amor fati
- Defeatism
- Determinism
- Predestination in Islam
- John Calvin
- Open theism
- Predestination
- Shikata ga nai (Japanese expression)
- Fatalism, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Fatalism vs. Free Will from Project Worldview