Philosophy Now Forum

I think that you are hitting your head against one of his impenetrable barriers ... the idea that determinism makes true/false, useful/useless, right/wrong, valid/invalid all equal and "interchangeable".

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 5:53 pm I think that you are hitting your head against one of his impenetrable barriers ... the idea that determinism makes true/false, useful/useless, right/wrong, valid/invalid all equal and "interchangeable".

Yes, but this doesn't stop his short bursts of reasoning. Supposedly it stops the reasoning of others. And yes, it assumes that in a determined universe there could be no way of deciding on usefulness, when in fact it mainly leads to an asterisk. And yes, he admits he could be wrong, but that's a different position that the one he creates using the 'threat' of determinism. There we cannot know anything. I'm not sure why he's the exception. Could be wrong is different from no way of knowing, no point in discussing.

As far as hitting my head against the wall. He doesn't respond to me after I wrote a number of posts meeting his request. So, I'm just happily pointing out what I see as misinterpretations, confusions or things that lack clarity.

No disappointment.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 9:14 pm He doesn't respond to me after I wrote a number of posts meeting his request. So, I'm just happily pointing out what I see as misinterpretations, confusions or things that lack clarity.

Nature to iwannaplato:

And don't think he doesn't appreciate it.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 5:00 pm

Back to all the technical distinctions made between determinism and fatalism,

How so?

I see no attempt by Iambiguous to tackle the "technical distinctions made between determinism and fatalism".

So, in what way is anyone going back to it?

"Determinists believe the future is fixed specifically due to causality; fatalists and predeterminists believe that some or all aspects of the future are inescapable but, for fatalists, not necessarily due to causality. Fatalism is a looser term than determinism." wiki

"First of all, the thing to realise is that both of these theories have the same result in the end. They both mean that how our life ends up is decided by forces other than ourselves. But the difference between the two is in how the direction of our lives is decided.

In fatalism, we have one true "fate" and we will end up there no matter what. Our life may take whatever journey it want, but we cannot escape our eventual fate. What exactly decides this fate is different depending on the version of fatalism we are discussing. For example, some people might believe that we have a fate that is decided by a God, but this is just one version of fatalism. Determinism, on the other hand, means not only that we have one pre-decided fate that we will end up with, but also that every event in our life is decided by earlier events and actions. In short, fatalism is the theory that there is some destiny that we cannot avoid, although we are able to take different paths up to this destiny. Determinism, however, is the theory that the entire path of our life is decided by earlier events and actions." mytutor

Okay, to the extent some believe this distinction is reasonable, how would it be applicable to, say, our posting here? How would it be applicable to Mary and Jane?

Mary is fated to abort Jane, but "somehow" can take different paths to that end?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 12:36 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 9:14 pm He doesn't respond to me after I wrote a number of posts meeting his request. So, I'm just happily pointing out what I see as misinterpretations, confusions or things that lack clarity.

Nature to iwannaplato:

And don't think he doesn't appreciate it.

The internet gives a whole new meaning to 'persona'.

On the subject of fatalism :

Fatalism requires that you know or you believe that a specific event will happen in the future.

If you don't know then something will just happen, as it happens with free-will or determinism. You can call it 'fate' after it happens but that's not fatalism.

It's fatalism if you know that Mary will abort. How do you know? How can you possibly know?

Determinists don't claim to know that Mary will abort.

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 3:58 pm On the subject of fatalism :

Fatalism requires that you know or you believe that a specific event will happen in the future.

If you don't know then something will just happen, as it happens with free-will or determinism. You can call it 'fate' after it happens but that's not fatalism.

It's fatalism if you know that Mary will abort. How do you know? How can you possibly know?

Determinists don't claim to know that Mary will abort.

Fatalism is a fuzzy word.
I haven't heard your version, where one actually knows.
I am used to it having two nuances that are not the same as determinism, at least modern determinism which is more scientific: causal chains lead inevitably to certain events. Fatalism is a different kind of metaphysical determinism. It's is one's destiny to experience X. It is one's fate. There is some higher plan or justice or story and that story will happen. In fact, I almost get the sense that details in the story might change, but if you are supposed to be eaten by a dragon, it will happen even if it's in the next town over. Certain events are meant to be. So, in a sense, it might not even be a fully deterministic universe, in fatalism, but that key events - and certainly one's death and heroism are meant to be.
The other nuance is that often if you are fatalistic then you are depressed. You feel like you have no active role.

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 3:58 pm On the subject of fatalism :

Fatalism requires that you know or you believe that a specific event will happen in the future.

It doesn't, actually.

What you know, and what is the case are always two separate issues. Fate is something that, if true, would operate without any regard at all for how many people knew it was operating. A person might, in fact, totally imagine himself to be free, all the while being fated to be able to do nothing other than that which he, in fact, was compelled to do by Fate.

Indeed, that dichotomy is how Compatibilists hope to run their case: they make the presumption that freedom can be real with no more basis than that they experiencer imagines it to be real, or supposes that it is.

But it has to be pretty obvious to any fair observer that such is not the case: an automaton who was oblivious to the fact that he was an automaton would still be an automaton. His awareness of it is not required in order for Fate to operate. For Fate would be operating both before he ever was born, and long after he, as an individual, was dead; what difference, then, would the state of his awareness make to that fact?

Manifestly, none at all.

Fatalism is a fuzzy word.
I haven't heard your version, where one actually knows.
I am used to it having two nuances that are not the same as determinism, at least modern determinism which is more scientific: causal chains lead inevitably to certain events. Fatalism is a different kind of metaphysical determinism. It's is one's destiny to experience X. It is one's fate. There is some higher plan or justice or story and that story will happen. In fact, I almost get the sense that details in the story might change, but if you are supposed to be eaten by a dragon, it will happen even if it's in the next town over. Certain events are meant to be. So, in a sense, it might not even be a fully deterministic universe, in fatalism, but that key events - and certainly one's death and heroism are meant to be.
The other nuance is that often if you are fatalistic then you are depressed. You feel like you have no active role.

The classic example is Oedipus Rex.

It is predicted that Oedipus will kill his father and marry his mother. He takes steps to avoid it but ends up doing it.

If he hadn't known, then he might kill his father and marry his mother. And some old guy will say, after the fact, that it was Oedipus' fate to do it. But there isn't some inevitable event hanging over him ahead of the fact.

You might get eaten by a dragon but you might not. It only gains significance if you know prior to being eaten.

Everyone is going to die but that too general to be considered fatalism. If you believe that you will die in a car fire, and you do, than that's fatalism.

Fatalism has to break causal determinism. Oedipus can literally jump of a cliff and he can't die if he does it before killing his father and marrying his mother. His mother and father also can't die before the predicted events.
It's really magical thinking, not logical causality at all.

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 5:59 pm

Fatalism is a fuzzy word.
I haven't heard your version, where one actually knows.
I am used to it having two nuances that are not the same as determinism, at least modern determinism which is more scientific: causal chains lead inevitably to certain events. Fatalism is a different kind of metaphysical determinism. It's is one's destiny to experience X. It is one's fate. There is some higher plan or justice or story and that story will happen. In fact, I almost get the sense that details in the story might change, but if you are supposed to be eaten by a dragon, it will happen even if it's in the next town over. Certain events are meant to be. So, in a sense, it might not even be a fully deterministic universe, in fatalism, but that key events - and certainly one's death and heroism are meant to be.
The other nuance is that often if you are fatalistic then you are depressed. You feel like you have no active role.

The classic example is Oedipus Rex.

Not really.

Oedipus Rex is a fiction. In fictions, things that never happened are described, not the real world. And in it...

It is predicted that Oedipus will kill his father and marry his mother.

Who did it? The Oracle of Delphi.

If we believe in Delphic Oracles, then maybe we could take Oedipus Rex seriously on that. But we don't. And most people don't have oracles, or anybody else to tell them what will happen.

If he hadn't known, then he might kill his father and marry his mother. And some old guy will say, after the fact, that it was Oedipus' fate to do it. But there isn't some inevitable event hanging over him ahead of the fact.

Actually, the point of Oedipus Rex is that there WAS, that nothing he could have done could have prevented what was going to happen to him. That's actually how the story goes. But again, of course, it's a fiction.

You might get eaten by a dragon but you might not. It only gains significance if you know prior to being eaten.

You're eaten, either way. What you know or don't won't change the dragon's culinary selection.

If you believe that you will die in a car fire, and you do, than that's fatalism.

It's what's called "prophecy," not "Fatalism." What you believe has no relevance. Somebody else may believe it...like your mama may predict that you'll die in a car fire, and to that, you may remain oblivious. Or nobody might predict you will, but unknown to all, you're fated to die that way anyway.

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 3:58 pm On the subject of fatalism :

Fatalism requires that you know or you believe that a specific event will happen in the future.

The bottom line [mine] revolves around this:

"First of all, the thing to realise is that both of these theories have the same result in the end. They both mean that how our life ends up is decided by forces other than ourselves. But the difference between the two is in how the direction of our lives is decided."

Then the part where these theoretical constructs are taken out of the Hallowed Halls and intertwined in human interactions such that -- click -- it can be demonstrated [one way or another] whether our lives are determined or fated.

It is almost as though the fatalists convince themselves that while there is no possibility whatsoever that Mary will not abort Jane, she is "somehow" able to decide on the path that takes her there?

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 3:58 pmIf you don't know then something will just happen, as it happens with free-will or determinism. You can call it 'fate' after it happens but that's not fatalism.

Back to the part where the fact that something happens is all that really matters? Determined or fated, Mary will abort Jane. It will happen.

Then the part, however, where we are only able to run this by Jane if Mary's friend freely talks her out of the abortion and Mary in possession her own volition changes her mind and chooses to give birth to Jane.

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 3:58 pmIt's fatalism if you know that Mary will abort. How do you know? How can you possibly know?

Well, I knew because my own Mary told me she was going to have the abortion. And she did. On the other hand, what if John -- click -- had been able to convince her that his own frame of mind was actually more reasonable?

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 3:58 pmDeterminists don't claim to know that Mary will abort.

No, some suggest instead that what we know [about anything] is but one more inherent manifestation of the only possible reality.

Free Will Is Only an Illusion if You Are, Too
New research findings, combined with philosophy, suggest free will is real but may not operate in the ways people expect
By Alessandra Buccella & Tomáš Dominik

If we start working with a more philosophically grounded understanding of free will, we realize that only a small subset of our everyday actions is important enough to worry about.

Not counting any number of men and women for whom small subsets of everyday actions are not important enough to worry about.

We want to feel in control of those decisions, the ones whose outcomes make a difference in our life and whose responsibility we feel on our shoulders. It is in this context—decisions that matter—that the question of free will most naturally applies.

Unless, of course, you're convinced that in a wholly determined universe, decisions that matter, much like decisions that don't, are all just another necessary component of the only possible reality.

In 2019 neuroscientists Uri Maoz, Liad Mudrik and their colleagues investigated that idea. They presented participants with a choice of two nonprofit organizations to which they could donate $1,000. People could indicate their preferred organization by pressing the left or right button. In some cases, participants knew that their choice mattered because the button would determine which organization would receive the full $1,000. In other cases, people knowingly made meaningless choices because they were told that both organizations would receive $500 regardless of their selection. The results were somewhat surprising. Meaningless choices were preceded by a readiness potential, just as in previous experiments. Meaningful choices were not, however. When we care about a decision and its outcome, our brain appears to behave differently than when a decision is arbitrary.

Yes, some [compelled to or not] will read this and it'll be enough to [compelled to or not] convince them that at least in regard to the really, really important decisions made in their lives the fact that brain does function differently, well, what else could it be?

How many additional experiments of this nature confirmed it?

Besides, from my frame of mind, even if it turns out that, in regard to the truly important things in life, we do possess at least some measure of autonomy, we're still confronted with how much of that is rooted existentially in dasein. For example, those in America who voted Trump back into the White House may well have done so of their own volition. But that doesn't change the subjective/subjunctive political prejudices that brought them to this choice.

Phyllo wrote: The classic example is Oedipus Rex.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 7:29 pmNot really.

No, he's right that's a classical example of fate/destiny. It's classical in two ways: from the classics and a very common example used in discussions.

Oedipus Rex is a fiction. In fictions, things that never happened are described, not the real world. And in it...

well, you can give us a real world example where you think that a prediction of someone's fate was made and it came true and this event was part of a metaphysically governed inevitable 'story'.

It is predicted that Oedipus will kill his father and marry his mother.

Who did it? The Oracle of Delphi.

If we believe in Delphic Oracles, then maybe we could take Oedipus Rex seriously on that. But we don't. And most people don't have oracles, or anybody else to tell them what will happen.[/quote]I dont think Phyllo is saying that we should believe the story accurately descibes the nature of reality, but rather saying it describes a negative destiny and fate.

If he hadn't known, then he might kill his father and marry his mother. And some old guy will say, after the fact, that it was Oedipus' fate to do it. But there isn't some inevitable event hanging over him ahead of the fact.

Actually, the point of Oedipus Rex is that there WAS, that nothing he could have done could have prevented what was going to happen to him. That's actually how the story goes. But again, of course, it's a fiction.

Again, this bizarre use of Actually. What you wrote does not disagree with what Phyllo wrote. What makes you think that PHyllo doesn't think it's fiction? Do you think he thinks it's history?

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 5:59 pm

Fatalism is a fuzzy word.
I haven't heard your version, where one actually knows.
I am used to it having two nuances that are not the same as determinism, at least modern determinism which is more scientific: causal chains lead inevitably to certain events. Fatalism is a different kind of metaphysical determinism. It's is one's destiny to experience X. It is one's fate. There is some higher plan or justice or story and that story will happen. In fact, I almost get the sense that details in the story might change, but if you are supposed to be eaten by a dragon, it will happen even if it's in the next town over. Certain events are meant to be. So, in a sense, it might not even be a fully deterministic universe, in fatalism, but that key events - and certainly one's death and heroism are meant to be.
The other nuance is that often if you are fatalistic then you are depressed. You feel like you have no active role.

The classic example is Oedipus Rex.

It is predicted that Oedipus will kill his father and marry his mother. He takes steps to avoid it but ends up doing it.

If he hadn't known, then he might kill his father and marry his mother. And some old guy will say, after the fact, that it was Oedipus' fate to do it. But there isn't some inevitable event hanging over him ahead of the fact.

You might get eaten by a dragon but you might not. It only gains significance if you know prior to being eaten.

Everyone is going to die but that too general to be considered fatalism. If you believe that you will die in a car fire, and you do, than that's fatalism.

Fatalism has to break causal determinism. Oedipus can literally jump of a cliff and he can't die if he does it before killing his father and marrying his mother. His mother and father also can't die before the predicted events.
It's really magical thinking, not logical causality at all.

I agree that it is magical thinking. I even more or less said that in my post after mulling my way to it. But the person does not have to know about their fate in advance for fate to be involved. Fate governs Hectors life as much as it does Achilles. He doesn't know he is doomed when he fights Achilles or that it is fate he will die, but it is his fate. Fate/dentiny, in that model, is governing the lives of those who received prophecies about their fate and all others.

It's a universal thing, not just for those who hear prophecies. We all, for the fatalists or for those who believe in destiny, have our fates and no real way of avoiding them. And those stories where someone is told their fate are to show that even knowing it one cannot avoid it. Even then. So destined it is.

The Stoics believed that human decisions and actions ultimately went according to a divine plan devised by a god.[citation needed] They claimed that although humans theoretically have free will, their souls and the circumstances under which they live are all part of the universal network of fate.

Not just those who get to hear the prediction, but everyone is part of some deity's or Fate's story, one written before they were born.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 3:11 am

Phyllo wrote: The classic example is Oedipus Rex.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 7:29 pmNot really.

No, he's right that's a classical example of fate/destiny. It's classical in two ways: from the classics and a very common example used in discussions.

It's fine as a mere illustration. It's utterly useless as data or argument. The fact that Sophocles wrote a made-up story that illustrates Fate does not prove, or even mildly indicate, that Fate is a real thing.

So there's no point in mentioning it, except to say something like, "Oedipus Rex is a good explanation of what Deterministic dullards think is actually true." And there, and there alone, it might actually illuminate something.

Oedipus Rex is no more useful to proving the actuality of Compatiblism than Goldilocks and the Three Bears is useful to zoology.