|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Determinism, fatalism and predestinationThe level of equivalence between these three ideas is open to dispute. The first and second claims (determinism and predestination) obviously differ over the status of free will.; some fatalists deny that fatalism as a fact implies defeatism as an attitude, or put a positive interpretation on the acceptance of one's fate (amor fati). It can also be argued that only the second version of the claim is correct — Determinism should not be mistaken for fatalism.[3][4] Although determinists would accept that the future is, in some sense, set, they accept human actions as factors that will cause the future to take the shape that it will - even though those human actions are themselves determined; if they had been different, the future would also be different. In other words, determinists think the future is fixed because of causality, whereas (predestinarian) fatalists think it is fixed in spite of causality. Determinists think that if the past had been different, the future would be different (although for them the idea that anything could have been different is purely hypothetical and not a real possibility). Fatalists think that even if you could change the present or the past, the future would still be the same. Human actions are for determinists merely a special case of the dependence of the future on the present and past, and have no special properties beyond that. The idle argument
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. The logical argumentArguments for fatalism, although rarely accepted, do have a bearing on discussions about the nature of truth. The logical argument for fatalism[6] 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. Notes
See alsoExternal link
cs:Fatalismus da:Fatalisme de:Fatalismus es:Fatalismo fr:Fatalisme it:Fatalismo he:פאטאליזם nl:Fatalisme no:Fatalisme pl:Fatalizm pt:Fatalismo ru:Фатализм sr:Фатализам fi:Fatalismi sv:Fatalism
|
Sites |
Searched sites for "Fatalism" |
|
No sites found. |
Sorry, no matching site records were found. |
Want your site listed here?
|
||||||||||||||
|
Submit
your site |
|
Relevant quality search results and fast easy navigation throughout the
different sections of the site, make Americola.com |