What Is Man?

[seer]

But my definitions are legitimate, and accepted. Whether you like it or not.

The onus is on you to show how events can occur without antecedent causes.

Joel is doing yeoman's work on the subject. Better than I can do. Never mind the fact that you fall into an infinite regression of antecedent causes.

[Tassman]

But my definitions are legitimate, and accepted. Whether you like it or not.

Your definitions omit the main difference between fatalism and determinism, namely the fact of causation.

Joel is doing yeoman's work on the subject.

I disagree.

Never mind the fact that you fall into an infinite regression of antecedent causes.

As opposed to your regression of antecedent causes ending with a 'first cause', namely God you mean? What caused God?

[JimL]

I think that I agree with this, but I'm not sure that the purpose and meaning we experience in our lives can not still be defined as fatalism. If it can not be any other way, if what we experience, whether for better or worse, is inevitable, then it is fatalistic. No?


Satisfaction if our lives are determined for the better, not so much if they are determined for the worse. Fatalistic in either case, I think.


Exactly. From the deterministic perspective, there are no real options, the future, whether it exists in its own "now" as in B-Theory, or is fated to be in that same state, as in A-Theory, it is closed. If it is fated to be, then it is fatalistic. No?

In a non-capricious universe governed by physical laws LFW cannot, under any circumstances, logically function in that the agent himself is subject to the determined, antecedent causality of physical law?

Agreed. But, in so far as I can see, that is a fatalistic definition of existence whether our experience is one of meaning and purpose or not.

[Tassman]

I think that I agree with this, but I'm not sure that the purpose and meaning we experience in our lives can not still be defined as fatalism. If it can not be any other way, if what we experience, whether for better or worse, is inevitable, then it is fatalistic. No?

Satisfaction if our lives are determined for the better, not so much if they are determined for the worse. Fatalistic in either case, I think.

Exactly. From the deterministic perspective, there are no real options, the future, whether it exists in its own "now" as in B-Theory, or is fated to be in that same state, as in A-Theory, it is closed. If it is fated to be, then it is fatalistic. No?

Agreed. But, in so far as I can see, that is a fatalistic definition of existence whether our experience is one of meaning and purpose or not.

[JimL]

We "may be" passive pawns, or "we are" passive pawns? If "we are" passive pawns, then the fact that we feel as though our actions are freely chosen along with the fact that those choices play a part in the causal stream, doesn't change the fact that they are not freely chosen. If as the physics suggest, that the past and the future are just as real as the present, i.e. B-Theory, then even the idea that there are such things as choices being made is an illusion. Under that system I don't see how it could be defined as anything other than fatalistic. But even under A-Theory the future, though it doesn't exist in its own now, would end up in the same configuration as if it did, due to the causal stream. I don't think that feelings, or the fact that we play a passively active part in the causal stream, alters the fact that deteminism is fatalistic.

[Tassman]

We "may be" passive pawns, or "we are" passive pawns? If "we are" passive pawns, then the fact that we feel as though our actions are freely chosen along with the fact that those choices play a part in the causal stream, doesn't change the fact that they are not freely chosen. If as the physics suggest, that the past and the future are just as real as the present, i.e. B-Theory, then even the idea that there are such things as choices being made is an illusion. Under that system I don't see how it could be defined as anything other than fatalistic. But even under A-Theory the future, though it doesn't exist in its own now, would end up in the same configuration as if it did, due to the causal stream. I don't think that feelings, or the fact that we play a passively active part in the causal stream, alters the fact that deteminism is fatalistic.

[seer]

Yes, one more lie that the evolutionary process instilled in us.

[Tassman]

Yes, one more lie that the evolutionary process instilled in us.

[JimL]

Tass, according to your view, is it the ax murderer's fault that he is an ax murderer, or is it the inevitable result of cause and effect?

[Tassman]

Tass, according to your view, is it the ax murderer's fault that he is an ax murderer, or is it the inevitable result of cause and effect?

Cause and effect includes our evolution as a social species with instinctive codes of behaviour including the proscription of destructive, anti-social acts such as murdering people with axes.

[JimL]

Cause and effect includes our evolution as a social species with instinctive codes of behaviour including the proscription of destructive, anti-social acts such as murdering people with axes.

That sounds a bit like word salad Tass and I'm not sure what you mean by it. Could you be a bit more clear. A yes or no would probably suffice. So yes or no, would you say that it is the ax murderers fault that he is an ax murderer, or for him is the fact that he is an ax murderer just the inevitable effect of the causal stream?

[Tassman]

That sounds a bit like word salad Tass and I'm not sure what you mean by it. Could you be a bit more clear. A yes or no would probably suffice. So yes or no, would you say that it is the ax murderers fault that he is an ax murderer, or for him is the fact that he is an ax murderer just the inevitable effect of the causal stream?

[JimL]

But the community is made up of individuals, all of whom, like the ax murderer, are causally determined. That seems to me to be defining of destiny, or fate; aka fatalism. I'm not seeing how you get around that. If our actions are determined by the physics which are pre-existent even to human existence, if for better or worse, it can not be any other way, then how can it be said to be anything other than fatalism

[Tassman]

But the community is made up of individuals, all of whom, like the ax murderer, are causally determined.

That seems to me to be defining of destiny, or fate; aka fatalism.

No, it's the defining of 'causal determinism'. They're similar but not the same.

I'm not seeing how you get around that. If our actions are determined by the physics which are pre-existent even to human existence, if for better or worse, it can not be any other way, then how can it be said to be anything other than fatalism?