Fatalism carries with it the idea that each person has a fate that is already sealed for them, and there is nothing they can really do to change that fate. Karma is has fates centered around a type of "balancing" system where the fate that you reap is determined by the actions that you sow. Over all, while fatalism has some issues when you start including the non-sense about the destiny being chosen by the gods, it's closer to reality than karma is. Karma contains this concept in which there is some inherent justice built into the universe, as if the universe for some unknown reason cares about the balancing of rights and wrongs. This simply just isn't consistent with reality. As for fatalism, it's right about fate being locked in place, …show more content…
Saying that the future is already determined and there's no way to change it makes it sound like no matter what you do, the outcome will still be the same, and that's not true. We still make choices and decisions that shape the future, but they're not actually "changing" it, rather, they're crafting it into what it was always going to become. There is only one set of choices that we will make in this chain of events in which we're living, and those choices will determine the one chain of outcomes that we experience. Now, every choice we make was going to be made anyway, but that doesn't change the fact that we got to make the choice. This is something that I grow frustrated about in philosophy, as everyone wants to talk about free will and determinism as if they're mutually exclusive, and they're not. Everyone has the free will to make their choices, but the choices we make, we make for reasons, and those reasons are caused. Everything is caused, and without random variations (which are mathematically impossible) the future is certainly going to take place. It it were not so, time lines simply could not exist. I apologize if I'm being excessively over elaborative, I've just had a lot of misunderstandings when explaining this in the …show more content…
Most Christians bank of the vagueness of free will, then end the conversation there. However, there are other groups like the Calvinists who believe, quite logically and illogically at the same time, that God does choose everyone's destinies for them, and whether or not people go to heaven or hell is chosen by God. Now, this is logical, as if God was the "causer" behind the universe, then it stands to reason that the things that happen in the universe that he causes are, well, caused by him. The issue is that God in this circumstance is an irrational psychopath who just arbitrarily decides where to sprinkle evil and who to needlessly burn for eternity. It's like some psychopaths who wanted to call themselves Christian but understood the logical problems with the "problem of evil" issue just decided to embrace it and worship an arbitrary murderer. As for the Islamic view, there are two main perspectives covered in this section. First, there are the Mu'tazilites who basically view causation as being partly God's and partly man's doing. Basically, God's will creates the conditions in which our wills operate, and fate is sort of a joint effort between God and man. As for the other group, the Ash'arites, they view destinies as being crafted by God and offered to people, and people can choose different destinies by either following God or rejecting
The view mentioned is alarming in two respects: First of all, in accordance with the way we see ourselves we are convinced that freedom is essential for man's being. Secondly, philosophers think they have excellent arguments against determinism.
Many believe that our choices in life are already made for us and we have no control to what happens to us, although others believe that this life is like an epic journey and we can change our fate at any moment. It´s hard to choose which side you believe in my honest opinion I believe that our lives do not ¨lie in the fate of God¨ as stated by in the Iraq War Post by Faiza Al-Araji however I believe instead that our life is an odyssey, that we must travel through and make important choices by ourselves not by fate. But with many edvidence and claims in both story the question ¨How much in our lives do we actually controls?¨ wanders through our mind.
Consider this argument: 'If the future is already determined, then it must be possible to know in advance what will happen. But, if that is so, then free will is impossible.' Do you agree? Is there any satisfactory way of acting freely if determinism is true?
A reading “The Dilemma of Determinism” by William James’s, he explains that everything that happens in the future is already predicted by the way things are now. In contrast, indeterminism allows some of the loose plays that we make among us, play among parts of the u...
Moving forward, according to John Cowburn author of Free Will, Predestination and Determinism (2008), “determinism is the philosophical view is that all humans’ actions are predetermined and that every event an individual encounters can be explained.” (p. 144)” Thus, every event that has happened in one’s life, happens as a result of previous events.
However, I have taken a more compatibilist approach towards the argument of free will, determinism, and moral responsibility. I think that determinism lays the foundation for an individual to make a decision by exposing a multitude of possibilities. But, it takes free will to make the decision which in turn makes us partially responsible for our actions since we had various options at hand. I suspect that the concept that free will and determinism can coexist and oftentimes work hand in hand. Since we are predisposed to a particular body, with different DNA, and a unique mindset, I can agree that we are predetermined to think and act a certain way because of genetics and how we were raised. However, I also believe that this is not the only force at hand whenever people make decisions. As we grow and experience the world, we are faced with situations that have us question and rearrange our perspectives and the way we think. This is where determinism comes into play. For example, a child who was taught to eat meat during their early life learns about how the meat industry functions in an Environmental Science class in high school. As a result, they decided to be a vegetarian. This causal event serves as an influence that instilled a new idea into the student. However, it takes free will to ultimately make the decision to convert because it goes against what was determined for the individual. It was their autonomous choice to convert since there were two options at hand: to change their eating habits or to remain the
My first claim is, if God is all knowing, he knows where we will end up in life. Secondly, I believe when our consciousness comes into existence, God knows if we go to Heaven or Hell. Thirdly, no matter what choices we make throughout our lives, the end result will always be what it was meant to be before our existence. Therefore, no amount of free will during our time on earth, will change our end result which means our free will is
Some believe the one goal in life should be to maximize intrinsic happiness. If the negatives outweigh the positives you 'll be better off. You may have a dog that loves you and a roof over your head, but if the roof is made of cardboard and food is scarce while at the same time believing you are better off in a grave than some would say you have a valid reason to want death. At the same time, the container theory acts as a countermeasure. This theory dictates that living itself is better than anything bad that could be consuming your thoughts. The value you put on life can determine the grand total of positive and negative points, but in turn the negatives may barely equal the positives. By dying, you could miss out on the best part of life, causing a hypothetical regret on suicide. The very sliver of hope that this could happen causes a desire to reconsider death and this is what typically hold people back. The thought that better could arrive. The thought that suffering would continue is what pushers more people the breaking point. You would be better off dead if suffering would only continue, but who can tell if that would be so unless from a medical professional, even than on occasion, instances of "medical miracles" happen and can turn a person who was once in a vegetative state to run a 5k.
If indeterminism is true, we are not responsible since ever choice is a chance occurrence
, The debate between free will and fatalism has existed since the conceptualization of time. On one hand, in everyday life, time flows in a uniform fashion. People experience time in which there is a past, present, and a future. Yet, physicists and philosophers see time as something completely different. In fact, they see time as an illusion. Called the tenseless theory of time, time does not flow but this theory views time as a fourth dimension where all past, present, and future events are equal (Callender & Edney, 2004). Essentially, this theory proposes that there is no passage of time and no becoming of future events. As a result, one can view this theory as a “block” universe in which every event that has happened, is happening as of right now, and is going to happen has been set in stone.
The argument of free will and determinism is a very complex argument. Some might say we have free will because we are in control; we have the ability to make our own choices. Others might say it’s in our biological nature to do the things we do; it’s beyond our control. Basically our life experiences and choices are already pre determined and there’s nothing we can do to change it. Many philosophers have made very strong arguments that support both sides.
The discussion of free will and its compatibility with determinism comes down to one’s conception of actions. Most philosophers and physicists would agree that events have specific causes, especially events in nature. The question becomes more controversial when philosophers discuss the interaction between human beings, or agents, and the world. If one holds the belief that all actions and events are caused by prior events, it would seem as though he would be accepting determinism. For if an event has a particular cause, the event which follows must be predetermined, even if this cause relates to a decision by a human being. Agent causation becomes important for many philosophers who, like me, refuse to accept the absence of free will in the universe.
What does it mean to say that we could have done something different from what we actually did? Some things are determined in advance, like the sun rising in the morning or the sun setting in the evening. There are processes behind the scenes that determine in advance that the sun will rise or the sun will set. If our choices have already been determined in this way, are we really making choices? If we are not really making choices and everything is determined, then it is impossible for us to do something different from what we actually did. This view is called determinism and it denies the concept of human freedom. This outlook claims that events that exist before we act determines our “...
The discussion of free will and its compatibility with determinism comes down to one’s conception of actions. Most philosophers and physicists would agree that events have specific causes, especially events in nature. The question becomes more controversial when philosophers discuss the interaction between human beings, or agents, and the world. If one holds the belief that all actions and events are caused by prior events, it would seem as though he would be accepting determinism
God provides a person the free will to make up their mind to act the way that they want. It is explained logically in the excerpt by God, “Free will is a great good, a necessary ingredient in the best of all possible worlds. And it would be contradictory for me to give people free will and, at the same time, guarantee that they never use that freedom to cause suffering” (Davis 137). God’s explanation is right about freewill because a person will decide to do good or do evil and God has no control of the choices. Suffering will happen when someone is affected by evil, but the only way to stop suffering is to remove free will. If one takes away free will, then life is predictable, boring, and meaningless. Free will contains evil always because it lets a person prefer to cause people suffer or accomplish great phenomena with free will. Free will limits the amount of suffering by letting people select their own path in life, but suffering from some type will still be there. Free will understanding will bring up talk about happiness because of