Neo-Fatalism

[neo]

Yes so I would like to know what people here think about neo-fatalism. It's my philosophy of choice at the moment. I find it very interesting and fascinating really. Tell me what you think and I'll tell you what I think!! (Don't have more time right now, sorry. I'm forced into using a shared computer and I'm well past my hour limit. Oops.)

 

http://en.allexperts.com/e/n/ne/neo-fatalism.htm

 

neo(-fatalist )

[Shyone]

Yes so I would like to know what people here think about neo-fatalism. It's my philosophy of choice at the moment. I find it very interesting and fascinating really. Tell me what you think and I'll tell you what I think!! (Don't have more time right now, sorry. I'm forced into using a shared computer and I'm well past my hour limit. Oops.)

 

http://en.allexperts.com/e/n/ne/neo-fatalism.htm

 

neo(-fatalist )

I almost subscribe to that belief, but not quite.

 

At any rate, regardless if all actions are "predetermined", we can see that our actions have consequences and change our actions accordingly.

 

A fatalist might be tempted to say, "what the heck, it's going to happen anyway" and not take any actions - since actions, if they were going to be taken, would be taken, so not acting is simply "the way it was going to be anyway."

 

This approach to life is self-defeating. It tends towards the anti-humanistic. "The poor and sick are that way because of their destiny." Or maybe we should try to improve their lot and try to get them a little health care.

 

If poverty is ever eliminated, it will be attributable to the actions of humans. If not, due to the inaction or ineffective actions of humans. Same with things on the small scale. If you want a clean house, clean it - don't say, "well, it is dirty, therefore it was meant to be dirty."

 

I used to think my life was directed by God, but I had to take actions to make my life conform to His Will. I since figured out that I had taken actions that made my life what it is. It wasn't until I had taken actions that had adverse consequences that I realized that God had nothing to do with it.

 

Decisions matter because consequences matter and actions matter. I think neo-fatalism promotes complacency.

 

I will also acknowledge that we can't know if our actions are predetermined if in fact our thoughts are predetermined on some mollecular level. Some things are certainly inevitable. It doesn't help to think that all things are inevitable however, because then we conform to a mold that is devoid of initiative. It is a philosophy that, while it could be "correct" has no possible beneficial effect on human behavior.

 

I'll leave out the quantum stuff, but there are reasons to think that our fates are not entirely predetermined.

 

It matters not how strait the gate,

How charged with punishments the scroll.

I am the master of my fate:

I am the captain of my soul.

[neo]

Hello Shyone and thanks so much for your reply! I don't know why no one else has bothered to reply. Neo-fatalism is a huge deal for me but apparently not for many others. Oh well.

 

I think you're right that neo-fatalism can be self-defeating. I've often thought about life from a neo-fatalistic viewpoint and I find it can do (at least) two things. It can paralyze you so you can't do much of anything because everything is predetermined. OR it can set you completely free, you CAN do ANYTHING you "wish" (even if that's thought to be an illusion) because everything is predetermined. It's a paradox really. And I'm not sure one can go on living normally thinking "everything I do and everything that happens is predetermined", I think it can make one go crazy. But it can be an underlying philosophy one has that brings comfort and security. Like you can't go wrong because whatever you "choose" to do was already predetermined!! I feel weird writing this because it's so paradoxical...

 

I understand what you mean that if one takes a neo-fatalistic viewpoint they might not see any point in fighting poverty. But I do believe in fighting against poverty. Like Wayne W. Dyer has said, "Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it." Another paradox! And I do want to improve the world. But sometimes I just think that everything is how it's supposed to be, even if and when there is room for improvement. Other times I don't think so as I see so many things wrong in the world and so little I can do to help as one small person. Gets me down a lot of the time. I guess it helps me when I think that we are here to learn life's lessons and everything happens for a reason. That's WHEN I think like that and it's not been the case even half the time lately. I think neo-fatalism might make life easier to deal with. I don't know. But often it just rings true to me.

 

Yes I am a confused individual, maybe you noticed. Lol.

 

neo

[Shyone]

 

Yes I am a confused individual, maybe you noticed. Lol.

 

neo

Not confused - sorting things out.

 

I really don't object to neo-fatalism per se. If it's true, it's true even if we can't know it for sure. The point is rather that we can't live our lives in a fatalistic fog, or we really will have no reason to move ahead.

 

IOW, act and live as though what we do matters, even if it doesn't.

 

I am applying the same logic as Christians do to atheism here. You can't pretend that heaven and god exist if you know (or very strongly suspect) otherwise. I therefore see no point in going to church and saying the words.

 

If life is predetermined and truly ultimately without any more meaning than a ball rolling downhill, then there really is no point in doing anything, and doing nothing is therefore the predetermined thing. Try to avoid eating, feel hunger, and give up trying to give up, and that was predetermined too.

 

So it becomes similar to solipsism - nothing is real/matters. Why speak or write? If you say nothing, it will have been predetermined.

 

People can't live that way. Even if these philosophies are somehow "true."

[Franko47]

I've always kind of believed that we may be influenced by environment and traits and so on, but life often swivels on the odd coincidence. It's hard to believe that a lot of things are pre-determined when you have led a life that wasn't exactly predictable.

 

 

I think that religion for a long, long time has always tried to create some sense of prophecy for itself. Destiny is like a magnet that seems to draw us forward in time; Fate is where we end up splattered on the windshield of the future, and free will is a matter of how well we manipulate our world and even ourselves.

 

There is a lot we can't control, and this often gives us a sense that we are in fact, controlled. But really, the question that sometimes bothers me is whether the future has already happened, and we are just following up in "the wave". I've sometimes believed in "synchronicity" that we can sometimes just be in the "flow" of events at the right time, and at other times, feeling like a bad musician who can't keep up to the music.

 

Stability seeks a familiar path; I notice how redundant some people's lives seem to be sometimes. I've even noticed how commercialism tries to dictate our habits. Like, must everyone take a trip during the long weekend ? I never do; I find the idea ludicrous. I often try and alter the synchronicity of what I'm doing in relationship to the world. (That's why I'm late for work today) LOL

 

Almost anything can change the timeline, as I believe Shyone touched upon. That's the one great buffer against the tyranny of destiny, or neo-fatalism I suppose.

[Shyone]

I've always kind of believed that we may be influenced by environment and traits and so on, but life often swivels on the odd coincidence. It's hard to believe that a lot of things are pre-determined when you have led a life that wasn't exactly predictable.

 

 

I think that religion for a long, long time has always tried to create some sense of prophecy for itself. Destiny is like a magnet that seems to draw us forward in time; Fate is where we end up splattered on the windshield of the future, and free will is a matter of how well we manipulate our world and even ourselves.

 

There is a lot we can't control, and this often gives us a sense that we are in fact, controlled. But really, the question that sometimes bothers me is whether the future has already happened, and we are just following up in "the wave". I've sometimes believed in "synchronicity" that we can sometimes just be in the "flow" of events at the right time, and at other times, feeling like a bad musician who can't keep up to the music.

 

Stability seeks a familiar path; I notice how redundant some people's lives seem to be sometimes. I've even noticed how commercialism tries to dictate our habits. Like, must everyone take a trip during the long weekend ? I never do; I find the idea ludicrous. I often try and alter the synchronicity of what I'm doing in relationship to the world. (That's why I'm late for work today) LOL

 

Almost anything can change the timeline, as I believe Shyone touched upon. That's the one great buffer against the tyranny of destiny, or neo-fatalism I suppose.

 

I once examined predetermination carefully, and the first thing that struck me was that many things do seem "predetermined."

 

Is there any surprise that an alcoholic gets drunk, or that while drunk he/she drove a car, had a wreck or killed someone? "Gee, who could have expected that!"

 

Smart people do smart things and are successful usually, violent people tend to commit crimes, etc. Still, the news isn't filled with these commonplace things. You find, instead, smart people doing stupid things, violent people performing heroic deeds and the like. The exceptions to the apparent inevitability of fate make life interesting.

 

Much of life is rote, fixed by circumstances and ordinary. I went to medical school. I'm a doctor. What else could one expect? But I try to shake up the mix a little bit. Joined the army, went to a Central American Country, fought in a war. I no longer live where I was born, and I don't dress or act according to some prepackaged ideal.

 

Unorthodox, nonconformist, eccentric; Freethinker.

 

I guess it was inevitable...

[Mongo]

Yes so I would like to know what people here think about neo-fatalism. It's my philosophy of choice at the moment. I find it very interesting and fascinating really. Tell me what you think and I'll tell you what I think!! (Don't have more time right now, sorry. I'm forced into using a shared computer and I'm well past my hour limit. Oops.)

 

http://en.allexperts...eo-fatalism.htm

 

neo(-fatalist )

 

I get the underlying argument about our lack of conrol of the world and apptitudes and hence personality and choices.

 

What I have trouble with is my own emotional experience.

 

I feel that I have control over my own destiny through the act of making choices.

 

If the act of choosing is pre-determined then what? Is this just semantics?

 

So instead of saying **I** am making a choice should I change my language to say... (hmmm) "I'm **experiencing** a pre-determined decision". (boaring language!!)

 

The mental construct of decision making and the sense that I am the one in control of my emotions and actions is an extremely useful one whether I am truly in control or not. Whether it is pre-determined or not seems irrelevant to me.

 

Mongo

[Animania]

"Neo-Fatalism

Neo-Fatalism or Neo-Determinism is a philosophy which claims that all events are predestined, in areas inside as well as in areas outside human control. Neo-Fatalism argues that free-will is an illusion. Mainly drawing from some concepts of Fatalism, but approaching them from a more rational and logical angle, it has been compared to the Nordic concept of Wyrd." .....

 

 

"As a consequence, Neo-Fatalism makes the claim that from the very beginning of time, all that has unfolded has been inevitable. As such, from the very moment the big bang sparked our universe into being, it was inevitable that humankind would do everything which it has done. Our courses in life are pre-determined, because our original biology and subsequent experiences result in there only being one path which we can follow.

 

Nevertheless, this philosophy acknowledges that, in any given situation, there are a multitude of different paths we may follow: however, it states that there is only one of those paths that a person could possibly take."

 

 

 

Maybe I"m just misunderstanding this, but it appears to be a contradiction. If everything is following an inevitable path that has been determined from the get go, then how could there possibly be multiple paths that it could follow? From the initial statement wouldn't one come to the conclusion that of what other course would be possible? So what's the point of these false paths that were impossible, and are quite clearly impossible since they obviously were not the path that reality followed?

 

I do not like this school of though personally. If it's true, then it's true of course, but it feels like a distant cousin to Calvinism (which is the brand of Christianity that rankled me probably the most). If this were to be true, and it became common knowledge that your actions are just part of the inevitability of the universe and the flow of time, then all personal responsibility would be worthless and an illusion.

[Deva]

In reading this article on"Neo-Fatalism" I will say that as a hard determinist, I am largely in agreement with this position. We agree that "free will" does not exist. A couple of quibbles otherwise:

 

1. The idea that the Big Bang event was the beginning of the universe. I don't think that has been completely established by science.

 

2. I am not sure about the term "predestined" either. To me, that implies a supreme being who planned it all or a set beginning point. I say that it is rather an endless sequence of causes and effects which can never be traced out.

 

I think that there is the illusion of choice. However, this choice in reality cannot be "free" in any meaningful sense.

 

In the deterministic view, there is no question of an entity "you" doing anything. Whatever is done is the result of an endless determined sequence (cause and effect) - it is the whole universe acting together that is doing it. So it is really not "I am thinking.. or I am doing" it is more properly to be thought that "there is thinking or there is xyz event happening".

[Shyone]

In reading this article on"Neo-Fatalism" I will say that as a hard determinist, I am largely in agreement with this position. We agree that "free will" does not exist. A couple of quibbles otherwise:

 

1. The idea that the Big Bang event was the beginning of the universe. I don't think that has been completely established by science.

 

2. I am not sure about the term "predestined" either. To me, that implies a supreme being who planned it all or a set beginning point. I say that it is rather an endless sequence of causes and effects which can never be traced out.

 

I think that there is the illusion of choice. However, this choice in reality cannot be "free" in any meaningful sense.

 

In the deterministic view, there is no question of an entity "you" doing anything. Whatever is done is the result of an endless determined sequence (cause and effect) - it is the whole universe acting together that is doing it. So it is really not "I am thinking.. or I am doing" it is more properly to be thought that "there is thinking or there is xyz event happening".

It still sounds to me like solipsism. I heard about a guy that was arguing with another to establish that the universe and every other being does not exist but is instead a mental construct. The other person replied, "Then why are you arguing with me? If I don't exist, you have no reason to argue at all."

 

 

Likewise, if there is nothing to be gained by even considering an action (and such consideration would also be unavoidable), then there is no reason to take any action whatsoever, since every action or inaction would be "destined" to happen, and acting and not acting have equal outcomes: Whatever was going to happen anyway.

 

I also heard of a solipsist that walked in front of a train because he was convinced it would pass through him (matter being non-existent). He died. That, to me, is the same outcome as a neo-fatalist might take regarding any particular action. "Why not? If I do it, it was meant to be."

[Mongo]

I think that there is the illusion of choice. However, this choice in reality cannot be "free" in any meaningful sense.

 

In the deterministic view, there is no question of an entity "you" doing anything. Whatever is done is the result of an endless determined sequence (cause and effect) - it is the whole universe acting together that is doing it. So it is really not "I am thinking.. or I am doing" it is more properly to be thought that "there is thinking or there is xyz event happening".

 

What is the difference between "there is thinking" and "there is choosing"?

 

And while we know that somewhere, thinking (and choosing?) exist... the specific place that it occurs is in various deposits of grey matter, that is, *me* and *you*.

 

So... it becomes "I am thinking" and "I am choosing".

 

...but not freely.

 

I don't argue with the essential logic but it seems rather lifeless and boils down to a discussion of what is consciousness for which there are no good answers.

 

What bothers me is the position that it leaves me... content with my illusion... just like a xtian.

 

Mongo

[Deva]

It still sounds to me like solipsism.

 

 

Solipsism: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also : extreme egocentrism.

 

 

No. That is not my position.

[Deva]

And while we know that somewhere, thinking (and choosing?) exist... the specific place that it occurs is in various deposits of grey matter, that is, *me* and *you*.

 

So... it becomes "I am thinking" and "I am choosing".

 

...but not freely.

 

Thinking takes place and choosing apparently takes place. Yes, neither are "free".

 

I have been called "hard core" on this subject by one of my fellow ex-c's.

[Shyone]

It still sounds to me like solipsism.

 

 

Solipsism: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also : extreme egocentrism.

 

 

No. That is not my position.

No, I said Like solipsism - in the sense that I described above.

 

If [enter one of the two terms here] is true, then there is no point in ever doing anything.

 

That may be a little too concise, but that's essentially what I was trying to say.

[Deva]

If [enter one of the two terms here] is true, then there is no point in ever doing anything.

 

That may be a little too concise, but that's essentially what I was trying to say.

 

But I don't feel that way. Maybe I still don't understand you. Things are done. The "point" is whatever circumstances have come together to make it meaningful at that time.

[Shyone]

If [enter one of the two terms here] is true, then there is no point in ever doing anything.

 

That may be a little too concise, but that's essentially what I was trying to say.

 

But I don't feel that way. Maybe I still don't understand you. Things are done. The "point" is whatever circumstances have come together to make it meaningful at that time.

Determinism and predestination have the same limitations to me. If what will be will be is the only possible outcome, then why do anything? It "seems" meaningful because it was determined to seem meaningful in a deterministic world.

 

Given two choices, apply for a job or not apply and a 50% chance of being hired (except that the outcome is predestined and therefore 100%), there is no difference between not applying and not getting the job. So it must have been predetermined that you wouldn't get the job. So why apply? Just because you don't know the outcome doesn't mean it isn't predestined, so not applying gives you the predestined outcome - no job.

 

Or you could say that maybe your abilities, talent, experience and interview style might actually influence the interviewer. Then you should apply.

 

Same odds, different perspective.

 

Being unable to influence the future means that whatever you do is useless, pointless, and irrelevent.

 

Maybe the future is determined, but if we persist in thinking that way, there is no motivation since inaction and action will have the same outcome - determined.

[Deva]

Determinism and predestination have the same limitations to me. If what will be will be is the only possible outcome, then why do anything? It "seems" meaningful because it was determined to seem meaningful in a deterministic world.

 

Then it still has meaning. That it is determined is, to me, a fact but does not diminish the meaning.

 

Given two choices, apply for a job or not apply and a 50% chance of being hired (except that the outcome is predestined and therefore 100%), there is no difference between not applying and not getting the job. So it must have been predetermined that you wouldn't get the job. So why apply? Just because you don't know the outcome doesn't mean it isn't predestined, so not applying gives you the predestined outcome - no job.

 

It is determined, but since we do not have perfect knowledge we can't know either way if we will or will not get the job. It may be determined that you will get it. How do you know the exact percentage of success?

 

Being unable to influence the future means that whatever you do is useless, pointless, and irrelevent.

 

You influence the future how? It is as it is, and continues from the now. I say "you" cannot. Even the pyramids of Egypt will eventually turn to dust.

 

Maybe the future is determined, but if we persist in thinking that way, there is no motivation since inaction and action will have the same outcome - determined.

 

Life will motivate you, regardless of whether or not you think it determined.

 

Look, this is a complex subject and I am not sure I can express my position adequately since I am not a trained debater. I simply see things this way, and it seems correct to me.

[Shyone]

How do you know the exact percentage of success?

 

I picked an arbitrary number. Odds vary with jobs, market conditions, etc.

 

Life will motivate you, regardless of whether or not you think it determined.

 

Look, this is a complex subject and I am not sure I can express my position adequately since I am not a trained debater. I simply see things this way, and it seems correct to me.

 

I'm not an experienced debater either. I'd lose virtually 100% of the time.

 

I sort of think I understand what you mean, but I think you are suggesting we act as though life were not determined which is exactly what I am saying.

 

The point is that if you were to truly adopt a deterministic attitude, then pointing a loaded gun into your mouth and pulling the trigger is no different from any other action - it is determined - and if that bullet happens to kill you, it was determined. If not, you're a lousy shot, and it was determined.

 

You have separated the concept of determinism from the implied consequences of acting on that belief. Some people can't do that, and for them the ultimate outcome of determinism and fatalism is - fatal.

 

-------------------------------

 

Off on a slight hypothetical tangent. If Heaven were real and wonderful and eternal, and death was guaranteed to get you there, why wear seatbelts? Christians don't act like there is really a heaven, or that life is transitory and Heaven eternal. If they did, they would all be dead. The ones that really do believe and act accordingly are called crazy.

 

By the same token, if there is nothing about life that will ever matter, and whatever you do was absolutely not under your control, then there is no point to living, and one might as well eat that proverbial bullet.

 

But that would be crazy.

[Deva]

I sort of think I understand what you mean, but I think you are suggesting we act as though life were not determined which is exactly what I am saying.

 

That's right, but the ultimate truth is that events and actions are determined.

 

The point is that if you were to truly adopt a deterministic attitude, then pointing a loaded gun into your mouth and pulling the trigger is no different from any other action - it is determined - and if that bullet happens to kill you, it was determined. If not, you're a lousy shot, and it was determined.

 

That's right, it is determined. All of the coordinated actions it would take to do that act. Or a misfire would also be determined or someone walks into the room and interrupts it, or any hundred other incidents that might occur.

 

You have separated the concept of determinism from the implied consequences of acting on that belief. Some people can't do that, and for them the ultimate outcome of determinism and fatalism is - fatal.

 

 

I don't know. For me its just the way things are. Its the whole universe acting together to produce whatever it is that happens. It cannot be worked out how the events occur, so they appear spontaneously. As if luck were involved in the case of a favorable event or some other explanation in the case of an unfavorable one.

 

I said earlier that we operate on the basis of the illusion of free will. The underlying truth is far different. Actually I do think much of what we see is illusory, perhaps everything. It is an old idea in Hinduism and Buddhism. No, that does not mean you can step in front of a train without consequences. There is a conventional reality and an ultimate reality.

 

Off on a slight hypothetical tangent. If Heaven were real and wonderful and eternal, and death was guaranteed to get you there, why wear seatbelts? Christians don't act like there is really a heaven, or that life is transitory and Heaven eternal. If they did, they would all be dead. The ones that really do believe and act accordingly are called crazy

 

You are right most don't act like there is a heaven, or a hell either for that matter. They preach the reality of these places yet do not show by their manner of life that they believe it.

 

By the same token, if there is nothing about life that will ever matter, and whatever you do was absolutely not under your control, then there is no point to living, and one might as well eat that proverbial bullet.

 

But that would be crazy.

 

I don't think the comparison is valid. I am not sure what you mean by "matter". It just means you are not the doer. I don't have extravagant notions like heaven or hell. Heaven or hell is in the mind. Things still happen, both favorable and unfavorable. Actions happen, why do "you" need take the credit? As I said, you have the illusion of acting. Let the whole thing play out as it will. The sun is still shining and the birds are singing. I personally don't feel like eating a bullet. I see no reason to.