Neo-Fatalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
Contents |
[edit] Definition
Neo-Fatalism argues that free-will is an illusion, because a person's behaviour is completely shaped by their personality which, in turn, is shaped by their previous experiences and their biology. Due to the interactions with the world around us our personalities are ever-evolving, as we are exposed to new experiences. However, the neo-fatalist view is that those new experiences are themselves an inevitable consequence of our earlier personalities.
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.
It should also be noted that, while Neo-Fatalism is similar to the idea of fate, it has an important difference. Believers in fate will usually argue that whatever course of action is taken by a person, the end result will be the same, because it is pre-ordained. Neo-fatalism, on the other hand argues that it is the choice of action that is inevitable, and hence the outcome is also. For example, a fatalist might claim that, if a person was ill and was fated to get better, he would get better whether he called a doctor or not. The philosophy of Neo-Fatalism, however, would claim that it is unavoidable for the person to get better, because they will call the doctor who will treat them.
[edit] Example
The Neo-Fatalist belief in utter determinism is perhaps best illustrated through the use of an example.
If someone insults a man, there are various courses of action that he could take. For example; he may insult them back, he may kill them, or he may walk away with indifference. These are all possible courses of action which cannot be denied. However, due to that man's personality, there is, in reality, no chance of his picking certain options; if his past experiences have led to the development of a peaceful personality, then the choice of killing the person is void, as this is not a choice he would ever make.
Furthermore, it is argued, due to the man's personality, there is only one choice he would ever make. All courses of action to take against the insulting person other than the one that is chosen, would go against his personality so, in reality, they were never real choices at all. As an analogy, if one were faced with 100 doors, of which 99 harbour painful death but one promises a comfortable life, although one has a free choice of all 100 doors, the choice of any but the comfortable life door would be to go against one's rational wishes.
Returning to the example of the man who was insulted, this event would then be assimilated into his personality and would further shape his future experiences. A common criticism at this point is "but if this event shapes further experiences, then how can life be pre-destined? As, if this event had not taken place, then the future events which it supposedly shapes could not take place either." The neo-fatalist retort to this point would be that the occurrence of this event was inevitable so, indeed, if it had not taken place, the future events would be different, but it did take place, and always was going to take place, so any "what ifs" are irrelevant.
[edit] Neo-Fatalism and the Universe
Neo-Fatalism can also be applied to the entirity of the Universe.
People often attribute things such as hurricanes and landslides to being 'disastrous accidents'. This, however, is not the case according to Neo-Fatalism. There is a certain inevitability about nature which is easier to comprehend than that of humans, as there is no problem of consciousness.
To take the example of a landslide, the time and severity of a landslide is an inevitability. The causation of it can be attributed to rainfall, the weight of the mud, the angle at which the hill rises, the adhesive extent of the mud. There are a million factors which work together to cause the landslide, but each one of them is inevitable. The rainfall is decided by the cloud formations and positioning, the weight of mud decided by what it is made of, and how much mud previous rainfalls have washed away, the angle of the hill decided by how it has been eroded by wind and rain. And this can be traced back ever further, to years and millenia past, a whole series of events leading inextricably to this landslide. The exact time of the landslide may not be predictable but it is inevitable.
It also follows that if everything is inevitable and following a predetermined pattern, then every event in the Universe can be (in theory) logically predicted. However, due to the complexity of the Universe, such predictions are a practical impossibility.
"And as such, it can be seen that the very formation of our planet, our solar-system, and the very Universe in which it all resides was inevitable, unavoidable, from the very moment our Universe exploded into being, this is how things were always going to unfold. It could not have happened any other way." - A. Ecob
[edit] Criticisms
[edit] The Argument from morality
Some critics of Neo-Fatalism argue that if people are assumed incapable of independent choice (free will) there can then be no rational basis for morality, and therefore some aspects of criminal and civil jurisprudence and legislation appear irrational and unjust. How, they ask, can one be punished for an involuntary action?
Neo-fatalism, however, does not argue that a person's actions are involuntary. Despite their actions being inevitable, they are still actions which are taken consciously and willingly. The actions that a person takes are, it is argued, a consequence of their personality, but the person is still responsible for them, whether they are determined or not: as such, the person should be punished if those actions go against the law. Additionally, the existence of those laws is also inevitable as is our enforcement of them.
This argument also makes the claim that an absence of conformity to moral standards negates neo-fatalism as a theory. As such it makes the assumption that morality actually exists in a form other than that which has been socialised into oneself, and that said morality is necessary for a complete philosophy.
[edit] The argument from theoretical physics
A cornerstone of modern physics is Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle which implies that uncertainty is part of the behaviour of the fundamental particles from which the universe is built. Based on this, and related theory, most physicists would argue against the notion that the formation of the universe was totally determined by the disposition of its components at the time of the big bang. But not all - the matter is still debated and even most physicists who believe that there is no possibility of determinism, per se, believe that more conclusive empirical evidence is needed to squelch the debate once and for all. At present, pragmatism favors those who reject determinism in the quantum physics world, and thus the majority of physicists agree with this doctrine. However, it is still considered a small leap of faith totally to discount determinism based on the physical evidence available.
