Fatalism

1. Fatalism Week 07

2. In today’s lecture… • Recap • Fatalism and free will • Karma • Logical determinism • Theological determinism • Causal determinism

3. Recap • Eternalism • Presentism • Parallel universes

4. Fatalism • Fatalism (宿命論) is the belief that if something is going to happen, it is going to happen. There is nothing we can do to change it. • If something is going to happen, it will happen no matter what we think or do.

5. Fatalism • In other words, fatalism asserts that whatever is going to happen is unavoidable (不能避免的). • A fatalist thinks that we have no control over what is going to happen in the future.

6. Fatalism • A fatalist believes that the future is fixed and determined. There are no alternative possibilities for the future. • It means that we cannot change the future through our thoughts and actions.

7. Fatalism • An ancient argument for fatalism is called the ‘idle argument’ (無用論). Here is an example: [1] If it is fated (注定) for you to recover from your illness, then you will recover whether you call a doctor or not.

8. Fatalism [2] Similarly, if you are fated not to recover from your illness, you will not recover even if you call a doctor. [3] Therefore, whether you call a doctor or not does not make any difference.

9. Fatalism Is there anything wrong with the reasoning of the idle argument?

10. Free will • ‘Free will’ (自由意志) can be understood as the idea that human action is not completely determined by external causes, but can be the result of conscious choice(有意識的選擇). • A person has free will if and only if heor shehas choice, i.e. if he or she can choose among alternative courses of action.

11. Free will • An action is free only if it is caused by the person himself or herself rather than something else. • Thus, ‘free will’ can be defined as the power to make choices and, at least to some extent, to be in control of one’s own future.(will意志 = power or ability to make choices or decisions)

12. Free will • From the standpoint of ethics, the idea of responsibility is tied to a person’s being free. • For example, it might be wrong to punish someone for doing something wrong if he was not acting on his own free will.

13. Think! • To say that people have free will is to say that they can make choices – more than one possible futures are open to them. Does it imply that fatalism must be false if people havefree will?

14. Think! • Taking ‘free will’ into consideration, there are two possible interpretations (解釋) of fatalism: [1] Free will is an illusion (假象). We do not have free will; and because of that, we have no control over future events.

15. Think! • OR: [2] Even if we have free will, we cannot change the future through our thoughts and actions. If something is going to happen, it will happen no matter what we think or do. (This, as you might remember, is the so-called ‘idle argument’.)

16. Think! • Suppose a fortune-teller tells you that you are going to be drown one day in the future. You don’t want this to happen, so you stay away from water all the time. • However, if fatalism is true and if fortuning-telling is reliable, then no matter how hard you try, you will get drown in the water one day.

17. Think! • Many people go to fortune-tellers because they want to change their ‘fate’ (i.e. their future). • But fortune-telling is possible only if fatalism is true, i.e. that the future is fixed and determined. • But if fatalism is true, there is nothing you can do to change your future!

18. Think! If so, what is the point of asking the fortune-teller about your ‘fate’?

19. Karma • The doctrine of ‘karma’ (因果報應) originated in ancient Indian religion and then spread to other cultures such as China and Japan. Today many people in India and other Asian countries still believe in karma.

20. Karma • Karma is a central notion in Hinduism (印度教) and Buddhism (佛教). It is believed to be the universal (普遍的) law of cause and effect. • However, unlike the scientific concept of causality (因果律) in physics, karmashould be understood as a religious or ethical concept.

21. Karma • We hope to find a causal explanation for everything that happens. We want to know why some people enjoy happy lives while others suffer great pain for no obvious reasons. • The concept of ‘karma’ is supposed to provide such an explanation.

22. Karma • According to the doctrine of karma, events that appear to happen for no reason are actually the result of a person’s past actions. • In Hinduism and Buddhism there is a kind of logic about collecting karma and its relation to how or where we will be re-born on the ‘Wheel of Karma’ (輪迴).

23. Karma • Karma is often understood as related to reincarnation (輪迴轉生), i.e. the rebirth of one’s soul (靈魂) in another life, another person, or another life-form. • As such, karma can be seen as effects or consequences of past actions that continue from one life to the next.

24. Karma • An action (cause) may not befollowed immediately by its corresponding effect because there might be several causal relations working together at the same time. • As a result, the consequences of a past action may show upnot in this life but in another lifetime.

25. Karma • Thus, karma is premised on the belief that all of an individual’s suffering and enjoyment is deserved (應得的), i.e. as a result of the person’s past actions (in this life and previous lives). • Things that happen in this life can have their source in what a person did in his or her past lives.

26. Karma • The present life is only one in a chain of lives. • Karma accumulates (積累) throughout a lifetime; it determines the conditions of one’s next existence, including the amount of pain and pleasure to be experienced.

27. Karma • It is important to notice, however, that Hinduism (印度教) and Buddhism (佛教) offer very different interpretations (解釋) of the doctrine of karma.

28. Karma • Hinduism looks in the rear-view mirror and focuses on the effects of past action on the present. • Hindus, generally speaking, believe that karma is fatalistic. There is no escape from the universal law of cause and effect. There is nothing you can do to change your fate.

29. Karma • The doctrine of karma in Hinduism precludes (排除、否定) choice and free will. Major events in a person’s life are destined (注定) to happen; they are unavoidable(不能避免的).

30. Karma • In contrast, Buddhism is forward-looking and focuses on the consequences of present actions for the future. • Karma is not seen as fatalistic or deterministic. Buddhism asserts that we have free will and therefore we are responsible for our own salvation (救贖).

31. Karma • According to Buddhism, karma implies duties and responsibilities – our present actions will have either positive or negative effects in the future. • From the standpoint of Buddhism, we have free will and so we can make ethical decisions – we can freely choose between doing good and doing evil.

32. Karma • In Buddhism, reincarnation is a miserable phenomenon (可悲的現象). • The Buddhist ideal is to break free from the cycle of life and death and to achieve nirvana (湼槃), i.e. the extinction (去除) of greed (貪), hate (瞋) and delusion (痴).

33. Karma • Nirvana is the liberation (解脫) from samsaraor the‘cycle of life’. • Karma implies action and consequence. Nirvana, in contrast, is a condition in which there are no actions, no feelings, and no troubles. It is, as Buddhists would say, completely peaceful.

34. Karma If you don’t remember any of the actions of your past lives, does it sound strange that you must suffer the consequences of those actions?

35. Karma If the doctrine of karma is true knowledge, it has to be verifiable (可證實的) through the scientific method. How do we know that the law of karma is true if there is no scientific evidence for it?

36. Read! Go to the course website, download and read a very short article titled “The True Meaning of ‘Karma’ in Buddhism”.

37. Logical determinism Aristotle 亞里斯多德 (384 B.C. to 322 B.C.) argued against logical determinism. In his view, the laws of logic do not lend support to fatalism. The future is open; it is not fixed or determined.

38. Logical determinism • To understand the argument of logical determinism (邏輯決定論a.k.a. logical fatalism) and Aristotle’s counterargument against it, let us begin withthe following statement: ‘There will be a sea battle tomorrow.’

39. Logical determinism • The law of bivalence states that: For any proposition p, p is either true or false. • Logical determinism is the view that if the law of bivalence applies to all statements, the statement ‘There will be a sea battle tomorrow’ must have a true-value, i.e. it must be either true or false.

40. Logical determinism • Accordingly, the statement ‘There will be a sea battle tomorrow’ is true if there really is a sea battle tomorrow (i.e. if there is a corresponding future fact). • The statement is false if there is no sea battle tomorrow (i.e. if there is no corresponding future fact).

41. Logical determinism • From the point of view of logical determinism, the statement ‘There will be a sea battle tomorrow’ must have a truth-value (according to the law of bivalence), although we do not know at present whether the statement is true or false.

42. Logical determinism • But if statements about the future have truth-values, the future is fixed and determined. • In other words, we cannot prevent a sea battle from happening if it is going to happen. Likewise, we cannot cause a sea battle to happen if it is not going to happening.

43. Logical determinism • Thus, according to logical determinism, the truth or falsehood of the statement ‘There will be a sea battle tomorrow’ depends on the presence or absence of some future fact. Whether the statement is true or not has nothing to do with what we think or do at present.

44. Logical determinism • The truth or falsehood of the statements such as‘There will be a sea battle tomorrow’ seems to be pre-destined (已經注定的) as a matter of logical necessity. • Thus, the law of bivalence seems to lend support to logical determinism or fatalism.

45. Logical determinism • Aristotle believes that fatalism, or logical determinism, is not true. In his view, some statements about the future, such as ‘There will be a sea battle tomorrow’, do not have truth-values at present. • According to Aristotle,the law of bivalence is not applicable to some statements about the future.

46. Logical determinism • Aristotle believes that the future, unlike the past, is ‘open’ (i.e. not fixed or determined). • In his view, future events are not fixed or determined because of logical necessity. Logical determinism or fatalism does not follow from the law of bivalence.

47. Logical determinism • Consider the statements below: [1] Either there will be a sea battle tomorrow or there will not be a sea battle tomorrow. [2] There will be a sea battle tomorrow.

48. Logical determinism • Aristotle would say that [1] is necessarily true because it exhausts all the possibilities (已經包括所有可能性). • However, [2] is neither true nor false right now. If a sea battle occurs, it will become true. If a sea battle does not occur, it will not be true.

49. Think! Aristotle, however, would say that the statement ‘The sun will rise tomorrow’ does have a truth-value. What is the difference between the statement ‘There will be a sea battle tomorrow’ and the statement ‘The sun will rise tomorrow’?

50. Think! • Suppose you are sitting an examination next week. Consider the following argument: [1] Either you will pass the exam or you will not pass the exam. [2] If you are going to pass the exam, you will pass the exam whether or not you study hard.