I’ve had a rough couple of days and I’m sorry I wasn’t able to post very well, but I really want to update everyone. I had some trouble at work actually that was completely uncalled for but I’m not going to go into too much detail because it’s over now and it makes me tired. But I went to the doctor’s yesterday and they did a whole bunch of tests. Pulling blood out of my arm. Pushing on my stomach. Breathing into tubes. EKG. And I’m going to a heart and a lung doctor soon as everyone scrambles to figure out what’s happening with me.
Anyway, Tuesday night Tyler and I hung out together and it was great. He made stir fry dinner and bought my new shampoo, (it was an accident and I paid him back by buying him a slushie last night) and during the making of the meal we discovered something fascinating. I opened the cupboard door to get a coverpan for the cooking tofu and mentioned how much it reaked in that cupboard. Well, there was a sack of potatoes growing in the cupboard that have been around since Thanksgiving. It made me smile when he said, “Thanksgiving was at the other house.” I took and will post pictures later. So then we sat and talked into the wee hours, but he brought up something interesting that I would like to bring up here.
Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences.
Determinism may also be defined as the thesis that there is at any instant exactly one physically possible future.
It is a popular misconception that determinism necessarily entails that humanity or individual humans have no influence on the future and its events (a position known as Fatalism); however, determinists believe that the level to which human beings have influence over their future is itself dependent on present and past. Causal determinism is associated with, and relies upon, the ideas of Materialism and Causality. Some of the philosophers who have dealt with this issue are William James, Pierre-Simon Laplace, Arthur Schopenhauer, Omar Khayyám, David Hume, Thomas Hobbes, Immanuel Kant, Paul Henri Thiry, Baron d’Holbach and, more recently, Daniel Dennett, John Searle, Michelle Kozenieki and Ted Honderich.
The exact meaning of the term determinism has historically been subject to various interpretations. Some, called Incompatibilists, view determinism and free will as mutually exclusive. Believing in determinism requires one to believe free will to be an illusion, is the position known as Hard Determinism. Others, labeled Compatibilists, (or Soft Determinists) believe that the two ideas can be coherently reconciled. (Incompatibilists who accept free will but reject determinism are called Libertarians — not to be confused with the political sense). Most of this disagreement is due to the fact that the definition of free will, like that of determinism, varies. Some feel it refers to the metaphysical truth of independent agency, whereas others simply define it as the feeling of agency that humans experience when they act. For example, David Hume argued that while it is possible that one does not freely arrive at one’s set of desires and beliefs, the only meaningful interpretation of freedom relates to one’s ability to translate those desires and beliefs into voluntary action.
Causal (or nomological) determinism is the thesis that future events are necessitated by past and present events combined with the laws of nature. Such determinism is sometimes illustrated by the thought experiment of Laplace’s demon. Imagine an entity that knows all facts about the past and the present, and knows all natural laws that govern the universe. Such an entity might, under certain circumstances, be able to use this knowledge to foresee the future, down to the smallest detail. Causal determinism has a subtle relationship with predictability. (Perfect) predictability implies strict determinism, but lack of predictability does not necessarily imply lack of determinism. Limitations on predictability could alternatively be caused by lack of information, excessive complexity, etc.
Those of you interested in more about Determinism can read the rest of the wikipedia article where most of this blurb came from.
When Tyler started explaining this theory to me, he started it by saying, “I don’t believe in free will.” So of course I thought he meant fate, but then he started to explain determinism to me and I got to thinking: so basically what he’s saying is there’s only one choice that you could have made based on what’s happened to you in the past. He put it really well when he said, “Fate is based on the future. Determinism is based on the past.” It doesn’t matter HOW you get to the end result, the point is you will get there. That is fate. Determinism is every little thing that happened before you leads to only one possible, logical result. Making every choice you make already determinable. But it’s so subtle, and most are so small, we can’t predict the future because there’s just so much that comes into account. But determinism denounces free will.
So, to me, it seems like when he puts it that way, it’s like common sense that my actions or things that have happened to me in the past are going to directly effect my decisions in the future. But how can life be that basic? Doesn’t that scream that life is too simple? Even so, it fits too comfortably into Nihilism, which is what I was whining about before. For some reason, I’m extremely elated.
All these thoughts I’ve been feeling and having can be categorized, such as Nihilism, and for the first time that feeling of categorization and fitting into something really, really makes me happy.
Why?
What do you think? About Determinism, Nihilism, Fate, anything.
Educate me.
I have never been a fan of nihilism or determinism. Ever since a young age, I’ve strongly believed that my life is in my own hands - that’s why I go to college, pursue an education, build relationships with people, etcetera. I choose these things based on my morality and the things I like - not because some red string binds me to them.
It is true that the future is dependent on the things that precede it, but these things, at any moment, are subject to change. There is no such thing as a “single instant” in a universe- such a concept is infinitely small, and its frame of reference is infinitely changing.
It is not surprising, however, that someone such as Immanuel Kant would use this concept of an instance as a basis for a “theory”. I’ve read some of his works, and they are frustratingly vague and contradictory. He talks about things being based on “subjectivity”, which is an impossibility (like building a house atop water, or even worse, air), as it is infinitely changing.
There is absolutely no support for a theory such as determinism. While it is true that the universe is a series of cause and effect, each cause is preceded by a choice. True, one can argue that some unknown element, which we perceive to be “choice”, but is actually fate, is guiding our actions, but there is no evidence to suggest that (simply speculation). Such an assertion, however, denies the usefulness of our senses (something Kant did pretty often), and basically handicaps humans from reaching any sort of understanding of their world. It is, in short, a theory totally irrelevant to living in a world where we survive by our senses.
Here is what we know: we are conscious beings (look at skyscrapers, clothing, art, and you have proof), and we HAVE to make choices to survive; in fact, survival is a choice by its very nature (for humans, that is). Any philosophy that denies choice cripples humanity. It is counter-productive, and not worth espousing!
I personally just see it as another side to the Christian coin. It talks about “free will”, yet denies it at the same time. It alludes to a “guiding hand”, which it calls fate, the Japanese call “hitsuzen”, and the Christians call “God”, but essentially, it all means the same thing to me.
Anyway, you should pick up some Kant for yourself, and try to make sense of it (if you haven’t). As for a good philosophy, you should check out Objectivism (okay, I know a lot of people abhor it, but give it a chance!), which is really the only one that makes sense (though I disagree with it on a few points). It will put an end to all of your doubts about life’s meaninglessness. ;)