Predetermination

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

If everything is predetermined, but no one has any conscious, subconscious or unconscious knowledge of how this predetermination is to unfold, is it still right to consider it as "predetermined"? It likens, but holds more merit than, "If a tree falls in a forest...", in that it questions whether recognition is to be held above unknown reality. Without foreknowledge of the predeterminations, the decision process in unaffected. Being all we can truly weigh is what is before us, are ideas of this nature only to be considered in how they affect us?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 3 • Views: 829 • Replies: 11

No top replies

Yea, I think you're pointing to the distinction between exploring ideas as a mind game versus the effects of really viewing the world through a certain perspective.

My experience is the primary effect of viewing events as predetermined is acceptance of them as they are... this as opposed to holding an alternate image animated by condemnation of the components of the present moment.

Since I see meaning as part of the undeniability of predetermination, confidence that there is meaning in the events I witness is also part of it.

Others might have a different experience of it.

0 Replies

@liguorke,

liguorke wrote:

If everything is predetermined, but no one has any conscious, subconscious or unconscious knowledge of how this predetermination is to unfold, is it still right to consider it as "predetermined"? It likens, but holds more merit than, "If a tree falls in a forest...", in that it questions whether recognition is to be held above unknown reality. Without foreknowledge of the predeterminations, the decision process in unaffected. Being all we can truly weigh is what is before us, are ideas of this nature only to be considered in how they affect us?

0 Replies

@liguorke,

That which we do not percieve as a choice is not a choice. Like everything in this universe that we cannot comprehend, it doesn't matter to us. We already chalk so many things up to "the nature of things" or some of us to "acts of God". If life were predetermined and we didn't know, then we could go on acting like it wasn't and feel empowered by our supposed will like we already do.

1 Reply

@liguorke,

liguorke wrote:

If everything is predetermined, but no one has any conscious, subconscious or unconscious knowledge of how this predetermination is to unfold, is it still right to consider it as "predetermined"? It likens, but holds more merit than, "If a tree falls in a forest...", in that it questions whether recognition is to be held above unknown reality. Without foreknowledge of the predeterminations, the decision process in unaffected. Being all we can truly weigh is what is before us, are ideas of this nature only to be considered in how they affect us?

Who would have done the predetermining? But, aside from that, what would knowing whether predetermination is true have to do with whether it was true, anymore than whether anything is true is known to be true? Whatever is true is true whether or not it is known to be true. Why would it be different? We should never confuse knowing with truth, or think that what is true is not true unless it is known to be true. After all, to allow that a proposition is true, and then to assert it is not true unless it is known to be true is to imply that the proposition can be both true and not true. But that is a contradiction. Therefore, your view that a proposition is not true unless it is known to be true implies a contradiction, and is, therefore, contradictory, since whatever implies a contradiction is, itself, a contradiction.

0 Replies

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

That which we do not percieve as a choice is not a choice. Like everything in this universe that we cannot comprehend, it doesn't matter to us. We already chalk so many things up to "the nature of things" or some of us to "acts of God". If life were predetermined and we didn't know, then we could go on acting like it wasn't and feel empowered by our supposed will like we already do.

Iit is clear that if we have made a choice then, a choice has been made whether or we believe a choice has been made. For it is a contradiction to assert both that a choice has been made but that unless we believe a choice has been made, a choice has not been made, for that would imply that it was true that a choice was made and (also) that a choice had not been made. But that is a contradiction, and since your view implies a contradiction, your view is contradictory, since whatever implies a contradiction is, itself, a contradiction. Why anyone believes that what is the case is not the case unless it is believed to be the case is incomprehensible, for its falsity just stares you in the face. It would be like saying that what is true is not true unless leaves are green. What would leaves being green, or anything else, have to do with whether what is true is true? For what is true is true is a tautology, and is, therefore, a necessary truth. (How could what is true not be true under any condition whether the condition is that leaves are green or the condition is that it is known to be true?)

P.S. I am supposing that "perceived as a choice" is just academe-speak, or fancy-talk, for " believed to be a choice".

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Iit is clear that if we have made a choice then, a choice has been made whether or we believe a choice has been made.

That's actually true. I'd respond further, but I already know how you would treat my effort.

And as the OP asks: what difference does it make... beyond the way it colors experience?

1 Reply

@Arjuna,

Arjuna wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Iit is clear that if we have made a choice then, a choice has been made whether or we believe a choice has been made.
That's actually true. I'd respond further, but I already know how you would treat my effort.

And as the OP asks: what difference does it make... beyond the way it colors experience?

Well, if it is actually true, it is true. But you said it was false. The difference is between the true and the false, and that seems to me a very big difference. If you had said not that no choice had been made if it was not known it was, which is clearly false, but had said that if we are unaware that a choice had been made we would have different feelings or thoughts (whatever those might be) I might have agreed, but that would have nothing whatever to do with whether we had made a choice, and with what the effects of making a choice would be.

0 Replies

It might be the case that some things are "predetermined" at least in the sense that we can understand the causal chain of events that lead to a certain event. This certainly applies to rather simple examples of physical events.

But from this assumed fact, can one legitimately assert that every event is "predetermined?" And how would one present evidence for the assertion? Moreover, would this universal rule allow us to predict every event in the future?

1 Reply

@jgweed,

jgweed wrote:

It might be the case that some things are "predetermined" at least in the sense that we can understand the causal chain of events that lead to a certain event. This certainly applies to rather simple examples of physical events.

But from this assumed fact, can one legitimately assert that every event is "predetermined?" And how would one present evidence for the assertion? Moreover, would this universal rule allow us to predict every event in the future?

I don't know what the difference between "predeterminism" and "determinism" is supposed to be (except that the former is a religious doctrine associated with Calvinism and other religions). But the the philosophical view of determinism is that every event has a cause, and every cause is, itself an event. According to physicist who specialize in quantum theory, this is empirically false for micro-events, for (according to them) some micro-events have no causes. Since I know nothing worth knowing about the matter, I am prepared to take the word of those who do know about it. As for macro-events, we certainly do think that when something occurs, there is some cause for that occurrence. Determinism alone does not allow us to predict anything at all. For that we would require information about the laws of nature applicable, and the initial conditions. When we have that information we may be able to make sound predictions. The evidence for determinism is that we have nearly always found causes for what occurrences (except in the case of micro-events where the experts say there are no causes). The question whether every event has a cause is often confused with a somewhat different question: whether every event must have a cause. As Hume and Kant pointed out, although we may have evidence that every event has a cause, there can be no evidence for the proposition that every event must have a cause. There is no empirical evidence for necessary truths. And, as Hume pointed out, it may be false that some events have no causes, but that propositions does not imply a contradiction.

Whether determinism is true largely (but not solely) interests philosophers because of its supposed implications for free will. It is held by many that determinism is incompatible with free will. But Hume (among others) has argued that this is a confusion. But that is a different matter.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

the philosophical view of determinism is that every event has a cause, and every cause is, itself an event.

No it isn't.

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
the philosophical view of determinism is that every event has a cause, and every cause is, itself an event.
No it isn't.

Well, that settles that.

0 Replies

Predetermination

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know