What is the difference?
Here is my opinion on the matter from another topic.
ou.edu/cas/ouphil/students/randy/mind.htm
"…The difference between determinism and fatalism is very important. Fatalism is the belief that belief that event x would have occurred no matter what the antecedent conditions were. Determinism is the belief that, given the antecedent conditions, event x had to occur. A determinist would say that, given that John Wilkes Booth shot him there, Lincoln had to die in Ford’s Theater. (Lincoln actually died across the street, but it makes the example more complicated.) The fatalist says that Lincoln had to die there, even had Booth not shot him. "
-Imp
In other words fatalism is teleological whereas determinism is naturalistic.
that depends on your definition of naturalistic…
it could be argued that cause and effect is a teleological relationship…
-Imp
That, for example, a tree falling had sufficient reason to fall given the circumstances, instead of the falling of the tree being an end that would have to happen regardless of the circumstances. That’s what I mean by naturalistic.
You see it in the movies all the time when someone goes back to save a loved one only to find out that their death was an inescapable end for that day or particular moment. In a naturalistic system, if someone went back and changed the circumstances which brought about the death of the loved one, then there would not be some force that make the loved one die anyhow so that that end be fulfilled. In other words, ends are not things that have to happen regardless of circumstance. Instead, the circumstance dictates the end, which is not in any way confined to just a person dying, for example, but the entire universe becoming.
Well, maybe not all the movies. If I remember correctly Michael J. Fox managed to create sufficient reason to have himself, his brothers and sisters stay alive in the distant future, even though it wouldn’t make sense that he or his brethren would be born given that his parents probably done it in another position, a different place, a different night or week altogether as they would have had he not gone back. It’s unlikely that of the millions of sperm in his dad’s balls, the one that made him come up top at a different circumstance, but I could be over thinking this.
the circumstance dictates the end…
is it possible that the sun does not rise in the east tomorrow?
what justifies your claim that circumstance dictates the end? previous instances of ends following circumstances?
-Imp
If there was sufficient reason for me to picture it…
As far as I know, it is likely that the sun does not rise tomorrow.
Yes. I cannot speak in absolute terms about anything (sadly I lack omniscience), but that does not mean that I not speak or speculate at all. After all, through our less than omniscient reasoning we have managed to accomplish some amazing feats.
yet naturalism (determinism) assumes that events were caused by other events which supposes a teleological necessity of “following the laws of nature” or something to that effect…
-Imp
I don’t think that determinism believes events or any part of the deterministic system has any sort of essence to it beyond what we arbitrarily assign.
but that “sufficient reason” presumes a teleological necessity…
-Imp
Interesting point. The ends (the tree falling) aren’t ends in themselves, but are necessarily perceived as being so. Off course, this is what I think, not necessarily what determinism is all about.