RE: Nihilism
January 13, 2018 at 2:09 am
(This post was last modified: January 13, 2018 at 2:09 am by vulcanlogician.)
(January 11, 2018 at 11:32 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(January 11, 2018 at 6:23 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: Do you think that determinism/incompatibilism inevitably results in fatalism?
Or were you simply remarking that fatalism is much more likely to follow from determinism than nihilism?
"Fatalism" has two connotations and I think both apply. Determinism is about one's fate being inevitable, which by definition makes it fatalistic; however, I was thinking of the more subjective psychological state of being resigned to one's fate.
You and I might disagree on metaphysics, but we both seem to agree that the "subjective psychological state of being resigned to one's fate" is unhealthy. Spinoza, a hard determinist writes the following in Ethics:
Baruch Spinoza Wrote:Again, as virtue is nothing else but action in accordance with the laws of one's own nature (IV. Def. viii.), and as no one endeavours to preserve his own being, except in accordance with the laws of his own nature, it follows, first, that the foundation of virtue is the endeavour to preserve one's own being, and that happiness consists in man's power of preserving his own being; secondly, that virtue is to be desired for its own sake, and that there is nothing more excellent or more useful to us, for the sake of which we should desire it; thirdly and lastly, that suicides are weak-minded, and are overcome by external causes repugnant to their nature.
In other words, virtue (or acting in accordance with one's own nature) spurs one to self-preservation, while weak-mindedness results in suicide. It is interesting to see how much of an anti-fatalist Spinoza is considering how hard he bangs the drum of hard determinism. (Anti-fatalist in regards to fatalism as a psychological state, that is.) It just demonstrates that, whether our fates are determined or not, one way of thinking is healthy, the other not.