Category: Actual philosophical discussion!

So Aristotle provided the means for an argument for fatalism (the view that the future is set, and nothing can be otherwise than it is). The argument can be stated like this:

1. For any statement S, the claim “Either S or not S” is true now. (That’s just logic.)
2. So, let S be a statement about the future (like, “I will have cereal tomorrow for breakfast”).
3. So, either S is true now, or not-S is true now (from #1).
4. If S is true now, then the future is set now (with regard to S) and there’s no avoiding it.
5. If not-S is true now, then the future is set now (with regard to S) and there’s no avoiding it.
6. So, either way, the future is set now (with regard to S) and there’s no avoiding it.

And this argument can be made about every statement about the future!

That’s the rough idea anyway. What do you think about it? Does it show fatalism is true? If not, where does the argument go wrong?

(I should note that Aristotle hated the conclusion so much that he used this argument to show that #3 doesn’t really follow from #1. So “Either I will have cereal tomorrow or I won’t” is true now, even though “I will have cereal tomorrow” is not true now, and “I won’t have cereal tomorrow” is not true now. In other words: even though S is not true now, and not-S is not true now, “either S or not-S” is true now. This, I think, is a very awkward thing to believe!)

Philosophers’ Carnival is a kind of philosophical conference that is held on the web every 3 weeks or so. It’s worth checking out — some items are funny, others serious, and many are very interesting. The permanent site can be found here. The most recent Carnival – which includes a good essay by Daniel Dennett on what kinds of questions are worth pursuing in philosophy – can be found here.

Enjoy!