---------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Hugh Rice <hugh.rice@chch.ox.ac.uk>
To: hays
Sent: Tue, Dec 8, 2009 10:48 am
Subject: RE: Fatalism
Dear Steve,
Of course, you are right.
Perhaps, when I come to do my next revision I'll amend the introduction so as to make it less irritatingly parochial!
(In fact, if one does a Google search, one finds that the overwhemling majority of hits have to do with causal determinism, which, of course, I don't discuss. Ah well!)
Yrs
Hugh
-----Original Message-----Dear Dr. Rice,
From: hays1999
Sent: 08 December 2009 15:38
To: hugh.rice@philosophy.ox.ac.uk
Subject: Fatalism
I'm a bit puzzled by the way you define the term "fatalism" in your Stanford article. You say at the outset, that "Fatalism is the view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fatalism/
You also say "A problem which has been much discussed by philosophers, at least since the time of Augustine (354-430), is whether divine omniscience is compatible with free will, and in particular with our having the power to do other than we do"–which you place under the heading of "theological fatalism."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fatalism/#5
Seems to me that this definition is misleading. It blurs a key distinction between two very different positions. Words have connotations as well as denotations. At least in Classical as well as popular usage, fatalism often denotes (or at least connotes) the idea that no matter what we do, the outcome is inevitable. Resistance is futile. In good Stoic fashion, we might as well resign ourselves to our fate.
The film Final Destination 1 is a good illustration of this concept. The characters are marked for death. Yet this doesn't prevent them from pursuing alternate courses of action. They take various precautions to cheat fate. The problem is not that our doomed teenagers can't do otherwise. The problem is that, no matter what they do, all forking paths converge on the same outcome. Their doom is unavoidable despite the various ways in which they struggle to escape their doom.
Likewise, the story of Oedipus supplies a Classical paradigm-case of fatalism. His parents try to nix the oracle of doom. Yet their evasive maneuvers unwittingly set into motion of chain of events which unexpectedly fulfills the oracle of doom.
Now, I realize that "fatalism" is a term of art. The philosophical community is at liberty (pardon the pun) to define or redefine terms however it sees fit. If, however, it uses "fate" as a synonym for the inability to do otherwise, then it no longer has any word to distinguish that concept from a very different concept which is also designated by the same term.
Perhaps philosophers think the Classical/popular concept is too absurd to merit a specific term. But I think philosophical usage should aim to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. It also ought to foster clarity rather than confusion. Just a suggestion.
Steve
Why would you call me foolish? That seems so hostile and is more evidence of why I had stopped interacting with you earlier in that thread.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I checked with Prof. Rice and he clarified what he meant in his comments to you. I reported what he said in my post. It makes no sense to suggest that his original comments contradict me; I reported his clarification of what he meant by his comments to you. It’s pretty straightforward and simple. You misunderstood him (as I suspected you might have)and he has corrected your impression in response to me questioning him about it.
"Defining fatalism"
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing the helpful clarification that you received from Professor Rice.
Arminian said...
ReplyDelete“Anyway, I checked with Prof. Rice and he clarified what he meant in his comments to you. I reported what he said in my post. It makes no sense to suggest that his original comments contradict me; I reported his clarification of what he meant by his comments to you. It’s pretty straightforward and simple. You misunderstood him (as I suspected you might have)and he has corrected your impression in response to me questioning him about it.”
Since you hadn’t read our correspondence, you were in no position to know what to ask.
“That seems so hostile and is more evidence of why I stopped interacting with you earlier in this thread.”
As if that’s any great loss to the world.
Steve said: “Since you hadn’t read our correspondence, you were in no position to know what to ask.”
ReplyDelete***** Sure I was. I reported to him the definition you used here and asked him about his comments to you. He clarified his comments that he made to you. He commented on the comments to you and said what he meant by them. And what he said refutes your understanding of what he said and your use of it in this thread.
Why continue with the hostility? Do you think that is helpful?
What I said in my letter is what I said on Justin Taylor's thread. In his letter he agreed with what I said in my letter.
ReplyDeleteThe correspondence is self-explanatory.
Are you kidding? He has offer clarification of what me meant in his message to you. As I said: It’s pretty straightforward and simple. You misunderstood him (as I suspected you might have)and he has corrected your impression in response to me questioning him about it.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing for *me* to misunderstand. I wrote him, suggesting a semantic clarification. He wrote back, stating that he agreed with the content of my letter. That speaks for itself.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to think *he* misunderstood.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteIs your concern here to make sure it is understood it was not your fault for misunderstanding him? That may be. He said he wished he had been more careful in his reply to you. I have been more focused on the correction of the point than whether you were at fault for misunderstanding him. I don't think it can be questioned that you misunderstood him. But it is not necessarily your fault.
God bless.
Once again, you're really saying that *he* was the one who misunderstood, not me.
ReplyDeleteBTW, we don't have your letter to him, or his response.
ARMINIAN SAID:
ReplyDelete"Is your concern here to make sure it is understood it was not your fault for misunderstanding him? That may be. He said he wished he had been more careful in his reply to you. I have been more focused on the correction of the point than whether you were at fault for misunderstanding him. I don't think it can be questioned that you misunderstood him. But it is not necessarily your fault."
Since you're incapable of grasping the obvious, let's walk you through it:
i) I emailed him in 2009. I distinguished between two different concepts of "fatalism."
He emailed me back. He said "Of course, you are right." He also admitted that his definition was "parochial."
That's not my interpretation of what he said. Rather, that's what he actually said in response to the content of my letter.So there is nothing for me to misunderstand.
Are you suggesting some esoteric alternative interpretation of the words "Of course, you are right"?
Does "Of course, you are right" really mean "Of course, you are wrong"?
ii) You are now appealing to what he allegedly told you this week, as if that means I misunderstood what he said back in 2009. So you are illicitly backdating something he allegedly told you in 2011, as if you can retroactively claim I misunderstood his 2009 statement based on his (alleged) 2011 statement.
But if there's any misunderstanding, that would be on his part.
iii) In addition, what you told him and he told you is not a matter of public record. So we don't know what he was actually responding to, or what he actually responded.
Ok, maybe this explains why your interpretation of Scripture is often so off target. This is a matter of exegesis, which is about the author's original intention. Since Rice has clarified his original intention, and it differs from your original understanding, you obviously misunderstood him. That doesn't mean you are at fault for misunderstanding him. It could be his fault or some combination of factors. But your perception of his meaning was wrong. It looks like he was not specific enough in what he said. He said you were right. He meant you were right about something specific. You understandably took him to mean you were right about all you said. But that is not what he meant, and so you were wrong about what he meant, not necessarily wrong to conclude that was what he meant.
ReplyDeleteOr are you ready to throw out authorial intention as determining meaning? Again, if so, then that could explain some things about your interpretation of Scripture.
Arminian said...
ReplyDelete"Since Rice has clarified his original intention, and it differs from your original understanding, you obviously misunderstood him."
You keep appealing to something that's not in the public domain, so there's nothing "obvious."
"But your perception of his meaning was wrong. It looks like he was not specific enough in what he said. He said you were right. He meant you were right about something specific. You understandably took him to mean you were right about all you said. But that is not what he meant, and so you were wrong about what he meant, not necessarily wrong to conclude that was what he meant."
That wouldn't mean I misunderstood his words. That would mean he failed to express himself clearly. That's a failure of communication, not a failure of understanding.
Maybe your inability to draw these rudimentary distinctions explains why your interpretation of Scripture is so often off-target.
Steve said: "That wouldn't mean I misunderstood his words. That would mean he failed to express himself clearly. That's a failure of communication, not a failure of understanding."
ReplyDelete***** It would not change the fact that you misunderstood him. He expressed a meaning, and your understanding was wrong. As I have said, that doesn't mean it was your fault. It could have been his fault because of a failure to express himself clearly. But that doesn't change that you did not understand the meaning of what he said.
If someone says he will meet me for lunch on Thursday, when he intended to say he'll meet me for lunch on Friday, I didn't misunderstand what he said. Rather, he misspoke. That's an elementary distinction which goes right over your head.
ReplyDeleteTry setting a dinner date for your girlfriend, not showing up at the appointed time because you gave her the wrong date, then telling her she misunderstood. Good luck with that.
The analogy does not fit what happened here. He did not give enough information. He said he agreed with you, meaning one thing, and you inferred he meant another. He said "you are right", when he meant "you are right about such and such specific point," while you took him to mean "you are right about everything you have said." So understandably, you misunderstood his intention. But it was not a matter of him saying something that explicitly stated the opposite of what he meant (like saying Thursday when Friday was meant), but of saying something general enough that you could take it to apply to one thing when he meant something more specific.
ReplyDeleteSo your analogy does not work. However, even in your analogy, even if it is completely the communicator's fault for the misunderstanding, even if it is a miscommunication, it is no less the case that the reader/hearer misunderstood the meaning of what was said. He may have understood what words were said, but he misunderstood the meaning through no fault of his own.
ARMINIAN SAID:
ReplyDelete“He said he agreed with you, meaning one thing, and you inferred he meant another. He said ‘you are right’, when he meant ‘you are right about such and such specific point,’ while you took him to mean ‘you are right about everything you have said.’ So understandably, you misunderstood his intention.”
i) He made a general statement. A statement of general agreement, not a narrow statement that “you are right about such and such specific point.” That’s your eisegesis, not what he actually said.
I didn’t “infer” anything. I didn’t draw a general inference, for his statement was already general.
ii) Finally, I’m not impressed by your Mormon methodology. You’re not giving us what he actually said in response to what you actually said.
Rather, you’re giving us your interpretation of your summary of what he allegedly said. That’s two steps removed from what he actually told you.
You can put on your magic glasses and tells us what the invisible golden plates say, but since I don’t have access to your golden plates, I can’t compare your interpretation with the actual wording.
Don’t post any more comments in which you appeal to your seer stones or golden plates.
No one else has seen what he told you, and what he said can only be understood in light of what you told him. You haven’t given us either the text or context of his reply. So go play Joseph Smith on someone else’s blog.
“But it was not a matter of him saying something that explicitly stated the opposite of what he meant (like saying Thursday when Friday was meant), but of saying something general enough that you could take it to apply to one thing when he meant something more specific.”
Now you’re backpedaling from your earlier claim that “authorial intention determines meaning,” by introducing a concessive caveat.
“However, even in your analogy, even if it is completely the communicator's fault for the misunderstanding, even if it is a miscommunication, it is no less the case that the reader/hearer misunderstood the meaning of what was said.”
Wrong. Thursday doesn’t mean Friday. There is no way to make that the correct interpretation of the speaker’s words. There is no other way to construe Thursday than denoting Thursday.