The Relationship Between Fate and Will and Relation

The Intricate Dance: Exploring the Relationship Between Fate and Will

The human experience is perpetually caught in a profound philosophical tension: are our lives preordained, following an inescapable path laid out by fate, or are we the architects of our destiny, guided by the power of our own will? This article delves into the enduring relation between these two colossal concepts, examining how thinkers throughout Western thought have grappled with the interplay of necessity and contingency, tracing their arguments from the ancient world to modernity. We'll explore various perspectives, highlighting that the answer isn't a simple either/or, but a complex, nuanced dialogue that continues to shape our understanding of agency, responsibility, and the very fabric of existence.

Unraveling the Threads of Existence: Defining Our Terms

Before we plunge into the depths of this ancient debate, let's establish a clear understanding of our core concepts.

Fate (or Destiny): Often conceived as an external, immutable power or force that predetermines the course of events. It implies an inevitable sequence of occurrences, where individual choices are ultimately subservient to a grander, fixed design. In many classical narratives, fate is a cosmic law or a divine decree from which there is no escape.
Will (or Free Will): Refers to the human capacity to make choices, to deliberate, and to act autonomously. It is the power of self-determination, the belief that our actions are genuinely our own, originating from within, and that we could have chosen otherwise. It underpins our notions of moral responsibility and personal agency.
Necessity: This concept posits that certain events or states of affairs must occur; they cannot be otherwise. In the context of fate, it suggests that all events are causally determined and unavoidable.
Contingency: The opposite of necessity, contingency refers to events or states of affairs that may or may not occur; they are not fixed and depend on various factors, including, crucially, human choice.

The central relation we seek to understand is how these forces interact. Is one dominant? Are they mutually exclusive, or can they coexist in a meaningful way?

Ancient Echoes: Destiny and Deliberation

From the earliest epics to the philosophical schools of Greece and Rome, the tension between fate and will was a foundational concern.

Homer and Greek Tragedy: The heroes of the Iliad and Odyssey, as well as figures like Oedipus in Sophocles' tragedies, often find themselves caught in the inexorable grip of fate. Prophecies come true, divine decrees are fulfilled, and even heroic efforts often serve merely to bring about the very destiny they sought to avert. Yet, within these narratives, characters still make choices, grapple with their predicaments, and exhibit virtues and flaws that shape their tragic journey. The necessity of their ultimate fate often clashes vividly with their contingent decisions along the way.
The Stoics: Philosophers like Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, whose works are foundational in the Great Books of the Western World, offered a sophisticated approach. They largely embraced a deterministic worldview, believing that the cosmos operates according to a rational, divine necessity. For the Stoics, true freedom (will) wasn't about changing what is fated, but about changing one's attitude towards it.
- Amor Fati: The love of one's fate, accepting what is beyond one's control with equanimity.
- They distinguished between what is within our power (our judgments, impulses, desires) and what is not within our power (external events, other people's actions, our physical body). Our will lies in controlling our internal assent or dissent, finding freedom in our responses to the inevitable.
Aristotle: While not directly addressing "fate" in the same mystical sense, Aristotle, particularly in his Nicomachean Ethics, laid crucial groundwork for understanding will through his concept of deliberation and choice. He argued that humans are responsible for their voluntary actions because they have the capacity to choose between alternatives. He acknowledged certain necessities in nature but emphasized the contingency and open possibilities inherent in human practical action and moral development.

Medieval Bridges: Divine Providence and Human Liberty

With the rise of monotheistic religions, the debate took on new dimensions, intertwining with divine omnipotence and foreknowledge.

St. Augustine: A central figure in the Great Books, Augustine grappled profoundly with the problem of evil and the relation between God's omniscient foreknowledge and human free will. If God knows everything that will happen, including our choices, are our choices truly free? Augustine argued that God's foreknowledge does not cause our actions; rather, God simply knows what we will freely choose. Our will remains genuinely free, even if God's knowledge encompasses it. He emphasized that moral responsibility depends on this freedom, without which sin and virtue would be meaningless.
St. Thomas Aquinas: Synthesizing Aristotelian philosophy with Christian theology, Aquinas further elaborated on the relation. He posited that God is the primary cause of all things, but also grants secondary causes, including human free will. Our intellect presents choices, and our will assents to them. God's providence guides creation towards its ends, but humans, endowed with reason and will, participate in this divine plan through their own contingent choices.

Modern Quandaries: Determinism and Autonomy

The Enlightenment and subsequent philosophical movements brought new challenges and perspectives to the debate.

Baruch Spinoza: A radical determinist, Spinoza, in his Ethics, argued that everything in the universe, including human actions, follows with strict necessity from the nature of God (which he equated with Nature itself). The idea of free will is an illusion, born of our ignorance of the true causes of our actions. Freedom, for Spinoza, is not the ability to choose otherwise, but the intellectual understanding of this necessity, leading to a serene acceptance of the way things are.
Immanuel Kant: In stark contrast, Kant positioned human will (autonomy) at the center of morality. For Kant, while the phenomenal world (the world of experience) might be governed by causal necessity, the moral agent, as a noumenal self, possesses radical freedom. Our capacity to act according to moral laws (the Categorical Imperative), regardless of inclination or consequence, demonstrates our freedom. This contingency of moral choice is essential for responsibility and dignity.
Friedrich Nietzsche: Re-engaging with the Stoic amor fati, Nietzsche celebrated the affirmation of life in its entirety, including its necessities. He challenged traditional notions of free will and moral responsibility, suggesting they were often rooted in resentment. Instead, he championed the idea of becoming who one is, embracing all that has occurred and all that will occur as part of one's self-creation. The will to power is not about escaping fate, but about creatively shaping one's values and destiny within the given conditions.

The Nexus of Necessity and Contingency

The enduring philosophical question lies in how we reconcile the seemingly opposing forces of necessity (often linked to fate) and contingency (often linked to will).

Aspect	Necessity	Contingency
Nature of Events	Must happen; unavoidable	May or may not happen; depends on factors
Causality	Strict, predetermined causal chain	Open possibilities, multiple outcomes
Relation to Fate	Often synonymous with or a core component of fate	Allows for human agency and choice
Relation to Will	Limits or negates true free will	The domain where free will operates
Philosophical View	Determinism, some forms of Stoicism, Spinoza	Libertarianism, Aristotle, Kant, Augustine

Perhaps the most fruitful way to understand their relation is not as a zero-sum game, but as a dynamic interplay. Many philosophers suggest that while certain aspects of existence are undeniably necessary (e.g., the laws of physics, our biological predispositions, historical contexts), there remains a significant sphere of contingency within which our will can operate.

Our will does not negate the existence of necessity, but rather defines our capacity to respond to it, to navigate it, and even to shape it within certain parameters. We cannot choose the circumstances of our birth (a necessity), but we can choose how we live our lives within those circumstances (a contingency of will).

(Image: A classical sculpture depicting the Three Fates (Moirai or Parcae) – Clotho spinning the thread of life, Lachesis measuring its length, and Atropos cutting it – standing behind a solitary figure contemplating a fork in a path. The Fates are ethereal and monumental, their expressions grave and resolute, while the human figure is detailed and expressive, caught in a moment of profound internal deliberation, symbolizing the eternal tension between predetermined destiny and individual choice.)

The Enduring Relation: A Synthesis?

The relation between fate and will is not a static truth to be discovered, but an ongoing inquiry into the nature of human freedom and the cosmos itself. There is no single, universally accepted answer, but rather a spectrum of thoughtful positions.

Perhaps fate can be understood not as a rigid script, but as the framework or the givens of existence – the physical laws, historical context, genetic predispositions, and unchangeable past events. Within this framework, our will represents our capacity for self-determination, for making meaningful choices, for shaping our character, and for creating value.

Our will allows us to:

Interpret and Respond: We choose how to perceive and react to the "fated" events in our lives.
Act within Constraints: We exercise agency within the boundaries set by necessity.
Shape the Future: Our cumulative choices, even if constrained, contribute to the unfolding of future contingencies.

The relation is therefore one of interdependence. Fate provides the stage and the script's outline, but will writes the nuanced performance, improvises within the scenes, and ultimately determines the meaning we derive from the play.

The Unfolding Dialogue

The relation between fate and will remains one of philosophy's most compelling and persistent questions. From the ancient Greeks lamenting their destiny to modern existentialists asserting radical freedom, thinkers have sought to understand the boundaries of our agency. The Great Books of the Western World offer a rich tapestry of these explorations, reminding us that while the answers may vary, the inquiry itself is fundamental to what it means to be human.

Ultimately, whether we lean towards the embrace of necessity or the assertion of contingency, the ongoing dialogue between fate and will compels us to reflect on our choices, our responsibilities, and the profound mystery of our place in the unfolding cosmos.

Video by: The School of Life

💡 Want different videos? Search YouTube for: ""Stoic Philosophy Fate and Free Will""