The Relationship Between Fate and Will and Relation

The Unfolding Dance: Exploring the Intricate Relation Between Fate and Will

The human experience is perpetually caught in a profound tension: are our lives pre-ordained by an inescapable destiny, or are we the architects of our own futures through conscious choice? This age-old philosophical dilemma, the relation between fate and will, forms the bedrock of countless narratives and deep introspection. From the cosmic decrees of ancient tragedians to the intricate theological debates of the Middle Ages and the scientific determinism of modern philosophy, thinkers have grappled with whether our actions are a matter of necessity and contingency or the product of our inherent freedom. This article delves into how this dynamic interplay has been understood throughout Western thought, drawing on the timeless wisdom found in the Great Books, revealing not a simple answer, but a rich, evolving dialogue.

Unraveling the Threads: What Are Fate and Will?

Before we dive into their complex relation, let's briefly define our terms, as their meanings have shifted across epochs and philosophical schools.

Fate: Often conceived as an unalterable, predetermined course of events, an inescapable destiny. In ancient Greece, it was personified by the Moirai (Fates); in later thought, it might be divine providence, natural law, or even a chain of cause and effect. It suggests that outcomes are fixed, regardless of human effort.
Will: Refers to the faculty of consciousness that initiates actions, makes choices, and directs intentions. It embodies our sense of agency, our ability to deliberate, decide, and act freely. The concept of free will specifically emphasizes the absence of external coercion or internal compulsion in our choices.
Necessity and Contingency: These concepts are crucial to understanding the debate.
- Necessity implies that something must be the case; it cannot be otherwise. This is often linked to fate or deterministic systems.
- Contingency implies that something might be the case, but it could also be otherwise; it depends on circumstances or choices. This is often linked to free will and the realm of human agency.

The core philosophical problem arises when these two powerful concepts seem to collide.

Ancient Echoes: Cosmic Necessity and Human Endeavor

The earliest Western thinkers wrestled with the idea of a universe governed by an immutable order.

Greek Tragedy and Cosmic Fate: In the plays of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, characters often find themselves caught in the inexorable grip of fate, often foretold by oracles. Oedipus, despite his desperate attempts to defy prophecy, ultimately fulfills his gruesome destiny. Here, fate is a powerful, external force, and human will (or lack thereof) seems secondary to the decreed outcome. Yet, even in tragedy, the characters' choices, their willful actions and reactions, are what drive the drama and reveal their character, suggesting that while the end might be fated, the journey is shaped by individual agency.
Stoicism and the Logos: For the Stoics, the universe was governed by logos, a rational, divine principle that determined all events. This was their version of fate – a cosmic necessity. However, they didn't see this as negating human will. Instead, true freedom lay in aligning one's will with this rational order, accepting what cannot be changed, and choosing one's attitude towards events. The Stoic ideal was to act virtuously within the bounds of what is fated, demonstrating a profound relation where will finds its purpose in accordance with necessity.
Aristotle and the Realm of Contingency: Aristotle, in contrast to strict determinism, introduced the concept of contingency. While he acknowledged natural laws and necessary causes, he also recognized the realm of human action and chance events. For Aristotle, not everything is predetermined; there are genuine alternatives and choices, especially in moral and practical matters. This opened a significant space for genuine human will and responsibility, suggesting that while some things are necessary, many are contingent upon our decisions.

Medieval Synthesis: Divine Providence and Free Choice

With the rise of monotheistic religions, the debate shifted to reconciling an omniscient, omnipotent God with human freedom.

Augustine of Hippo and Divine Foreknowledge: Augustine grappled deeply with how God's perfect foreknowledge of all events (a form of divine necessity or fate) could coexist with human free will. His solution, influential for centuries, was that God knows our choices beforehand, but this knowledge doesn't cause us to choose. Our will remains free; God simply knows what we will freely choose. The relation here is one of divine omniscience encompassing human liberty, rather than dictating it.
Thomas Aquinas and Secondary Causation: Aquinas further elaborated on this, positing that God is the primary cause of all things, but He also grants creatures, especially humans, the power of secondary causation – the ability to act freely. Our will is a gift from God, allowing us to choose good or evil. The divine plan, therefore, incorporates human freedom, seeing our choices as part of a larger, necessary divine order, yet contingent on our individual assent.

The Modern Quandary: Determinism's Grip and Liberty's Cry

The Enlightenment brought new forms of determinism, often mechanistic or scientific, challenging traditional notions of free will.

Spinoza and Absolute Necessity: Baruch Spinoza presented a radical view where everything in the universe, including human thoughts and actions, flows necessarily from the nature of God (or Nature, which are one and the same for him). There is no true contingency; everything is absolutely necessary. For Spinoza, what we perceive as free will is merely our ignorance of the true causes that compel us. Freedom, in his view, is the understanding and acceptance of this necessity, not the ability to choose otherwise. The relation between fate (as universal necessity) and will is that will is merely a manifestation of this necessity.
Hobbes and Mechanistic Determinism: Thomas Hobbes viewed human beings as complex machines, and all actions as the result of prior causes (desires, aversions, external stimuli). He argued that liberty is merely the "absence of external impediments" to action, not the freedom of the will itself. If a person wills to walk, and nothing stops them, they are free. But the willing itself is determined by prior causes. Here, fate is a chain of physical causation, and will is simply the last link in that chain before action.

The Ongoing Dialogue: Finding Agency Within Structure

The tension between fate and will continues to animate philosophical inquiry. Contemporary thought often moves beyond simplistic dichotomies, exploring the subtle relation between inherent human capacities, environmental influences, genetic predispositions, and the choices we make.

Some perspectives suggest:

Compatibilism: This view argues that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive. We can be free in a meaningful sense (e.g., acting according to our desires, without external coercion) even if our desires and actions are ultimately determined by prior causes. This seeks to reconcile necessity and contingency within a broader framework.
Existentialism: Philosophers like Jean-Paul Sartre emphasized radical freedom. While we are "thrown into existence" (a kind of initial fate or given circumstance), we are condemned to be free, constantly making choices that define our essence. Here, will is paramount, and we are responsible for creating meaning in a world devoid of inherent necessity.

Ultimately, the relation between fate and will is less about an either/or choice and more about understanding the intricate dance between what is given to us and what we make of it. Is there a grand design, or do we paint our own canvases? Perhaps it is a bit of both: a stage set by necessity, upon which we, with our unique will, perform a drama of contingency and choice.

(Image: A detailed depiction of the Three Fates (Moirai) from Greek mythology, perhaps Clotho spinning the thread of life, Lachesis measuring it, and Atropos cutting it, while in the foreground, a lone human figure stands at a crossroads, gazing thoughtfully at two divergent paths, symbolizing choice and the struggle of will against a predetermined destiny. The background could feature a cosmic, swirling nebula to represent the vastness of fate and universal order.)

Video by: The School of Life

💡 Want different videos? Search YouTube for: ""Free Will vs Determinism: Crash Course Philosophy #24""