POLL: Self-fulfilling prophecy

Remove all ads!

Fate is a very interesting topic for me. It seemed like a good idea to post a poll about it.

Poll Information
This poll contains 4 question(s). 23 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Self-fulfilling prophecy (23 votes.)

Do you believe in fate? (Choose 1)
* yes - 43% (10)
* no - 57% (13)

Do you believe in Self-fulfilling Prophecy? (Choose 1)
* yes - 57% (13)
* no - 43% (10)

If yes, can you change a self-fulfilling prophecy? (Choose 1)
* yes - 52% (12)
* no - 4% (1)
* I don't believe in self-fulfilling prophecy - 43% (10)

Do you think you can change fate? (Choose 1)
* yes - 26% (6)
* no - 22% (5)
* I don't believe in fate - 52% (12)

 

First to vote, yay. Well I had to vote no (or don't belive in) for all of them, due to the fact that I haven't a clue what Self-fulfilling prophecies are, but if it has anything to do with fate, I don't belive in it. So, no was my vote.

 

I personally do not believe in fate

- although due to where we grew up, our size, our health, etc... we are certainly born with attributes that contribute to a "fate" of sorts.

But, there will be, no doubt, more posts for this topic. It was meant to be.

 

I think that If you realy think about it you have to belive in fate. Unless of corse you belive in the divine spark.
Just concider Why you do somthing. Anything at all. Have you ever realy done anything for no reson? Lets supose that every choice you make can be catergorised as eaither your 'natral inclination' or 'logical responce.' If you act in responce to a phenomina (a phenomina is not neciserily super natral, it means simply somthing that 'apears to you' but is not restriceted to sight. So anything that is imediatly present to you but not a part of you is a phenomina.) your action is that phenomina's product, just as the phenomina is the product of what ever phisical thing produces it and that is the product of what produced it and so on.
Now of corse when deturmining how you are going to respond to it you might be decived into thinking you could do anything else. But You didnt. You are a 3 dimentional being, you exist in the forth dimention but not in such a way as to allow you to go back and forth within it as you would in the first three. You made you dicision based on everything you knew and everything you felt at the time. Your decion at that spacio-temporal location will remain constant for as long as phenomina and experiance accessable to you within that location do not change. We have no experiance of our past ever changing. We probably wouldnt if it did, but nether the less without experiance of it doing so we must assume that it does not.
You are a product of that wich has created you, be it a divine entity or a natral progression. But contingency Is a concept formed due to our ignorance of the feuture not a description of how things actualy occer.... and now i have to go to collage so i will have to fill in any holes latter.

 

Fill in holes ... with a spellchecker.

No destiny for me, but it's not something which is proveable.

 

You have tried to make these questions too simplistic, they cannot be concisely answered.

If I had to, after stating my belief in fate and self-fulfilling prophecies, I would say that a prophecy which fulfills itself cannot be changed, and yet can, yet fate can be, and yet cannot.

You have made them too general, not enough room for discussion. A prophecy fulfills itself. How then can it then be changed? It is not in its nature. This is no simpistic act of divinination, no plain foretelling; to grant the existence of such a thing one must assume that it is designed so as to have accounted for every action before it. That is, what has been seen has been seen. That is like asking if one could change the past. As try as we might to avoid it, those actions have repercussions that inevitably work towards the fore-told event. How could such a one predict an outcome as this? It is the individual events that are pivotal, and yet it is only the final step that is important. We shall reach that place. Any other event is inconsequential. How does one reconcile this with the knowledge that the meaning of that final step was not the step itself, but all those before it? Perhaps that last step is not truly the end, perhaps that comes later, and as such the final step so foretold is one which describes our reaction to those steps before it. And then the two are one. Some power greater than ourselves I assume has chosen such a path. Yet that power most likely is ourselves. We are the engineers of our fate, yet fate there is, and it is inescapable. Not because we are tied to a certain destiny, but because it has allready happened. This is what we have allready decided, and as such, we cannot help but choose it again, for we decided to be in such a place that the only choice we would make is the one desired. Is it then so hard to accept that another who has knowledge of this could describe it to us when we ourselves forget? Is there tuly any difference between that other and ourselves? If so, are they then not simply speaking our own mind? Questions indeed, but perhpas we have chosen this for the sake of, or by direction from, yet another still. Perhaps even one unbeknownst to any of us. In any case the outcome is the same.

Fate, I don't know. A tricky business. I think you would find that however we changed our responses to our interpretation of the events listed in such a prophecy, we would eventually see that we had been following it all along. Again, it is not that we are tied to it, only that we have chosen it, and this has been seen.

Can we change fate? That question in itself is what changes it. The desire to choose, the desire for free will. We have it, we use it every day, we can make whatever choices we wish. Only that those choices, we may not always be aware of, and that those choices have been predicted. The prediction does not create the choice, it merely describes it in such detail, or in such intimate knowledge, that no other outcome is plausible- Not because it has been seen. It has been seen because it is so set. We see things in reverse because we are so restrained by one path of time- but there is no dichotomy. The action of voicing the prophecy is as much a part of the prophesy as the prophecy itself; As much as agent of that fortune as any other, it could be even more so. A thing is seen, maybe it is outside the normal boundaries we erroneously attribute to it, or even within those temporal boundaries by the same hand that moves our own actions, that is, each hand moves itself, as a catalyst for the actions that are soon to occur in like order. There is nothing unusual about it. It is a factor of memory more than one of time. Or it is a factor of intellect, that which drives the memory, at once unrestrained by those things it must control. If you can set the winch moving of it's own accord, the arm that drives it may begin to work elsewhere. In any case, keeping one hand upon it at all times, the other is always free to act, or to reach, if it is so wished. It is a matter of how well one has learnt to use his arm, such as the case may be.

If any other outcome were possible it would have happened.

But again, all is clouded, of nothing am I sure. I lay claim to no such skill of prophecy. But such skill is not needed to recognise it for what it is.


What can be said of Fate? Our life is what it is, this dream, this game. The only true question is are we pieces or players?

 

*whistles* now that is a responce. Very eliquent. But you are still thinking in such three dimentional terms.
Unfortunatly 'free will' as i understand it. Can still not be anything but an illusion. The prophosy does not necesitate the event. But what caused the prophosy does. If you see a billuard ball moving along a trajectory that will cause it to contact another with a considerable excess of energy that causes you to predict, or prophersize that the second billuard ball will be prepelled away from the first.
Now let us asume for a moment that the problem of perception has been solved and we can'know' about things mediate to us. Under this asumption we can say that Our prediction will be 100% acurate in advance of the first ball actualy striking the second. What you say is still true. Your prediction isnt going to cause the second ball to be prepelled away from the first. But what caused your prediction. The First Billard balls energy and trajection. That IS going to cause the second ball to be propelled. The event is pre deturmined.
Now how exactily are you any diferant from the billuard ball. Thats quite obvius. you have a number of phisical features it dosnt, and so far as you are aware it does not posses a conciusness or means of perception as you do. But tell me, just how do your perception and conciusness make the analergy inacurate?
When you make a decision do you supose you ever make it without a reson? Have your experiances shaped you into a particular kind of person who makes particular kinds of choices? If this is true then I am very sorry, but you do not have free will. You choices are the result of your experiances. Those experiances are of events wich, like the transferance of motion between billuard balls, are not contingent.
Ok so lets say your choices are not entirly deturmind by your experiances. Lets say there is somthing inherant in who you are. Somthing built in about you that can not be changed, that makes you yourself and not somone else. How can we explain this thing? what has caused it to be? If you are are an agnostic you may wish to find faith if you value your free will. Because for the athist what ever makes you yourself has to be just another link in the chain of unavoidable cause and affect through all of history. That thing that makes you special is the result of somthing that could not have been otherwise. COnsequently you can not be otherwise. Ergo All your choices could not be other wise. Ergo free will is an ilusion.
The theist has some hope. The theist can define god as 'that then of wich no grater can be thought'. By this definition god must be capable of all things, including choice. Ergo Your creation, and your creation as you are, was contingent. Ergo you could have been other then you are. Ergo your choices could have been difernt. Ergo not everything is pre-destined.

On a side note because somone critercised me before. If all you can find fault with is my method of comunication, then at least you have found my argument undenyable. In explination for my method of comunication, let me explain that i am dyslexic, and i have had a big exam today and i just realy dont feel like checking all this after checking my boring exam paper a hundred times over. Its not like ive sat you down and forced you to read this. You are 'free' ha ha. to 'chose' not to if you find it so very ilegable.

 

@ ctcc

I don't think the above comment was meant as a criticism, so much as a suggestion. It was difficult to read both your posts because of your spelling, although you could struggle through it if you just pronounce all the words phonetically.

I guess the one point I disagree with is your intitial arguement - that you feel that one must either believe in fate, or the "divine spark", as you put it. Other alternatives (such as the physical) are certainly possibilities, but you fail to mention these. As I don't agree with your initial premise, while I read the rest of what you wrote, I really don't want to comment too much on it, because you obviously have to agree with the initial premise to support what follows it, and as I've said, I don't.

@Manus

You bring up some interesting points, although I completely lose your argument about mid-way through your 3rd paragraph. I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

I for one do not believe in either fate or self-fulfilling prophecies, and as Manus points out, how would one change a self-fulfilling prophecy, as it does not become self-fulfilled until after it's happened? That's a problem I see, actually with terms like "fate" and "self-fullfilling prophecy". You can't label these occurances as such while they're happening, but only after the fact. To me, you should be able to recognize them in some other form than in hindsight. Because they are rare, by definition, occurances though, to me they seem like mere coincidence. When you look at thousands of occurances that take place in your life daily, it only seems natural to me, that some out-lying, rare results will occur from time to time.

 

I don't get that. As far as I understood the concept of self-fulfilling-prophecy has nothing to do at all with fate. Or superstition or anything like that.

As arguements about cars are so chic now, let's say there's someone learning to drive a car. For some reason, this person is completly insecure and thinks, she won't manage to get inside a parking lot without touching the wall. So, the person is afraid, gets nervous, makes mistakes and rams the car into the wall. Actually, my car-drive-teacher held a theory lesson about it. If you think you ram the wall, you end up making because of that thought a mistake, which lets you ram into the wall.

 

Sorry about that, it was kind of a trick question. Like Manus said, the questions were too simplistic to give a proper answer. I actually phrased them like that because I was curious about how people would respond, and what the results would be with a very limited answer pool.

I also agree with Iago. I think that self-fulfilling prophesy is psychological while fate is purely spiritual. The two things are in completely different catagories.

I believe in self-fulfilling prophecy because I believe in the power of the mind. I'm still undecided about fate but if I had to choose between "yes" and "no" I would probably be more on the yes side. And concerning the idea of being able to change fate I would say a definate "no" because the phrase "change fate" is an oxymoron.

 

OK, according to the first online dictionary i found. (dictonary.com) Fate can be defined thus:

1)
a. The supposed force, principle, or power that predetermines events.
b. The inevitable events predestined by this force.
2)
A final result or consequence; an outcome.
3)
Unfavourable destiny; doom.
4)
Fates Greek & Roman Mythology. The three goddesses, Clotho, Lachesis, and Atropos, who control human destiny. Used with the.

In my arguments I have always assumed fate to be the second. But I should have indicated this before perhaps.

In response to Adolph’s dissatisfaction that I neglected ‘the physical’. Can I ask just what he means by this? When I made my, admittedly rather sweeping statement, about ‘fate, or the "divine spark"’ I meant to say that without a belief in a ‘divine being who can make things otherwise’ those of a ‘scientific’ or a logical empirical nature, must ultimately reach the conclusion that their actions are pre-determined. I had thought my following arguments adequate to support this preposition or at least explain it somewhat. But as they obviously weren’t please allow me to attempt a simpler explanation.

1) We can not prove anything other then the things immediately apparent to us.
2) Everything ‘physical’ or of a mental nature that belongs to another is mediate and so can not be known.
3) It is our nature to assume knowledge of a relation between things of which we have experience a constant conjunction.
4) All knowledge regarding matters of ‘fact’, i.e. ‘knowledge’ about the external world is based upon the assumption that the feature will continue to resemble the past. (For example, the sun rose today. The sun rose yesterday. The sun will continue to rise every day).
5) If it is true that the feature will continue to resemble the past, in so far as its operation at least, then we can possess certain knowledge of it.
6) Knowing the position, trajection and energy of an object in any two moments allows us, through reason, to know the position trajection and energy of that object in any other moment past or feature provided that object does not encounter the effects of an object who’s position trajection and energy we do not know.
7) If it were possible to know the physical state of all objects in space in any two given moments it would be possible to know the physical state of all objects in space in any moment past or feature.
8) Prediction of an event with 100% accuracy can only occur when an event could not be otherwise.
9) That it is possible, however improbable, to predict everything that is physical, indicates that everything that is physical is not contingent. ‘Fated’.
10)
a. If my mental state is a product of my physical state it to is ‘Fated’
b. If my mental state is a product of my physical experiences it to is ‘Fated’
c. If my mental state is independent of and unaffected by my physical state and experiences it may not be fated.
11) My physical state and experiences effect my mental state.
12) If there is no part of my mental state unaffected by my physical state and experiences then my mental state is fated.
13) If there is a part of my mental state over which neither myself, my experiences or physical state can effect, and is not a product of those three. And is not the product of a being, with the power or intent to make things otherwise, Then that peace of my mental state is as any physical object in that its existence determines my existence.
14) All that is determined is fated.
15) I am fated.

 

Like always ctcc42, you have shown much insight in your reply. Do not worry, I did not find the previous responses difficult to comprehend at all, your meaning was clear.

I agree with what you have said. It is also a very good reason why I am both a theist, and an idealist.

Of course, I still belive in fate, it is our destiny. Not because we cannot choose, but because we allready have.

 

I'm saying there are aspects of the physical world that affect our actions, but do not predetermine our actions. Say I'm walking along and I see a small rock on the ground. I can leave it there, pick it up, put it in my pocket, skip it across a pond, or if I'm feeling particularly violent, throw it through a window. However, just because the rock allowed me to perform any of those actions, it in no way means I was predetermined by the rock or any other force to assume those actions. It was my free will alone. A simplistic example, but I think I make my point.

And this is the part that I ultimately don't "get" so to speak. I am without a belief in a 'divine being who can make things otherwise'. I'd like to think I am one of those of a 'scientific' nature (I'm a chemist). Yet, I do not believe in predetermination. I am a big proponent of free will. Heck, even if you are religious you likely believe in free will. Anyone from a Christian background must believe in free will - it is the basis of their afterlife.

Sorry to re-use a simplistic example, but take that rock I just found. The rock's nature does not belong to me, but I argue that it can be known. I can find out what it is composed of, what its shape is, how much it weighs, and postulate as to where it may have come from, or how it got there. What else is there to know about a rock?

EDIT: btw, it's Aldeth, not Adolph. I took my user name from a character in BG1 (and added "the Foppish Idiot" part), not the German dictator.

 

ctcc42, your arguments are clear and well-considered, but I'm with AFI. Since I disagree with one of your fundamental premises, I can't quite reach the same conclusion.

A person's choices aren't based solely upon his or her experiences, but are the result of how an individual personality views the world through the filter of those experiences. Since no two minds are identical, two individuals having identical experiences will still make different choices.

Based on this assumption, I agree with Iago and AFI. Fate is an excuse, and self-fulfilling prophecies are something else entirely - and very real.

 

Aldeth, I am afraid you have not truly considered what you know about your rock. The problem of perception has dogged philosophers through all the generations since Socrates and has never even come close to being resolved conclusion.
When you perceive something that is physical you are not perceiving it. You experience phenomena nothing more. You know you are experiencing all of the sensations that you attribute to your rock but you do not know anything about that which is producing those sensations except that it is producing them. You do not know why, or if it shall continue to do so. You do not even know that it exists.
Of all the things you believe you know, everything is uncertain but that you exist as a thinking thing, and that you are currently experiencing sensations.
Read some Descartes, the guy was completely wrong to believe he had proved the existence of god and so solved the problem, but his ‘cogito ergo sum’ is famous enough, and for good reason.
Science is all very well and good, it is after all what allows us to live our lives. But if knowledge is what you seek it can not help you. Science is a method. Specifically it is an inductive method. And via induction, as any critical thinker or first year philosophy student can tell you, no knowledge can ever be achieved.
How many times do you suppose a flipped coin must come up heads in a row for me to reach the conclusion that it will always do so? That’s what science is. It is changing variables and observing the result. The more times those variables produce the same consequence the more certain the consequence becomes to us, but in reality no matter how many times a flipped coin lands on the same side, the chance is always equal that with the next flip it may land on the other.

Now, to continue on, Rallymama has rejected the notion that ‘nurture’ determines the whole of what you are. This is fine, many studies will support you. Now if this is the case then your choices are determined by something intrinsic to you. That’s nice. Can I ask you what produced that thing? Are you a duellist or a monist? Are mental events simply products of physical events to you or independent events acting in parallel with physical events? If your mental events are the product of physical events, and as science supposes, all physical events are determined by the physical events prior to them, then I am sorry but your mental events are pre-determined.

If your mental events are not produced by physical events then from what are they produced? What ever has produced them, what ever it may be, if it is natural then it must have determined them, just as what ever produced it must have determined it and so on.

Now you may find fault with this, in that it provides an infinite string of causation. I believe it was Thomas Aquinas that made the error to suppose that reason demands a halt to infinite regress. Reason demands no such thing, and Experience shows the infinite continuation of many things. Such as sides to a circle. There is nothing unnatural about infinite regression/progression.

[ January 15, 2004, 20:06: Message edited by: ctcc42 ]

 

Oh please, ctcc42. Don't get all metaphysical on me now. I went to a Jesuit college, so I assure you, I am well versed in philosophy.

However, if we must go there, then I still don't believe fate or self-fulfilling prophecies are true, because I am only observing them through my intrinsically flawed powers of perception.

Note to self: I still believe that if someone is being particularly violent, and throws a rock through my window, and that rock happens to strike me in the head, that I will conclude that the rock does indeed exist.

Edit spelling