It is actually quite difficult to explain how it works. Simply saying 'it is so because it is supposed to be so' contains a logical fallacy, saying 'our actions lead to a preset result that cannot be foreseen or changed' does not explain why the result cannot be changed. Divine intervention?
In a way, fate merely states that every action has a result, a consequence bound to that specific action in the specific conditions in which the action is performed. Hitting a gold ball results in it flying off (unless it is nailed down) and posing danger for anyone near its landing area. In the same manner a failure to be present at a subjectively important event results in a change of social status. It's the laws of physics expanded to include sociology, thus departing from science in general.
Since the laws of physics work (well, they have worked pretty well so far), there is a good chance the same concept can be used in other places with relative success. The main problem is the abundance of variables that tend to be unknown to the observer. Even when the variables, such as people's actions, are known, it remains a game of bridge - you know the odds and you play the best you can with the knowledge you have. But there is always a chance that the odds are in your favour but you get blindsided by extremely uneven hands. You may know the probable result, but you can never take every single thing into account. Fate is unpredictable, it can only be confirmed in hindsight.
This makes fate kind of a smoking gun. You observe an outcome, you know what caused it, but firing a gun does not always result in smoke coming out of it. It is chance, luck, or simply someone's diligence that caused the weapon not to jam. You only know it works because you witness the result.
The problem with fate or karma or whatever you wish to call it is the lack of evidence that results are definite events. Believing in fate means believing in predestination, that we simply live out whatever tape deck we were born to follow and have no choice to change our future or present. Every decision, every impulse has been marked down by someone or something somewhere.
"We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?"
In such a case, even the knowledge of fate has to be preset by fate itself. This poses yet another problem: things don't exist for no reason. If fate has a purpose, it most definitely does not have one for us. That leaves outside influences. There is very little point in pondering about the identity or essence of the influence or influences, it would be highly theoretical and based on a wild unproven theory. But the possible purpose of causing our world to work based on 'fate' is quite a nut to crack. After all, if 'fate' was created by something that knew all the variables and the purpose of it is to calculate the ultimate question, so many of us probably wouldn't have read about it.
In conclusion, saying 'things are so because they are meant to be so' has a hitch of an undefined entity that 'means it to be so'. To be more precise, the problem is less in the nature of the aforementioned entity, but the motive of the entity, the reason it 'means it to be so'. If you can think of a logical reason why anything or anyone would create fate that makes us believe or not believe it, feel free to comment.
"Some would ask, how could a perfect God create a universe filled with so much that is evil. They have missed a greater conundrum: why would a perfect God create a universe at all?"
No comments:
Post a Comment