Determinism makes sense of things. It gives us the comforting feeling that there is a pattern to it all. Indeed, the three factors that combine to produce situational stress are the degree to which the situation is unknown, unpredictable and uncontrollable. Determinism reduces the stress of existence by claiming to reduce the elements of unpredictability and, as H.G. Callaway points out, removing the problem of control.

Determinism falls foul, among other things, of the failure of simple laws to 'scale up'. Simple laws such as Newtonian mechanics can fail to provide solutions in even minimally complex situations (see the Three Body Problem here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem) thus returning us to the uncomfortable state of being that determinism is supposed to solve.

Many thanks for posting this question

I suppose one reason is that the alternative would amount to agents' responding to events and circumstances in a random and arbitrary way. The choices open to historical actors are constrained by the conditions in which they find themselves and those conditions are generally not of their choosing. If their decisions under such conditions are not influenced ("influence" is a causal notion) by the particular nature of the circumstances in which they find themselves, their actions would be random and arbitrary. But their actions are not random and arbitrary, so their decisions must be influenced by the particular nature of the circumstances in which they find themselves. So determinism of a sort is unavoidable if we are to make sense of historical agency.

Thank you Antonio Russo Karl Pfeifer

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Qadir & readers,

I would offer a psychological explanation --distinguishing between "historical determinism" on the one hand, and the idea that our circumstances influence or effect our actions in a less than fully deterministic fashion.

Full historical determinism as a doctrine discourages individuals from taking up an opposition stance toward large-scale historical developments, that is, it discourages the attitude of individual responsibility. Whatever is supposed to be inevitable it would be unreasonable to try to oppose. We cannot be obligated to do what is impossible; and likewise, the devotee of historical determinism feels no obligation to oppose what is in any case, judged inevitable.

At the same time, it encourages "going along" with whatever is predicted to be inevitable; and many people seek the "safety of a crowd" in the face of doubts or insecurities.Doctrines of historical inevitabilities encourage crowd-like responses--particularly crowd-like political responses.

I recommend in this connection Karl Popper's 1957 book, The Poverty of Historicism --which I have elsewhere defended on RG and in print. Popper put forward a general refutation of historical determinism. I think it perhaps his best book.

H.G. Callaway

It would be hard to imagine a philosophy of history with a pre-determined goal (I assume we are talking about thinkers such as Hegel, Marx, Kant, Comte, Condorcet) which was not deterministic. By the same token, the theological traditions these philosophies emulate in secular form are also deterministic, or, in religious language, providential. History is a battle of Good and Evil in which Good is ordained to win, if through hidden or supernatural means.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Gardner & readers,

Thanks for your comment on this thread.

The reply includes all those philosophies of history according to which "the future is open."

In outline, the argument for this is fairly simple. It is impossible to predict the outcome of history, because the outcome of history, if any, will depend on what people will actually do. But it is impossible to predict precisely what people will do, since what they will do depends on what they become able to do. What people are able to do, in turn, depends on the development of knowledge --knowledge is power. In order to predict what people will be able to do, we would have to know before hand what they will come to know. But what people will come to know is essentially un-predictable, since it depends on the outcomes or results of research in the sciences and scholarly disciplines. If we could predict the outcomes of research and inquiry, then all other inquiry would be unnecessary--which it is not.

In consequence, we cannot predict with certainty the outcome of human history; the future is open.

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

It would be hard to imagine a philosophy of history with a pre-determined goal (I assume we are talking about thinkers such as Hegel, Marx, Kant, Comte, Condorcet) which was not deterministic.

I like that!

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Gardner & readers,

If historical determinism is so easily refuted, then why would it persist? (By the way, see Karl Popper 1957, The Poverty of HIstoricism, "preface", pp. vi-vii, for Popper's brief statement of the argument.)

We seem to have returned to the opening question with a slightly different perspective on it. My suggestion above was that the idea that something is historically "inevitable" relieves people of responsibility and makes for mass movements--in effect it functions as an intellectual and social organizing technique however sincere the belief may be in any given case.

The contemporary (diluted) versions may include, say, something like the "inevitability" of artificial intelligence, or, more generally, jumping on the bandwagon of "the next big thing."

H.G. Callaway

Humans have learned that if they can forecast the future, they prosper. Watch an animal say a fox or cat hunting. They are aware and try to predict where the pray will go. In past times the seemingly uncontrolled events such when rains for the crops come were influenced by the Gods which were influenced by the people or so the priests said. Hence, the Zoroastrians (the magi of Jesus time) suggested events happen in cycles. Hence their attentions to charting the cycles - to tell time they couldn't go by the reign of some king (too political and like Big Brother changeable). So, the told time by the planets and stars - the beginning of astrology. So, when the conjunction of the planet note in the Bible happened they note that a major religious change happens every time (about 1500 years). Retrograde motion of planets - going before in time.

Better yet is to cause the events- Hence science and engineering. But only if events are deterministic.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Hodge and readers,

It is precisely because we come to know or understand law-like regularities in nature that we can predict and sometimes even control them: "Knowledge is power." In consequence we have, e.g., engineering.

However, we cannot predict the overall course or results of human history, because the growth of knowledge enters into this, and we cannot predict the results of research and inquiry. We can only engage in research and inquiry and wait to see the results.

Nonetheless, it is possible, of course, to observe trends or tendencies in human affairs and project them into the future. But this has no need of strict "historical determinism" --as in Hegel, Marx, etc.

Right?

H.G. Callaway

Determinism makes sense of things. It gives us the comforting feeling that there is a pattern to it all. Indeed, the three factors that combine to produce situational stress are the degree to which the situation is unknown, unpredictable and uncontrollable. Determinism reduces the stress of existence by claiming to reduce the elements of unpredictability and, as H.G. Callaway points out, removing the problem of control.

Determinism falls foul, among other things, of the failure of simple laws to 'scale up'. Simple laws such as Newtonian mechanics can fail to provide solutions in even minimally complex situations (see the Three Body Problem here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem) thus returning us to the uncomfortable state of being that determinism is supposed to solve.

We cannot predict... True. But the lack of predictability means a limit to our knowledge rather than no determinism. Trial-and-error is one form of study that is applied to long term problems such as society's organization and morals. We cannot create a universe, until we can there is much to learn.

Because we cannot apply conditional sentences (if it would be so and so ...)for history

Philosophy of history with respect to: (1) Chronological order of landmark events

(2) Society is arranged by 'History'

(3) Transformation with respect to time and spacial GPS is inherent phenomenon

(4) Law of Nature incarnated biodiversity and human race for explicit purpose to serve via knowledge of 'GOD'

(5) Don't believe in everything and always believe in something

Following

1) The need for contemporary philosophy, especially in facing the rigid in a religious society.

2) Mos philosophical problems in East are linked to Perrenial Discourse, for instance, Masculinity in Religious Belief which indicated that Religious Belief was significant in developing norms with renunciate the aspect of pure liberal that similar to Post-modern.

Rodinal Khasri Thank you for your response. I need a clarity whether this masculinity existed in every religion with its inception or such thoughts were later added?