An Example of Fatalism in Contemporary Philosophy: Richard Taylor

Sevgi Çakır

Makale detayları

An Example of Fatalism in Contemporary Philosophy: Richard Taylor

Yazarlar:

Sevgi Çakır

Yayıncı:

Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Felsefesi

Dergi:

Din ve İnsan Dergisi Vol.4 Issue 8, pp.363-378

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001334142

pISSN:

2980-1117

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 Fatalism has a deep background in the history of philosophy. In contemporary philosophy, views on fatalism were revived by Richard Taylor 1919-2003. In his 1962 article Fatalism, Taylors interesting and intriguing arguments in favor of fatalism had a significant impact and received various interpretations. One of the reasons why Taylors article made so much noise is undoubtedly his claim that fatalism includes not only past events but also unrealized future events. Another reason is that Taylor constructs his argument without appealing to God and natural laws. To support this idea, Taylor presented some arguments consisting of presuppositions and case studies. Some philosophers objected to his argument by arguing that there is a flaw in the argument, but that it is very difficult to detect this flaw. This is because his argument consists of presuppositions that are difficult to discuss. In this respect, the subject of this article is primarily to explain Taylors argument with presuppositions and case examples, and to discuss whether they are sufficient or not. By doing so, objections and comments to these explanations will also be included occasionally. The aim of this article is to contribute both to the literature and to the debate with its explanations and various ideas. According to the conclusions reached in this article, both Taylors fatalistic argument and his idea that we have no more control over the future than we have over the past are untenable.

 Fatalism has a deep background in the history of philosophy. In contemporary philosophy, views on fatalism were revived by Richard Taylor 1919-2003. In his 1962 article Fatalism, Taylors interesting and intriguing arguments in favor of fatalism had a significant impact and received various interpretations. One of the reasons why Taylors article made so much noise is undoubtedly his claim that fatalism includes not only past events but also unrealized future events. Another reason is that Taylor constructs his argument without appealing to God and natural laws. To support this idea, Taylor presented some arguments consisting of presuppositions and case studies. Some philosophers objected to his argument by arguing that there is a flaw in the argument, but that it is very difficult to detect this flaw. This is because his argument consists of presuppositions that are difficult to discuss. In this respect, the subject of this article is primarily to explain Taylors argument with presuppositions and case examples, and to discuss whether they are sufficient or not. By doing so, objections and comments to these explanations will also be included occasionally. The aim of this article is to contribute both to the literature and to the debate with its explanations and various ideas. According to the conclusions reached in this article, both Taylors fatalistic argument and his idea that we have no more control over the future than we have over the past are untenable.

 Fatalism has a deep background in the history of philosophy. In contemporary philosophy, views on fatalism were revived by Richard Taylor 1919-2003. In his 1962 article Fatalism, Taylors interesting and intriguing arguments in favor of fatalism had a significant impact and received various interpretations. One of the reasons why Taylors article made so much noise is undoubtedly his claim that fatalism includes not only past events but also unrealized future events. Another reason is that Taylor constructs his argument without appealing to God and natural laws. To support this idea, Taylor presented some arguments consisting of presuppositions and case studies. Some philosophers objected to his argument by arguing that there is a flaw in the argument, but that it is very difficult to detect this flaw. This is because his argument consists of presuppositions that are difficult to discuss. In this respect, the subject of this article is primarily to explain Taylors argument with presuppositions and case examples, and to discuss whether they are sufficient or not. By doing so, objections and comments to these explanations will also be included occasionally. The aim of this article is to contribute both to the literature and to the debate with its explanations and various ideas. According to the conclusions reached in this article, both Taylors fatalistic argument and his idea that we have no more control over the future than we have over the past are untenable.

 Kadercilik düşüncesi, felsefe tarihinde uzun bir geçmişe sahiptir. Kadercilik ile ilgili görüşler, çağdaş felsefede Richard Taylor 1919-2003 ile yeniden canlanmıştır. Taylor, 1962de yazdığı Fatalism başlıklı makalesinde kaderciliği savunan ilginç ve merak uyandıran fikirleri ile önemli etkiler bırakmış ve çeşitli yorumlar almıştır. Taylorın söz konusu makalesinin bu kadar çok ses getirmesinin sebeplerinden biri, hiç şüphesiz onun kaderciliği geçmiş olaylar yanında gelecekteki gerçekleşmemiş olaylara da dâhil eden iddiasıdır. Bir diğer sebep de Taylorın argümanını Tanrı ve doğa yasalarına başvurmadan oluşturmasıdır. Taylor bu fikrini desteklemek için bazı önvarsayım ve örnek vakalardan oluşan argümanlar sunmuştur. Onun argümanına filozofların bir kısmı argümanda bir hata olduğunu, ancak bu hatayı saptamanın oldukça zor olduğunu ileri sürerek itiraz etmişlerdir. Çünkü onun argümanı tartışması zor önvarsayımlardan oluşmaktadır. Bu bakımdan bu makalenin konusu öncelikle Taylorın argümanını önvarsayımlar ve örnek vakalar ile açıklamak, onların yeterli olup olmadığını tartışmaktır. Bunu yaparken zaman zaman bu açıklamalara getirilen itirazlara ve yorumlara da yer verilecektir. Bu makalenin amacı, yapılan açıklamalar ve yer verilen çeşitli fikirler ile hem literatüre hem de söz konusu tartışmaya katkı sağlamaktır. Bu makalede ulaşılan sonuçlara göre Taylorın hem kaderci argümanı hem de gelecekle ilgili olarak geçmiş üzerinde sahip olduğumuzdan daha fazla kontrolümüz olmadığı şeklindeki fikri savunulamaz.

Makale detayları

An Example of Fatalism in Contemporary Philosophy: Richard Taylor

Yazarlar:

Sevgi Çakır

Yayıncı:

Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Felsefesi

Dergi:

Din ve İnsan Dergisi Vol.4 Issue 8, pp.363-378

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001334142

pISSN:

2980-1117

Fatalism

Richard Taylor

presupposition

example caseKadercilik

Richard Taylor

önvarsayım

örnek vaka.

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: Sevgi Çakır

Yayıncı: Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University

Ana Başlıklar: İslam Felsefesi

Dergi: Din ve İnsan Dergisi Vol.4 Issue 8, pp.363-378

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 12/2024

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001334142

pISSN: 2980-1117

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Sevgi Çakır

Yayıncı:

Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University

Ana Başlıklar:

İslam Felsefesi

Dergi:

Din ve İnsan Dergisi Vol.4 Issue 8, pp.363-378

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

12/2024

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001334142

pISSN:

2980-1117