Fate

← Encyclopedia

Fate is the idea that the course of events is fixed in advance, settled by an order that human will neither sets nor escapes. The word covers several distinct pictures of that order, and much of the history of the concept is the work of telling them apart: a thing decreed, a thing spun, a thing wired into the chain of cause and effect, a thing written in the stars. The pictures answer the same two questions — what is fixed, and by what — in incompatible ways, and the quarrels between them are among the oldest sustained arguments in philosophy. What does not change across the quarrels is the shape of the claim itself: that the arc of a life is laid down somewhere other than in the living of it, and that the part a person plays runs against a script already written.

The portion and the thread

The oldest Greek image is the Moirai — three goddesses, their name meaning “portions” or “allotments.” Hesiod names all three in the Theogony: Clotho, who spins the thread of a life, Lachesis, who measures it, and Atropos, “the unturning,” who cuts it. He sets them among the children of Night and, in a second passage, has Zeus grant them their high honor: they give to mortals at birth both good and ill to have. The metaphor is domestic and absolute: a life is a length of thread, drawn out and severed by hands that do not consult the one whose thread it is, and even the gods are said, at the edges, to defer to what has been spun.

Alongside them stands the older sense of moira as a person’s allotted share, the portion of life and death assigned at birth — the same word that means a helping of meat at a feast or a parcel of land. This is the root from which the goddesses grew, and it is fate in its barest form: not a system, not a chain of causes, but a quantity handed out. To meet one’s moira is to receive what was measured for one; to overstep it — to claim more life, more honor, more reach than the portion allows — is hubris, and the structure of much Greek tragedy is the closing of the gap between a portion and a man who will not keep to it. The Oedipus of Sophocles flees a prophecy and walks straight into it; the warning the story carries is that the portion is not negotiated. This is fate as apportionment, standing beside and partly behind the related figures the Greeks used to think the same border: Ananke, the compulsion that binds even the gods, and the share that no striving enlarges.

The chain of causes

Stoic philosophy turned the image into an argument. The Stoics held that the cosmos is a single rational body governed throughout by logos — the active reason that pervades all matter as a kind of fiery breath — and that every event follows necessarily from those before it. They called this unbroken chain heimarmene, and they defined it, with deliberate etymological play, as a heirmos of causes, a string or sequence in which each link is the settled effect of the last. Stoicism here is making a strong claim, sharpened above all by Chrysippus, the school’s great systematizer: nothing falls outside the chain, including the human mind, and the present is fixed completely by the past. To say that all things happen by fate and to say that all things happen through antecedent causes were, for the Stoics, two ways of saying the same thing.

The much-debated consequence was whether anything remained for human choice, and the Stoic answer was subtle rather than evasive. They were not fatalists in the lazy sense — they did not hold that effort is pointless because the outcome is sealed regardless, the so-called “idle argument” Chrysippus took pains to refute, since one’s effort is itself a link in the chain and not a thing the chain bypasses. What they held instead was a form of compatibilism: an act can be both fated and genuinely one’s own. Chrysippus drew the distinction with the image of a cylinder set rolling: the push that starts it moving comes from outside, but that it rolls as a cylinder rolls, rather than skidding like a cube, comes from its own nature. So with a person’s assent — the external impression is given, but the yielding to it expresses the character of the one who yields, and that is where responsibility lives. The wise person, on this view, is not freed from fate but reconciled to it, willing what is bound to happen anyway. Epictetus puts the discipline plainly: to want events to occur as they do, rather than as one would prefer. Marcus Aurelius, writing the same school two generations on, returns again and again to the single thread that ties his own portion into the world’s order, and to the consent that is the only freedom the order leaves intact. This is the strand of fate that issues not in resignation but in a trained acceptance — the most demanding thing the Stoics asked, and the one most easily mistaken for the easiest.

The free part of the soul

Where Stoicism made fate something to consent to, later Platonism worked to fence it in. The Stoic cosmos was a closed corporeal system; the Platonist cosmos was layered, with the sensible world hanging by emanation from realities above it, and that layering opened a door the Stoics had shut. Plotinus addresses the question directly in the tractate the library holds, the third Ennead’s first treatise, titled simply “On Fate.” He runs through the candidate explanations of why events fall as they do — chance, the revolution of the stars, an unbroken sequence of physical causes, the world-soul — and finds each one, taken alone, either incoherent or destructive of the very thing it is invoked to explain. If a single chain of bodily causes reached all the way up, there would be no genuine agent at all, only the appearance of one; the deliberating, choosing self would be a wave passed along by what came before it, and the responsibility the chain was supposed to preserve would dissolve.

His resolution is to divide the self. The rule of cause and necessity governs the body and the lower, embodied soul — the part turned toward matter and entangled in its rhythms — but it cannot reach the soul’s highest part, which remains in contact with Nous, the divine intelligence, and is the seat of its freedom. What a person does insofar as they are dragged by appetite and circumstance is indeed fated; what they do insofar as they act from that higher, undescended principle is their own, originating in them rather than relayed through them. Fate, on this account, is real but partial: it is the law of the lower world, binding everything that has consented to be merely a thing among things, and silent before the part of the soul that has not. The Neoplatonist tradition after Plotinus would complicate this — Iamblichus and his heirs, more impressed by the soul’s full descent into the body, looked to ritual rather than to an ever-free summit as the means of release — but the founding move was Plotinus’s: to deny that any chain of causes, however total it looks from below, can capture the whole of what a soul is.

The script in the sky

A separate strand located fate not in a chain of causes or a spun thread but in the heavens. Hellenistic astrology, drawing on the long Mesopotamian tradition of celestial divination, taught that the configuration of stars and planets at the moment of birth inscribed a person’s destiny, which a trained reader could recover from the chart. The Babylonian root of this idea is old and deep: for more than a millennium the scribes of Enūma Anu Enlil had read the sky as a field of omens bearing on the king and the kingdom, and the historian of that science, Francesca Rochberg, recovers from their own vocabulary the governing image — šiṭir šamê, “the writing of heaven,” the sky understood as a divine inscription legible to those trained to read it. What shifted in the late fifth century BCE was the addressee: the omen that had concerned the realm became the horoscope that concerned the individual, the natal positions of the planets read now for a single life. When this material passed into Greek, the technical apparatus — the zodiac of twelve equal signs, the planetary exaltations, the arithmetic schemes for computing positions — came with it, and so did a philosophical charge it had not carried before: the Greek term heimarmene was taken over to name precisely this stellar determinism, the sky read as a fixed decree rather than a contingent warning.

That transfer made astrology, for its critics and many of its practitioners alike, the hardest form of fate to live with, because it claimed to specify the decree in detail and to date it from the cradle. Resisting it became a recurring task of the late-antique religious imagination. Several Gnostic and Hermetic texts present knowledge of the divine — gnosis — as a way to slip the grip of the planetary powers and the fate they impose. In the opening treatise of the Corpus Hermeticum, the Poimandres, the soul on its ascent passes back up through the seven planetary spheres, surrendering at each one the portion of character that sphere had stamped on it at birth — the grasping it took from one, the appetite from another — until, stripped of every imposition of heimarmene, it stands above the spheres entirely. Here fate is not consented to and not fenced off but escaped: the planetary order is real and binding for as long as the soul belongs to the cosmos that the planets rule, and the whole architecture of the ascent is built to carry it past the point where that order can reach. The astral strand thus arrives at the opposite pole from the Stoic: where the Stoic sage learns to will what the chain binds, the Hermetic ascent is the project of becoming the one being the chain does not bind.

Fate against its rivals

These pictures are not one doctrine, and the differences matter. Fate as a weighed-out portion, fate as an iron chain of causes, fate as the law of the lower world, and fate as a script in the sky make different claims about what is fixed, by what, and whether anything can be done — consented to, fenced off, or escaped. They also stand at varying distances from the neighboring concepts with which they are easily confused. Fate is not necessity as such, though it leans on it: necessity is what cannot be otherwise in any world, while fate is the particular settled course of this one. It is not divine providence, though Stoic and later thinkers came to identify the two: providence governs by a foreseeing care that intends the good, whereas fate, in its older and starker forms, simply binds, without solicitude and sometimes against the gods themselves. And it is the standing antagonist of fortune — the goddess of the turning wheel, who raises and casts down without reason — fate and chance being the two ways the ancient world named a future not under human control, the one fixed and the other arbitrary, mirror images that each define the space the other leaves empty.

What the pictures share is narrow but durable: the conviction that the shape of a life is, in some real measure, not in the living of it. The opposing intuitions — chance on one side, a freely choosing will on the other — have defined themselves against fate ever since, which is part of why the idea has never quite gone away.

Sources and scholarship

The decisive modern study of the ancient debate is Susanne Bobzien’s Determinism and Freedom in Stoic Philosophy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), which reconstructs the Stoic theory of heimarmene, the idle argument, and the compatibilist defense of responsibility from the fragmentary evidence with a rigor that has reset the field; her account is the reference point against which later treatments of Stoic fate are measured. For the conceptual map — fate distinguished from fatalism, divine foreknowledge, and causal determinism, and the ancient quarrel over whether choice survives a chain of causes — the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s survey of ancient theories of freedom and determinism is the standard orientation, and its entry on Stoicism lays out the school’s identification of fate with the unbroken sequence of causes and Chrysippus’s cylinder analogy for reconciling that sequence with what is “up to us.”

The primary texts are largely hostable in the public domain. Plotinus’s treatment of fate is preserved in Stephen MacKenna’s translation of the Enneads (Medici Society, 1917–1930); the third Ennead’s first tractate, “On Fate,” is held in the library here and is the place to read his division of the soul into a fated, embodied part and a free summit. The Stoic discipline of consent is set out across Epictetus’s Discourses and Manual, P. E. Matheson’s 1916 Oxford translation of which is likewise held here; the Greek fragments of the early Stoa, including the texts on fate, are gathered in Hans von Arnim’s Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta (Leipzig: Teubner, 1903–1924), the foundational collection in which “Chrysippus on fate” means a set of quotations preserved by later authors rather than a surviving book. The astral conception of heimarmene descends from the Mesopotamian celestial sciences reconstructed in Francesca Rochberg’s The Heavenly Writing: Divination, Horoscopy, and Astronomy in Mesopotamian Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), the standard synthesis of the “writing of heaven” tradition; for the Hermetic project of ascent past the planetary fate, the relevant text is the Poimandres of the Corpus Hermeticum, whose first treatise narrates the soul’s return through the seven spheres, shedding at each one the character that heimarmene had imposed; G. R. S. Mead’s public-domain translations of the related theurgic material, including the Chaldæan Oracles, are held in the library here. The persistence of the older Greek sense of fate as portion can be traced to its source in Hesiod’s Theogony, where the Moirai are named and their office assigned.

→ In the library: Plotinus — The Enneads (MacKenna): Third Ennead, First Tractate: Fate · Epictetus — The Discourses and Manual (Matheson, 1916) · The Chaldæan Oracles (Mead, 1908)

→ Related: Logos · Neoplatonism · Divination · Oedipus · Emanation · Necessity · Divine Providence · Free Will · Fortuna · Stoicism · Marcus Aurelius · Platonism · Hellenistic Astrology · Gnosticism · Corpus Hermeticum