Necessitarianism is a metaphysical principle which essentially claims that everything is metaphysically necessary; there is exactly one way for the world to be. It’s the denial of brute and contingent facts.
It’s stronger than hard determinism in the sense that the determinist would still claim that the ‘causal chain’ as a whole could have been different, even if everything within it could not given their antecedent causes. The necessitarian, on the other hand, claims that there only ever was one outcome for everything, and this outcome itself is necessary.
MAL has a will, but this will (and what it wills) is part of MAL’s intrinsic nature that it cannot change. MAL is metaphysically necessary in the sense that it cannot fail to exist. So it seems as though everything MAL does is metaphysically necessary, given that MAL exists necessarily.
I’m wondering if I’ve missed something or am just flat out wrong about this.
Is necessitarianism true under idealism?
Re: Is necessitarianism true under idealism?
I am not sure that is a question we can ever answer under any metaphysical worldview. Fortunately, it is also a question whose answer will never be important for any aspect of our lives (which is not say there is anything wrong with asking it out of curiosity).
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
Re: Is necessitarianism true under idealism?
I'd answer your question, but then I'd have to kill you.