Necessity, Universality, Fate

Spinoza and Schopenhauer agree that the common concept of 'individual' is erroneous, but for subtly different reasons.  For the former, the error is intellectual, i. e. a mistaking a part for a whole, while for the latter, it is Ontological, i. e. mistaking an illusion for a reality.  But, regardless of that difference, in each case, the Individual is conceived as subject to a 'necessity', i. e. to the inescapability of the operation of some Universal.  Now, this 'necessity' is distinct from another, often characterized as 'fate', i. e. as inevitable outcome, and, yet, with which it is sometimes entwined, if not conflated, e. g. in Birth of Tragedy.  However, that one might act spontaneously, shows that an outcome can be not predetermined, even if, in the process, one is still functioning as a member of the species.  In other words, independence from given circumstances is distinguishable from independence from some Universal.  Now, while Nietzsche's study is not compromised by inattention to that distinction, Marx' concept of History arguably is--by conflating the 'necessity' of one's membership in a society, i. e. Class and Species, with 'necessity' of outcome, i. e. of Socialism from the weaknesses of Capitalism.