Which came first, the attitude or everything else?

I recently stumbled across this quote by Charles R. Swindoll. How much do I agree with it? I don't know, but it might be useful for study.

The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on life. Attitude, to me, is more important than facts. It is more important than the past, the education, the money, than circumstances, than failure, than successes, than what other people think or say or do. It is more important than appearance, giftedness or skill. It will make or break a company... a church... a home. The remarkable thing is we have a choice everyday regarding the attitude we will embrace for that day. We cannot change our past... we cannot change the fact that people will act in a certain way. We cannot change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude. I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% of how I react to it. And so it is with you... we are in charge of our Attitudes.

Swindoll was (and is) a hopeless evangelical. The more I think about it, the less I agree. Are we in charge of our attitude? Probably not. I don't want to be unhappy, but sometimes I am, and there's not much I can do about it. Swindoll would probably say that, sure, everyone gets unhappy sometimes, but this is not an attitude, it's an emotion, and you can still take a positive attitude in the face of unhappiness.

But it's hard. And even if you can chose your attitude in theory, the forces that affect us often make this choice so difficult that it is basically impossible. As I've posted before, we do not remotely have free will. Even if we do have a small amount of control over it, our will is largely in the hands of fate, i.e. everything that effects us. There's no way the ratio is 1:9, as Swindoll suggests. I would say it's more like 7:3. Swindoll says that attitude is more important that eduction, money, facts, and everything else. But he doesn't see that all this is what affects our attitude. (Though I do agree these things are more important overall, it's important not to reverse cause and effect here). It is entirely unrealistic to say that we can simply pick any old attitude no matter what happens to us. Attitude is a reaction, an instinct, and it is not fully in our control. This is, incidentally, one of the most important things to bear in mind when studying society, because attitude and instinct are what make society possible. We are shaped by society and thus help to shape it. Attitude and society are luck (otherwise known as fate), they are what happens to you, and your response is limited hugely by them, and your own physiology, which is also luck. Not everyone has the necessary will to shape their attitude.

I hate to be the council of doom on this one...and I guess if you're feeling down at the moment it's much more advisable to listen to Swindoll than me. If you can take control of your attitude, then this is wonderful - you certainly should do it - but I think if we assume that everyone can be optimistic at will, then we will let a lot of people down. But if we recognise the power of fate and our largely passive nature, then we can at least work from there, and attempt to thing in more beneficial ways about such questions.

I mentioned cause and effect earlier - this question is more about the effects of causes having their own effects, and becoming causes in their own right. Swindoll says that attitude causes the causes that happen to you (i.e. if you thing positively, positive things will happen in your life), while I say that the causes that happen to you cause your attitude (i.e. if positive things happen in your life, then you will think positively). So in some ways, the whole debate can be seen as, as I recently heard it so succinctly put, buffoonery of the highest order, since we are basically arguing about chickens and eggs. But I still think your viewpoint - whether you look at it as chicken first or egg first - can be important, perhaps determining whether you're fatalistic or capitalistic.