This is a discussion thread for destiny/fate - real or not. I will go first - Some people think they are special - they have a connection with and matter to a universal but personal superhero, the best and most perfect and powerful thing, possibly the creator of the universe. Whether or not this is true cannot be absolutely acertainly right now, but what can be done is make a case against certain concepts and ideas that often accompany this belief system. One of them is destiny or fate, usually concieved as being some plan or story in which a person plays a somewhat fixed part. The wiggle room is what remains of free will. Thereby, the view is that we should try our best and chose by our free will and our destiny shall bring us our gains and so shall our fates befall us. Whether or not a person is a believer, anyone barring the most optimistic or ignorant would agree that the universe or the world is a ruthless place - who, what or how old you are, what you needs and desires are, why you do what you do, what you think should happen or is right - none of these really matter to the outcome of what you do, for the what and how is all that matters. Causality prevails and our very agenticity is rooted is and constrained by it - our cutural or alturistic ideals, ideas and concepts are not honored in practice by the world - the gun of a policeman is causally the same as that of a mugger. In such a world we live and we wonder and ask a question that usually doesnt apply yet is so demanded by our instincts - why? Be it gravity or mass, there doesn't seem to be a valid question of why, only how. This instinctual push towards agenticity and comformity to our beliefs causes us to take simple outcomes of chance and probabilty and call them luck - the amount of [or distance from] favorability of outcomes as they apply to people personally. Causally this is irrelevant to the events that occur, which begs the question - what is the purpose of the concept of luck? The concept of luck comes together as the idea that the possitive or negative amount of this luck together forms our fates. These fates are further imagined to be fixed or determined and this is what is called destiny. Destiny fits quite well into the ideologies of gods and hardships of ancient times and is modified efficiently to keep up with the latest trends in religion and theology. This idea, like that of a God, whether real or not , has a real psychological advantage - that of coping with and making sense of things that are difficult to understand, unknown or inherently senseless to our ideals. When something good happens, its better to think that we are lucky than to boast in the acheivement of our efforts and let it get to our heads. When something bad happens, its better to think that the destiny was as such and we were powerless and are thus free of guilt. That this destiny was the work of a loving and benevolent God makes the person free of remorse. This flow into the idea of God or pre-determinance also helps eliviate sadness, making it, like God, to be an effective and excellent psychological tool that manages adversities and maintains our mental health. So in conclusion, I dont think destiny or fate is real but I think its useful.
I have a pretty different idea of destiny. I believe it's a concept similar to consequences, more specifically our inability to maintain control over the events in our lives. No matter how well we may plan and all the factors we take into account there are just some things that are out of our control. I have every intention of waking up tomorrow, but a terrorist attack might blow up my entire town. However unlikely it might be, this and "God knows" how many other possible scenarios might keep me from making it through the night. But I can't live life always afraid of the unknown, can I? It might be my destiny to die tonight, or it might be my destiny to live forever. Whichever it is, there's no point in me worrying about it, my fate's out of my control. A general rule is that you can't know your own destiny. Destiny, as in destination, always refers to the end, and never takes into account the means to that end. Just because you have some precognition about your future doesn't mean it's your "destiny"... it's just a driving factor. Ever seen The Matrix? A big point behind the movie was Neo coming to terms with his destiny and part of that included believing he wasn't "The one".
So it's essentially "chance favours the prepared mind". In other words, the more positive you are, the more you go after things, the more likely it is that things will seem to 'magically' fall into place for you, as if they were somehow always meant to. Similarly, the more negative you are, the more you sit on your arse and do nothing, the more likely it is that nothing will seem to go right for you, as if it was somehow never meant to. How is that destiny, and not entirely the result of your own action/inaction?
No destiny and no fate, for they can never be proven to ever exist by any scientific metholds that I'm aware of today. If you were to live during another time , say around 10,000 years ago , what could fate and destiny ever be to those people that lived then? They were just trying to survive day to day, month to month and those who didn't learn how to do so were not long to live.
Interesting...., you assert the existence of Destiny? Perhaps you can demonstrate it? Classical determinism doesnt work in an emergent system - you roll a marble down a slope and it will get to the end, it is determined. However, if you release a shrew down a slope, it is not at all determined what will happen - agenticity allows for an intentional, emergent being to make decisions such that the outcome is a dynamic result rather than a pre-determined event. A human being and perhaps consciousness itself is an emergent property - like a rainbow [there is no rainbow without raindrops, but it is more than 'just' raindrops - because the raindrops are a part of a complex system bound by physical laws, a rainbow emerges from a band of rainfall], we are more than just a bag of cytoplasm, but that isnt indicative of any mystic notion, merely that of a procedural generation of a new and higher level of organisation. As such, we are agents rather than effectors, we dont just influence, we decide. More on emergence - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
I believe my ultimate destiny is to die a old man and pass through and then what ever is in store, great.
It is up to each person to do what they can to become who they want to be within their own limitations and budgets. If your not ultra rich then you'd never own a multi million dollar mansion if that is what you think your destiny might be. However if you thin k you'd like to become a doctor then through your own hard work and getting a good education you can attain such a goal that you so choose but not because it was destiny but because you chose to become that.
Destiny shares traits with prayer. You can believe in your destiny, you can pray for things to happen, but chances are if you don't do anything to help it along, things will be different. Things might still not happen the way you want it, but at least you make an effort, and maybe that's the most important part. "Life is a journey, not a destination."
Destiny and fate are different concepts, but both or only concepts, ideas, not real things; in that sense, neither "exists". Destiny is the convergence of a person's potential, abilities and endeavors with a point in history, an event or focus of events, to which they are uniquely fitted. It's conceivable that destiny is fate; equally conceivable that a destiny can be evaded or missed. The only people whose "destiny" we know has been fulfilled are famous historical figures; the vast majority of the human race, we cannot know whether they had/have a destiny; whether those destinies have/will be consummated. Fate is what must happen to a person, due to the unbroken, extremely complex, chain of causation that started with the Big Bang and ends - for each of us - with death. Fate can't be avoided, altered or missed. It also can't be predicted with any great accuracy, as too many factors are unknown.
No. What you've described here is closer to determinism than to fatalism. Fatalism doesn't require "unbrokenness".
Honestly, I tried but I can't articulate it properly, sorry. If that statement doesn't make sense I cannot think of another way to properly explain it.
