I don't want to offend anyone since it seemed like many of you believed in destiny (at least to an extent) from today's discussion in class but I have some thoughts.
Couldn't destiny be seen as a sort of self protection mechanism? It seems to me that many believe that all things happen for a reason because they can't deal with the possibility that it's all random. Humans are all faced with many horrific facts throughout their lifetimes. If one believes that every one of these atrocities happens for a reason, it would be much easier to process. For example, earlier, a few weeks ago I read an article about a twelve year old girl from Malawi who's parents had both died. She struggled to work and feed herself and her siblings. If this was not upsetting enough, her younger brother (who was only 5) had recently contracted malaria and was in dire condition. Trying to process that things like this happen is very difficult for some. It seems to me that simply saying it was destiny, or that it happened for a reason, is a sort of emotional cop-out. People choose to believe that this and everything is fated because if there is no reasoning behind it, it simply cannot be comprehended.
I'm not trying to insult those who believe in destiny, I just can't believe that everyone has a single fate that they must reach. We talked about this idea in Art after leaving English today and I've come to the conclusion that we do the best with what we're given genetically and through our life experience. And our choices, not our fate guide the course of our lives. There is no eventual fate for each person, in all likelihood there are a number of different careers, a number of different lifestyles that could make each person happy. I'm sure some people are more innately talented at certain skills than others, but I still don't believe that theirs only one destiny for each person.
Of course, all of this is simply my opinion and I probably need about 1000 more qualifiers but... thoughts?
(Molly Dunbar)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I see your point, I really do, but still: The idea that everything in our universe is random somewhat baffles me. There have to be some patterns, at least I hope so. Wasn't that the whole point of the Scientific Revolution, to make observations in nature based on predictable natural law?
Sometimes, things just fit together too perfectly. Has it ever happened to any of you that you learn something new, and before you know it, you see/hear it everywhere only a short time after it was initially presented? Haven't you had one of the most important people walk into your life in times of need? It all seems so ironic.
I do understand that these things may be random, but it seems to logical to draw ties and connections. And I think you're right -- maybe I do this to simplify my life and give myself explanations for things which simply cannot be explained.
But it also seems from my own experience (you may have encountered something else) that when people think of an explanation of sorts (especially one concerning religion and the existence of God), people grow skeptical. Maybe this is because, like Dr. Bjornstad has mentioned, we have been programmed to use our rational and reason. Even in class, when he began to lecture about Tulipmania, we immediately sprang to ideas concerning the economy and its practicality rather than its revolt against ecclesiastical morals. Our whole cirriculum is secular. Here's an interesting question: Do degrees of secularism vs. religious study affect our views on destiny?
I believe the answer would be yes. There is always that idea of being led to salvation after death (religious). Would this be considered destiny? Mr. Lazarow said today in class that the common destiny which we all share is death, but whether we agree on life after death is a whole different story.
If we were all made to be unique, then don't we all deserve to have our own unique destinies? I doubt that one story, or lifetime, will ever be repeated exactly. We know from Hayakawa that two territorial maps of our extensional/intensional worlds will never be same. I think that this also applies to people who live lightyears apart (if that may be the case). Duplicating an exact situation is close to impossible, and if we're building off of the parallel universe theory, this would not be a possibility since different variations of an action are done in each universe.
I hope you guys are able to follow this choppy train of thought.
(Sam Maliha)
While I wasn't part of the discussion today (And darnit, it's *hard* to focus on vocab when there's a fun discussion going on!!) I must admit that I too find accrediting everything to Fate seems to be a bit of a logical cop out. But honestly, what else can we do? This is, in essence, a non-sense argument, just as arguments regarding the existence of other intangible entities. There's nothing that you can point to extensionally and say "That's Fate". This distinct lack of an extensional meaning is what leads to our differing views on Fate - there is simply no way for us to all agree as the discussion is never-ending.
With that said, I tend to favor the happy medium - sort of an amalgamation between nature and nurture, if you will. To a certain extent, I realize that some things are almost pre-ordained, such as skills inherent in some person and circumstantial luck. On the other hand, I do believe that your response to what is thrown at you is also a hugely defining factor (a la Josh Shipp - that wierd guy who came in to speak to us?)
Again, since I didn't participate in the discussion today, I'm afraid that I don't know the specific points of contention. :) So, that's all for now.
On the contrary to what Molly says in her post, that belief in destiny is an emotional cop-out to help people deal with things, wouldn't a belief in fate make things like death and unwarranted suffering just as difficult to handle? I'm playing the devil's advocate here, because I do believe that each person has a purpose in life, but...
If a person's premature death is accepted as fate, wouldn't that make people angry? Why was is it his fate to die prematurely? Why did she have to be in that building when it caught fire? etc. Doesn't fate seem just as unfair as something that's arbitrary, or even more unfair? Especially when taking into consideration that with fate there has to be a greater power at work. How could that greater power let these bad things happen to seemingly innocent people?
Again, this isn't my opinion, but it is certainly something to think about.
Emily T.
Well, I completely agree with Molly (probably because I was part of the original discussion of this during art).
To address some points:
Of course there are patterns in nature, but who is to say that 'destiny' is part of that? And even if one argues that it is, then doesn't it completely go against the fact that it's a natural law because it isn't predictable?
I agree that some things do happen to fit together, but I don't think that it just be our minds playing tricks on us. For example, take the example presented about when you just learned something new and you see/hear it after it was presented to you a short time ago. Well, when you just learn something, doesn't that idea stick with you for a bit? Because you still have it in your mind, aren't you a bit more conscious of the things that are related to it?
And if I remember correctly, there was the point brought up in class about which things we notice and which things we don't. Now, what about when we don't notice? Those things could certainly be part of our 'destiny' and yet we don't make reference to them because we don't notice them. When we tend to pick and choose like that, are we really able to say that it's 'destiny'?
It's true that we are all unique, but I don't think that that's reason to claim that we all deserve different 'destinies'. No two people will ever have the exact same life because everyone is different and will always make different choices (even though those differences may be small).
I don't think that believing in destiny would make people feel worse in tough situations. Mostly, I think it's because people know that they can't do anything about it because it's an uncontrollable force. Sure, a person may be upset if a baby were to prematurely die, but what are they going to do. The thing is, they can't control the happening and don't have a physical entity to really take their anger out on, except for maybe themselves (which has happened before). Therefore, I think most people do use destiny to lessen the pain.
I find Emily's point to be pretty neat. Would a tough life bother us more if it were arbitrary? If destiny seems to follow a pattern, would we be more prone to accept the difficulties with which life has prented us because, well, that's just the way it is? And if destiny did not exist, and all of life's events were random, would we grow angry?
I think that it's almost a mathematical thing. We look for patterns to simplify life. When one is found, we are roughly able to foretell the next set of numbers (or events). This eliminates uneasiness about the future. Were scientists of the Scientific Revolution correct in linking their observations to numbers?
This was all so random. :)
(Sam Maliha)
To be perfectly honest, like Molly, I personally do not quite believe in the idea that certain events or outcomes are due to destiny/fate. Rather, I prefer Locke's theory of the "blank slate," or the idea that a person is the product of his/her experience. A person's intensional/extensional map is drawn by his/her life experiences. However, I think that people may also have some innate characteristics or abilities, as Tiffany has suggested.
Thus, I am inclined to agree with Molly that people may use destiny as a way to deal with emotionally challenging or stressful situations. One may claim that a certain unfortunate event could not have been prevented because it was destined to happen. That way, he or she does not need to think further about what happened. One who does NOT believe in fate/destiny, on the other hand, would continue to grieve over the misfortune and stress out over finding a reason WHY the misfortune happened and/or what would've prevented it.
However, I also understand where Emily is coming from when she asks if fate/destiny merely frustrates a person even more than relying on reason/rational thought. I think that the answer to this question depends on who the individual is. Fate/destiny can act as an "emotional cop-out" for those who truly believe in the existence of fate/destiny. However, for those who are skeptical or do not believe in fate/destiny 100 percent, the idea that a misfortune was destined to take place DOES indeed cause more frustration.
Emily, to answer your question, in an example such as premature death, I personally DO think that fate seems just as unfair as arbitrariness. However, it is important to remember that this depends on whether or not the individual believes in fate/destiny, as well as on the individual's judgment. (I, of course, say that fate seems unfair because I do not believe in it.)
Thoughts?
(Janet Lee)
One of the seemingly rational ways people tend to justify "destiny" is the idea that some events in their life just fit together to perfectly. Yet if we look at it statistically and compare all the random, seemingly unimportant moments to these so-called determining ones, we find a ratio of staggering proportions. There is little doubt, to me at least, that destiny is but a contortion of the mind.
Human beings, perhaps because they fear their own ability to reason, attempt to mask their understanding in superstition and fantastic untruths. I'm neither condemning nor looking down upon this thinking, I'm simply making an assertion. In fact, destiny occasionally attributes to good behavior and a sense of purpose.
On the other hand, the more scientific concept of destiny, the idea that we are the sum of a number of causes dating back to the inception of the universe, is one I can wrap my head around. This simply means that our current actions and thought processes are influenced by a succession of events leading back through the course of time. There is no moral or emotional stimulus behind this theory. It is cold and concise, but it is reasonable.
Sorry for playing the constant cynic...
(Taylor)
Post a Comment