Talk:Destiny

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Briirb.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

fate and destiny
Fate is distinct from destiny, and fate should not redirect to destiny. Fate can be a function of determinism and mathematical probability distributions. Destiny can be a function of free will and mathematical probability distributions. Anyone with me here ? 69.253.243.188 (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Our destiny is going to eventuate and we will have to live or suffer the consequences and delight of whatever eventuates. I personally hold to a strong Christian conviction and am happy to hold to that. A friend has a website Your destiny Your Choice which may help with some of your decisions. Hopefulluy I can post her web address. ydyc.org it's worth a visit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roynicho (talk • contribs) 04:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

'Fatelike' maths/art
I removed this from the "Fate vs Destiny" section - it lacks references, is almost impenetrable, looks suspiciously like OR, and in any case is in the wrong place. If you can find sources and a better place for it, feel free to re-insert. "Fate can involve things which are bound within and subject to larger networks. A set of mathematical functions arranged in a grid and interacting in defined ways is Fatelike.  Likewise the individual statues in a larger work of counterpoint art are aesthetically Fated within the work.  In each case Fate is external to every individual component, but integral to the network.  Every component acts as Fate for every other component.  The entire world can be seen as existing within such a network, a kind of mythical spiderweb controlled by unseen forces." 81.107.39.2 (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

i think its a misnomer to think of fate as being controlled by hidden forces. while it is, by necessity, hidden, it cannot be controlled because that would imply an intelligence with free will, which undermines the notion of fate. rather, i would think of it as a necessary companion, like an environment to the life form. Thank you. Natmanprime (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Fate Paradox
If a fresh clone of a person woke up in a completely identical room to the origional person at the same time and both rooms had an identical complex puzzle in the middle which can be solved various different ways, would both the clone and the origional solve the puzzle making the exact same moves?

Another test involving the same situation is using a computer rather than a puzzle. The computer will ask the exact same questions that require a sentence to reply. Will both the clone and the origional type in the exact same sentence word for word?

If they do, then it is proof that humans are operating on pre-defined fate like machines, rather than randomness or freethought.

I would say their responses would be different, because what makes us unique is our unique positions in space-time. environments prompt our responses, and the environment is fate. the only way to make the clones the same would be for them to actually be the same person! thank u Natmanprime (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

In response to this Fate Paradox stated above, it has been established that a clone is merely the biological double of a person, and can never have the same personality or psyche. Yes the clone starts out with same propensities or capacities as the original person. However, the clone, "born" at a different time (and perhaps a different place)and under a different set of circumstances has not experienced the same temporal(time)environment and perhaps not even the same geographical and socio-cultural environment, hence the clone has not experienced the same events, especially the definitive early childhood events, or interacted with the same significant people --parents, teachers, religious figures, friends, lovers, enemies, etc., which have shaped the original person's personality, attitudes, likes, dislikes, habits, behavior patterns, etc. The clone does not possess the same memories, mental references, mental associations, fears, hopes, wishes, dreams as the original person. The music that plays in the memories of the clone and the original person are different, the tunes, fragrances/scents/aromas, tastes, visual and tactile sensations that trigger one's memories to re-live certain sad or happy times in one's life are different in the clone and the original person. A clone who came into existence in 1980 has not experienced the same "Zeitgeist" (Spirit of the Times) as, say, an original person born in 1950 who came of age in the turbulent 1960s; the clone at 16 yrs old (in 1996)is a very different teenager than the original person at 16 (in 1966). That is, if indeed the clone has actually undergone the normal life-cycle process from infancy through childood, adolescence and the various phases of adulthood. If so, the younger clone is not a younger version of the older original person (except for biological similarities).They are each unique, non-similar beings. If the clone, on the other hand has not gone through the normal maturation process and is created as a fully adult being or as a rapid-biological-development being then the clone is totally or near-totally a person without a past, without memories, a being with no childhood experience, perhaps somewhat like an amnesia victim. In either case, the "soul" of the original person and the "soul" of the clone (by "soul" I mean the "psyche") are totally different. The clone and the original therefore would not respond in exactly the same ways. -- Yusuf (Sept. 21, 2006)

But the question was whether they would behave the same if they were in fact identical, or if it were possible to make people identical even if (the question never states this, but the implication is clear) a "perfect" technology were used to "perfectly" transfer the life experience of the original into the clone. Meanwhile the Question Asker elaborated upon the issue as it existed and/or naturally arose, bringing it to it's full form as a question, without attempting to provide personal insight, let alone venture an answer. I don't say this as an insult. Both of you are behaving like forces of Fate. I can see everyone on this discussion page doing the same. Even though I know I must be fulfilling some role/purpose here, I'm still blind to what that is. -TheTechnodrome(5/7/2008)

Can anybody help me get hold of a coupe of ancient Greek tragedy stories where fate plays a big role? It would be very nice of you, as I need it for a project I am doing. I am sorry if this is the wrong place. 80.213.189.129 11:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following from the article:
 * "In the Albanian language there is no future tense as such: futurity is expressed by an idiom that may be loosely translated "there is a Will that..." (Albanian speakers please make this more precise)"

I don't quite understand what is meant by that. I am an Albanian native speaker, and we do have a future tense like french. For example: I will go to school tomorrow. translates to Unë do shkoj në shkollë nesër. Are you talking about the do? Why would this not be a future tense? I can give more clarifications, if the above sentence is explained a bit more. Dori | Talk 18:01, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying. Wetman 21:34, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Redlinked header
This has been moved here: :"Fate" is also the name of a short story by P. G. Wodehouse. Destiny is probably also a combined candy bar and video game. --Wetman 4 July 2005 20:09 (UTC)

Difference between fate and destiny
Should destiny and fate be more clearly defined, as either split into two separate articles or have the differences stated out in a subheading?
 * Yes. I have seen little agreement though on which of each should be defined in what manner. I can't do it myself since it is too close to my OR. Would you volunteer to do so? Zeusnoos 00:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I simply added the idea that fate is the finality of events up to now, and destiny the inevitable events that will come to happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.215.241.212 (talk) 08:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't like this section: there is really only one sentance describing the actuall difference and it is very difficult to understand. I had to read it many times before I understood it. 124.191.82.150 (talk) 07:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"Spiritual Science says"
There is nothing to discuss. Please read wikipedia guidelines concerning citing works and NPOV editing. Also read articles on science and see if the 'spiritual science' you claim falls in the category of pseudoscience. Percentage claims about nebulous concepts certainly fall in this category. Besides, the history of your edits are a line of spamming the pages with your own website. This is good grounds for RfC or being blocked. Zeusnoos 13:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree - your interpretation of science is biased: read article on spiritual science. Have requested mediation. Knowledge for All 21:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Lol. Spiritual Science. I laugh at the very name. BirdValiant 01:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

both a defense of belief and a defense of factuality

 * the article Spiritual science exists, so obviously the consensus is that at least it's worthy of an article. However, I have a couple things to bring up about the use of that website as a reference.  Since 'spiritually evolved persons' (according to that website) are also called 'saints' I would have to class at least their version of spiritual science as a belief system or religion rather than a 'science' per se.  Also their  methodology page, here, clearly makes a distinction between what they term 'modern science' and 'spiritual science': Modern science, again from their website, uses the Scientific method  which they loosely describe on the page, and Spiritual science according to the page uses 'spiritually evolved persons' (saints) asking questions.  In their words the entire process, which I am contrasting with Scientific method is that:


 * 1)a "spiritually evolved person asks a question" and
 * 2)"definitive and absolute answers are perceived immediately"


 * so the site itself contrasts (their version of) Spiritual science with Modern science. It's clearly a belief system, on a par with religious belief systems.  I think that if we include information from that website, it has to be clear that this is a belief and not science, and that in the case of using numerical percentages of what portion of human lives are "ruled by destiny" it would be have to be emphasized that this data essentially came from the equivalent of prayer or direct revelation. I'm not about beating folks up for their beliefs on either side of any issue, but we have to recognise the distinction between belief and data.  It might be just as useful to use the quote "when you believe in things you don't understand... it's superstition."


 * Clearly the concept of destiny is very closely tied to belief. I don't think an expression of what people believe it out of place in this article, but we should definitely not state those beliefs as facts.  A clear distinction needs to be made between "X is a fact" and "X is a belief held by Y" in all articles.  Regardless that the belief in destiny is a belief we can still strive for factuality in an article on destiny. User:Pedant 21:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Oldest sense of Destiny... bullet??
"A sense of destiny in its oldest human sense is still detectable in the soldier's fatalistic image of the "bullet that has your name on it" or the moment when your number "comes up." "

This seems absurd to me. Destiny as a concept surely is older than the concept of bullets and lotteries. In fact I would quibble with any assertion of "the oldest" sense of destiny. I'd think it would be far preferable to have a quote from an ancient poet referring to destiny or fate, rather than an unsupportable assertion as above. Comments? User:Pedant 20:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * More clearly expressed as now emended above?--Wetman 01:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah that's a great edit! Good work there, it keeps the sense of the original and removes the anachronism, brilliant refactor job, I wholeheartedly support that change User:Pedant 21:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

kashour —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.52.125.29 (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy
Wessam Reda 02:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

God created us to be tested by the most we scare of, for those who keep their patience and prayers to get the most they dream of, and those who don't the most they hate. Watch your thoughts, they make your destiny!

Sandy and who??
The article currently says, "Destiny is summed up by three words...Sandy and Tony." What??

It doesn't any more, I took it out, it was a vandalism.

what if everything we did was controled and predetermined by a force greater than ourselves? what if every random thing we said, every item we choose to fix and eat, everything had already been picked? how would that idea, widespread, chang reality? please answer.

it is irrelevant how it affects reality, since reality is ever changing. So really, it wont matter because it is one grain in a desert of change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.171.66 (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Heidegger/Nietzsche
I removed the points in the lead section about a change in the meaning of "destiny" due to Heidegger's and Nietzsche's philosophies. The lead section is not the place to discuss such debated views; Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Jaspers, Sartre et al can be discussed in a sub-section if someone is willing to write one. If a distinction between fate and destiny needs to be made in the lead section, it should be done by assessing the matter in general (and with sufficient citations) - not by uncritically stating disputed views related to a somewhat marginal academic discourse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.53.44 (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing about Hinduism?
Hinduism has very well worked out concept of destiny in fate with karma. I have noticed various citations from different cultures and it may make sense to add one view putting light on that aspect also. See Karma in Hinduism.Atmapuri (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Can destiny be a form of time?
Destiny may be a form of time. The more time passing the greater chances of ones destiny being fulfilled.(DeatedDestinyTuMorn,Oct6th2009 21stCent.by Dr. Edson Andre' Johnson D.D.ULC>)Edsonbrasil (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Manifest Destiny
The paragraph which mentions the American concept of Manifest Destiny does not convey the philosophy of that ideology correctly at all. Manifest Destiny refers to the geographic western expansion of the United States westward across North America. The USA was destined to assimilate all the land between its colonial origins on the east coast and the Pacific Ocean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.48.136.25 (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Fate (game)
Why does "Fate (game)" redirect to this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.128.163 (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"believers of it are possed by the devil."
"In a recent acredited research project conducted at University of California, fate was determined to be largely hokum, and believers of it are possed by the devil."

Hopefully there are no objections to this line being removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crsini (talk • contribs) 20:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

'Father Abraham' Lincoln and "4 score and 7 years ago, our fathers..." proves destiny
This article needs to make reference to how Lincoln was commonly referred to as 'Father Abraham' in a comparison to the Biblical Abraham. The famous 1862 Stephen Foster song We Are Coming, Father Abra'am is the BIGGEST example of this. Lincoln used his connection to "Father Abraham" when he famously began his Gettysburg Address with "4 score and 7 years ago, our fathers...". This was a quote from Genesis 16:16 of the King James Bible, "Abram was 4 score and 6 years old when Hagar the slave woman bore his son Ishmael" (paraphrased). The fact that Lincoln was the 16th president at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. appears to be a proof of destiny. - Benjamin Franklin 75.74.157.29 (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonsense.108.24.200.163 (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Benjamin Frankland

Kismet
Kismet is linked to this page (from Moirai), but not mentioned on this page.

Destiny in politics
I started this new section, but at present it's mostly a list of quotations. Calling a man-made event a 'political earthquake' or similar inanimate metaphor implies that the  circumstances are beyond human control, and therefore no one can be held responsible. But that's a cop-out. There may be research in this area worth bringing in to this section. Any ideas? Crawiki (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

After all, the ultimate 'political earthquake' would be nuclear holocaust, which nobody wants. Crawiki (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Religion section: Add reference to Babylon's Enuma Elish
From the Babylonian creation epic Enuma Elish, toward the end of the first of six tablets: "Let your commands prevail over all the Anunnaki [that is, those who gave to mankind their destinies]. She gave him the Tablet of Destinies... (Saying) 'Your order may not be changed; let the utterance of your mouth be firm.'" from the full text in the Ancient History Encylcopedia. Many similar references in Tablet 2, which ends: "Lord of the gods, Destiny of the great gods... proclaim for me an exalted destiny... And let me, with my utterance, decree destinies instead of you. Whatever I instigate must not be changed, nor may my command be nullified or altered." I'm the one who added the Babylonian bullet, so I don't want my own hands too much on this point in the article. Might someone else add this Enuma Elish reference? Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)