A Belief in Destiny = a sign of weak character/willpower?
- Thread starter knight in battle
- Start date
It could well be the case. Pre-destination is an interesting phenomenon that occurs when people know so little about the system that they feel trapped by it. Intellectuals tend to drop predestination when they discover how unusual quantum mechanics really is.
I'm not pretending to be an expert on eastern thought. Although I have read extensively about toaism, confucism, buddhism hinduism.
The less monotheist thoughts tend to ascribe the belief that we are here for purpose and reason.
I'm not sure total resignation to a higher power and basically walking away from responsibility make sense. So maybe the predestined to be whatever idea is kindof a copout. Not sure if it's weakness as much as a willingness to just not take ownership.
I don't know I get the Quantum reference. Are you talking potentialities?
The less monotheist thoughts tend to ascribe the belief that we are here for purpose and reason.
I'm not sure total resignation to a higher power and basically walking away from responsibility make sense. So maybe the predestined to be whatever idea is kindof a copout. Not sure if it's weakness as much as a willingness to just not take ownership.
I don't know I get the Quantum reference. Are you talking potentialities?
thing is, people don't really think about what predestination means, so they dismiss it because it doesn't fit into our cultural belief that having choice precludes having a purpose. You can have a purpose for which you are destined and still have free will. You could be unconsciously be living out that purpose without even knowing it in choices you make or the decisions you take. You could be living out parts of your purpose simply being you or being your best self. And if you bring faith in God into it, having a purpose or reason is not a restrictive thing, it actually makes you feel as if your birth wasn't some random occurrence, despite what biology says. It also often means you are unique and no one has the same role. Each person has their own thing to offer. Someone is only weak or in character or will when they don't take responsibility for their own choices in life or when they believe they know more than they truly do, who sees the forest and miss the trees or sees the trees and miss the forest. If someone says, "it's going to happen, you don't have control over it" they are acknowledging that they are not in control of everything which is a reasonable assumption since, at least for myself, can't have super powers which allow me to change history or the future and bend it to my will. We are still human, which we don't seem to get. We don't know all or see all. We are limited by our human perceptions. As genius as some may be, we don't know everything. And of course if you look at destiny as some evil that you have no choice but to perform, it's kinda ridiculous because just by running away from what you think is your destiny, you could actually be fulfilling it. I think the problem is how we view the word "destiny". Thing is, destiny from a Christian perspective, means something which is good and beneficial for everyone in the long run. So, resisting it may mean, that a focus on self or feeling is could be robbing the world of something good or better because the focus is on "my" free will rather than thinking outside one's self and self interest rather than thinking about what's beneficial to everyone. However, that's just one scenario. Your destiny could simply be to be a good friend or experience something although difficult or a tragic which may have outcomes or lessons which would not be learned or understood had those experiences not take place. Again, just a possible way to look at it. Who knows, living out your destiny however difficult it may be, could actually be a good thing.
Last edited:
I think there is a difference between believing in destiny and acknowledging the balance that is present in everything.
All matter is subject to a balancing force. The 3rd Law of Motion, diffusion, the seasons, night and day. Everything balances on a long enough timeline. We pay for life with death.
But we are also matter and also therefore subject to these laws in ways that we cannot perceive if we consider ourselves outside of the natural world. The fact is that we are matter and so must be subject to the same constants that control all the rest of life. We try to pretend we are not but simply being aware of unchanging natural processes does not make you distinct from them.
So is the future predetermined?
No. Nobody knows the future. There is no future, only the present moment always and forever. We can predict what will happen based on what has happened before but the future does not exist. Anything could happen. All we can know is that is will surely be balanced like the rest of nature. How it will be balanced, or how the balance will reveal itself, we can't say. But since everything else is I think it would be the greatest hubris to suggest that the rules don't apply to us.
All matter is subject to a balancing force. The 3rd Law of Motion, diffusion, the seasons, night and day. Everything balances on a long enough timeline. We pay for life with death.
But we are also matter and also therefore subject to these laws in ways that we cannot perceive if we consider ourselves outside of the natural world. The fact is that we are matter and so must be subject to the same constants that control all the rest of life. We try to pretend we are not but simply being aware of unchanging natural processes does not make you distinct from them.
So is the future predetermined?
No. Nobody knows the future. There is no future, only the present moment always and forever. We can predict what will happen based on what has happened before but the future does not exist. Anything could happen. All we can know is that is will surely be balanced like the rest of nature. How it will be balanced, or how the balance will reveal itself, we can't say. But since everything else is I think it would be the greatest hubris to suggest that the rules don't apply to us.
How do you know there's no future? Just because we may not know it, doesn't mean there isn't one. What is described is based on the idea that we are the only consciousness which exists. But if there is a higher consciousness which knows all and sees all because they made it all, then the end doesn't stop with us. Pre determination doesn't preclude the idea that something is determined because the actions we take make one future possibility more likely to happen or certain to happen. If someone keeps telling you, don't play fire, you're going to get burned. And you keep playing with fire, and maybe you don't get burned the first few times, but one day, you get burned, then it could be said, being burned was predetermined because the person who told you that you will get burned determined that your unwillingness to listen will likely result in you getting burned at some point. So, predetermination doesn't necessarily mean pre-decision. It could simply mean forethought.
If you got burned it is because fire is hot. You are more likely to get burned if you play with fire because it suggests a level of recklessness but that is purely semantics. You could get burned doing any activity involving fire but the only reason why you get burned ultimately is because fire is hot and human flesh is combustible. Nothing else is relevant.
I don't buy into the idea of a creator because everything is constantly being created anew all of the time. It doesn't look like it but your body, my body and everything else alive is always regenerating itself on the microscopic level. That suggests to me that the creative force is within everything rather than outside of everything. I do think that animals have just as much consciousness as we do but we have a more powerful brain that can interpret the world. I do consider consciousness to be something distinct from matter but it is the human mind that distingishes us from them in a good way but also tries to separate us from the bigger picture, the cycle, that we are undoubtably a part of as naturally occurring organisms. I do also consider there to be a universal consciousness that is the whole made from all the parts but, again, that would not make it a separate or higher consciousness.
I think I've explained that correctly but these kind of thoughts are relatively new to me and I am not used to putting them into words yet.
Still, gotta start somewhere, eh?
Anyway, that aside, I'd like to point out that there is a happy middle between believing in 'what's meant to be is meant to be' and being an active participant in your own life. If destiny is utilized as an appropriate allegory for the nature of the universe--that certain possibilities are closed to us at the time because of a amalgamation of variables over which we may not have direct control over at present--- as opposed to a predetermined narrative of our entire lives, I think it makes it easier to bear disappointments and setbacks. If that's what gives you a drive to try a different way or step up to the plate at another time, that's not a weakness. It's adaptive intelligence. It's a tool that enables you to self-sooth and re-focus on what needs to be done as opposed to an excuse to settle on your haunches and do nothing (which, I think, shows true weakness of character).
Destiny is a destination determined by the paths you take. Not all paths will take you there directly. And just as you can change destinations, you can change 'destiny' by altering your behavior.
It's basically an artistic rendering of common sense.
Last edited:
On a spiritual level, I believe in pre-destined choices or opportunities. It is up to us to decide how we proceed.
Secondly, an INFJ, with a serious wrong to right in mind, will tell destiny to suck it and bend it to his/her will, ultimately reshaping the destiny of the masses.
Secondly, an INFJ, with a serious wrong to right in mind, will tell destiny to suck it and bend it to his/her will, ultimately reshaping the destiny of the masses.
I met someone who used to work in Saudi Arabia and they apparently used 'it's God's will' to justify everything, including their own reckless driving. I've met Christians who have used 'God's plan' to justify not trying harder to get ahead in life.
I do think it can reinforce counter-productive mindsets, but I don't think it's wholly responsible... plenty of people who actually do achieve things/act responsibly are also religious/believe in fate.
I do think it can reinforce counter-productive mindsets, but I don't think it's wholly responsible... plenty of people who actually do achieve things/act responsibly are also religious/believe in fate.
Do you think it could mean that the unconscious is part of one's "destiny", which of course, one may have the option of delaying or rejecting entirely? How is the unconscious derived?
Tin Man
"a respectable amount of screaming"
To answer the first question, yes. To take control of one's destiny, one must take control of themselves. To truly have control over one's self, one must bring together their conscious and unconscious selves. Essentially it requires one to accept that they are capable of good and bad, right and wrong, etc. We define ourselves by what we are and what we are not, yet at the same time, we are both.
NOTE: We must actually remove the attached feelings of good and bad, right and wrong, etc from our actions and thoughts. Those concepts are there to guide us, not define us.
I can be very selfish, yet very selfless and self-sacrificing. I complain about politics, yet refuse to vote. I judge others, yet I can be very open-minded. I both love and hate myself. I strongly believe in authenticity, yet I occasionally lie. I am boastful, yet humble. Etc, etc. I am not defined by who I've been, nor do I strive to define who I should be. I simply am. In this knowing, I can do anything.
As to your second question, I do not have an answer to that. I've begun to touch the surface, yet I fear what I may find by digging deeper. Jung and Einstein dug deep in those areas. I am not sure that I am ready for the answer.
Last edited:
My position on free will has always been that we ought to accept it on the strength of its appearance. That means that, although we cannot know with certainty whether or not we are free to act, it appears that we have the ability to act freely and should therefore assume that we have free will. The difficulty is acting accordingly or being able to see yourself as actually free.