literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org

Sitaram · Site Admin Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 1079

The question of fate and destiny in Sophocle's Antigone and Oedipus
is very interesting question. First lets try to define destiny vs.
fate based on dictionary/search engine, to decide if there is any
real difference.

Perhaps we should ask ourselves IF OEDIPUS HAD ANY CHOICE... could he
have made any DIFFERENT choices, which might have changed the course
of events?

Milan Kundera says something interesting in "The Unbearable
Lightness of Being" regarding Oedipus.

There is such a WEALTH of info on this topic... and it pertains to
something that I have been wanting to write about with regard to the
Book of Job, and the concept of "unknown sins" in various religions. .

I should mention that I have been thinking about the difference
between fate and destiny. I think there is a slight difference.

Think of it this way. Think of the American History term "Manifest
Destiny". It would not have had the same force to say "Manifest
Fate".

http://projects.edtech.sandi.net/balboa/destiny/

A religious person might say something like "God created humans with
a destiny to conquer the earth and then travel to the stars." We
would speak of such matters in terms of destiny rather than fate.

Someone who is "ill-fated", makes some unfortunate choices, is at the
wrong place at the wrong time, and as a consequence, suffers a
certain "fate".

The young man in the movie Titanic, who wins a ticket on the voyage,
is not necessarily DESTINED to die on the Titanic. It is his fate.

I think it is more usual to see the word "destiny" used for positive
goals or greatness, where as the word "fate" is frequently associated
with something negative.

Someone might say to his lover, "We are DESTINED to be together"
or "You are my DESTINY" but not "you are my FATE".

For example, we hear the expression "a FATE worse than death", but it
would sound odd to say "a DESTINY worse than death".

Ancient Greek mythology speaks of "the three FATES" but not "the
three DESTINIES".

http://www.loggia.com/myth/fates.html

According to one internet page on Philosophy, Heraclitus said that
one's destiny was not determined by fate, luck, Greek gods, or birth
signs. Your destiny is determined by your character alone.

Here is an interesting page of quotes on Destiny:

http://homepage.eircom.net/~odyssey...fe/Destiny.html

It occurs to me that true Freedom is the antithesis of Fate/Destiny.

Sartre comments, in the opening pages of "Being and Nothingness",
that we are "condemned to be free", for any attempt to choose to
relinquish our freedom requires freedom as a prerequisite.

Let us make some investigation into ideas of freedom, free will,
fate, destiny and predestination, and we will add to these terms the
notion of NECESSITY.

Let us consider the amusing expression "willy nilly" (which is
sometimes spelled wily nily).

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/412050.html

The Latin phrase 'nolens, volens' means the same thing, Two slightly
differing but related meanings. 'Whether you like it or not' and ' in
a haphazard fashion'.

The origin centres around the first of those meanings. The earlier
form was 'will he, nill he' or sometimes 'will I, nill I'. The
expression also appears as 'nilly willy' or 'willing, nilling'.

The early meaning of the word nill is key to this. In early English
nill was the opposite of will. That is, will meant to want to do
something, nill meant to want to avoid it. So, combining the willy -
'I am willing' and nilly - 'I am unwilling' expresses the idea that
it doesn't matter to me one way or the other.

The Latin phrase 'nolens, volens' means the same thing, although it
isn't clear whether the English version is a simple translation of
that.

There's also a, now archaic, phrase 'hitty, missy' that had a similar
derivation. That comes from 'hit he, miss he'.

The earliest citation is from Middleton 1608:

"Thou shalt trust me spite of thy teeth, furnish me with some money
wille nille."

Examples of usage from google search:

Rather than investing wily nily, she needs a financial plan based on
her goals

Allowing the mind to calm itself, not following any thought wily-
nily. ...

showed a lot of insensitivity by demolishing the houses wily-
nily. ...

dirty and clean dishes mingled wily-nily on the counter. ...

Instead of letting everything run wily-nily to the breeze, we felt
that it
would be best to clearly define certain character roles

I think a lot of people really pick a screen name wily-nily without
realizing

=========================================

Here is a very interesting passage from the writing of Martin Luther,
father of the Protestant Reformation, and he even uses the
term "willy-nilly"

http://www.unionlife.org/Predestination.htm

Martin Luther stated that "Salvation is not of our own strength or
counsel, but depends entirely on the working of God alone; so does it
not obviously follow that when God is not present to work in us, all
is evil, and of necessity we act in a way that contributes nothing
towards our salvation? For if it is not we, but God alone, who works
salvation in us, it follows that, willy-nilly, nothing we do has any
saving significance prior to His working in us and all that is done
after our salvation is His working in us as well."

"God is the only independent agent that there is. And if we believe
it to be true, that God fore-knows and fore-ordains all things; that
He can be neither deceived nor hindered in His Prescience and
Predestination; and that nothing can take place but according to His
Will; then, even according to the testimony of reason herself, there
can be no "Free-will"-in man,--in angel,--or any creature!"

It seems to me that the idea of destiny contains the notion of
irresistible, regardless of what we want or do not want, regardless
of our actions or inaction. By contrast, our fate seems to be based
on free will choices that we have made in the past. We see this in
expressions such as "once he did that, his fate was sealed."

Calvin, the Christian theologian of the Protestant Reformation is
most famous for his doctrine of Predestination. His teachings are
sometimes called Five Point Calvinism, and the five points are
denoted by the acronym T.U.L.I.P.

http://www.mslick.com/tulip.htm

Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)

Unconditional Election

Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement)

Irresistible Grace

Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved)

Let us throw a new term into the mix, Necessity (in ancient Greek,
Anangke).

I think it is essential for us to realize that for ancients, such as
Hesiod, and also for Sidhartha Gautama, the historical Buddha, God
(or the gods) are subject to fate or necessity.

Even the Judaeo-Christian God is subject, since it is written in the
Bible that God CANNOT lie, and cannot revoke a testament or
contractual agreement.

Emphasis on predestination is always made by a religion so that the
absolute sovereignty of God will not be compromised.

In modern religions, it is ONLY the ALLAH of Islam who is portrayed
as absolutely free and omnipotent, since the Qu'ran says that Allah
may "abrogate" or nullify even Allah's own rules and regulations.
Islam teaches that Allah foreknows the salvation and damnation of
each soul from before the creation of the world. Once the question
was asked why Allah bothers to let the souls be born into the world,
rather than put them directly in heaven and hell. The answer is that
those in hell would forever complain that they had not been given any
chance, and that if they had been born, they would have been well-
behaved. So, Allah allows the wicked to be born, so they may prove by
their own life and actions that they are worthy of damnation. At
least, this is the argument as I understand it.

http://www.sparknotes.com/drama/pro...s/section1.html

Prometheus Bound

Aeschylus emphasizes the importance of necessity and its relation to
time. Human beings are referred to as "creatures of a day," and so
clearly inferior to the immortal gods. But while Zeus is immortal, he
is not therefore an eternal ruler. Zeus's father Chronus overthrew
his own father Uranus, and Zeus in turn overthrew Chronus. Chronus,
like Prometheus, was one of the Titans and belonged to the older
ruling class. Zeus is one of the younger gods, and the fact that he
is a "new" ruler is mentioned repeatedly. The newness of Zeus's reign
suggests that his position is not as stable as he would like to
believe.

Prometheus reveals that he has knowledge of the future and can see
the extent of Zeus's power through time. As Prometheus tells us, the
ultimate power is not Zeus, but necessity. Even the gods must live
out their fate, and all they do is preordained. The important message
here is that the passage of time is governed by necessity, by which
both the mortals and the immortals are trapped. The gods may be
superior to human beings, but the gap between them is not as wide as
Zeus believes.

As I look at what ancient Greeks, such as Heraclitus and Parmenides,
said about fate and destiny, the two words seem almost
interchangeable in those times. But in more modern times, I feel
certain that the words "fate" and "destiny" came to have different
meanings.

I would like to share with you how I feel all of this relates to the
Book of Job (which I mentioned earlier.)

In the beginning of the Book of Job, it is mentioned that Job makes
sacrifices (prayers/offerings) for his children lest perhaps they
have committed some unknown sin or offense in ignorance.

This question of whether or not it is possible to sin or offend
unconsciously is a very important question.

It is somehow related to the difference between Judaism and
Christianity, whereby, in Judaism, one may THINK any thought or
fantasy that one likes, but it becomes a sin ONLY when one acts out
(such as committing adultery), whereas Jesus says that "to lust in
ones heart" (fantasize) is to already have committed the sin.

These issues lead to Hume's ideas regarding cause and effect, and the
famous "Hume's gap", whereby Hume states that one can find no "IS"
which demands an "OUGHT". (i.e. there is nothing in logic in the
physical world from which one may reason to or from which one may
deduce a moral or ethical "ought", a duty or obligation).

Is Shakespeare "more tragic" than the Greeks? I was in a bookstore,
the other night, buying a copy of Sophocles Antigone & Oedipus Rex,
to help out in another thread on fate/destiny, and someone asked me
if I thought that the tragedies of Shakespeare are more tragic than
the tragedies of the ancient Greeks. I think it is an interesting,
imaginative question, so I thought I would post here, and see what
others think.

Title lines are not always large enough to accommodate a title which
will truly do justice to a topic.

The title of this thread is Is Shakespeare "more tragic" than the
Greeks?

A better choice for a full title might be:

Is Shakespeare "more tragic" than the Greeks, and are modern
tragedies most tragic of all, in light of Existentialism's definition
of freedom and responsibility?

In other words, can we detect, from ancient through medieval to
modern drama an ongoing progression away from fate and God and
religion and predestination and towards a humanist vision of freedom
and responsibility?

As a little aside remark, regarding freedom and responsibility, I
would like to quote to you an anecdote related to my by a long-time
pen-pal living 2 hours journey North of Kuala Lumpur.

She grew up on a rubber plantation. One day, she complained to her
father asking him why he would not give her more freedom. He wisely
answered "I am happy to give you all the freedom you desire once you
have shown me that you are capable of shouldering all the
responsibility which such freedom entails."

Condemned to be free...

The question "are Shakespearean tragedies more tragic than Greek
tragedies" arose during a conversation about
fate/destiny/necessity/predestination/election vs. freedom. And that
discussion arose because I am trying to help the person who posted in
the Sophocles sub-forum regarding fate/destiny in Antigone and
Oedipus Tyrannis.

What I had been saying (to the person in the bookstore) is that there
is a kind of spectrum which ranges from the gods of Hesiod and
Siddhartha Gautama, who are subject to fate and necessity and karma,
ranging to Allah, who is not even bound by Allah, but may abrogate***
and revoke and change rules, and ranging all the way to a godless
world of Sartre in which we are CONDEMNED to be free, and condemned
in the sense that we must take total responsibility for all actions
and consequences. SO, the idea is that, somehow, for the Greeks,
someone like Oedipus is predestined or fated to suffer certain
things, and there is nothing he can do to escape it,.... whereas for
Shakespeare, there is perhaps MORE freedom of choice available to his
characters, and hence MORE TRAGIC in the sense that those who suffer
COULD have conceivably acted otherwise... so, when something tragic
is unavoidable, then perhaps it is less tragic and more inevitable
that something which COULD have been avoided. This is more or less
where the question is coming from. I don't know if all this casts the
question in a different light, or sheds more light.

<=============F O O T N O T E S==============>
***

Note: Surah 2 verse 106
(There is a noticeable difference in these three translators'
interpretation, but I think that the underlying idea is the same,
when
stripped of all rhetoric.)

YUSUFALI: None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be
forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest
thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?

PICKTHAL: Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we
abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or
the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all
things?

Mentor Books Pickthall from 1970: When I look at my old copy from
1970, I find that it reads "Surah 2, verse 106, "Such of OUr
revelations as We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, we bring (in
place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is
Able to do all things?

SHAKIR: Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten,
We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah
has power over all things?

He who is master of himself is slave to himself. Hence a Deity who is
bound by its own word and is therefore voluntarily self-limiting
(think of Tsimtsum, the divine contraction, which we encounter in the
Life of Pi by Yann Martel), is not quite as powerful as a Deity who
is not even bound or limited by its own words but may abrogate or
change
anything.

Compare and contrast with the Judaeo-Christian portrait of the Deity:

"with Whom there is no shadow of turning" (James 1:17),

Who is "the Lord, who changeth not" (Malachi 3:6),

Whose Word "endureth forever" (I Peter) 1:23-25

for God cannot lie (Heb. 6:1 Cool

,

==============================

Could'a Should'a Would'a

After four years of St.Johns-Annapolis-seminars-on-the-great-books, I
became quite frustrated that there seemed to be no answers, but only
unanswerable questions. I even came up with the notion that the
unanswerable question was the unmoved mover of the soul.

I apologize that this thread, this train of thought on which I am
about to embark, may seem not so related to Shakespeare. But I ask
the readers' indulgence, since I feel for several reasons that the
Shakespeare sub-forum is the best place for this thread.
Shakespeare's tragedies are midway, historically between the ancient
Greek tragedies and modern tragic novels and movies. People with a
broad foundation and interest in Shakespeare may likely be drawn to
this forum. And I would really like to see a discussion develop which
could clearly integrate our understanding of a Shakespearean tragedy
with the ancient Greek understanding and the modern understanding,
and perhaps tie it all in with free choice versus fate/necessity.

I think I remember Could'a Should'a Would'a being the title of some
popular self-help book on Cognitive Therapy, the brand of therapy
where you learn to see your glass as half full rather than half empty.

Some people waste their lives, tormenting themselves with:

I could have majored in this field,
I should have married that person,
I would have done more traveling if it were not for my mother's
neediness.

I have always been haunted by the underworld scene in the final pages
of Plato's Republic, where all the souls draw lots to choose new
lives to be born into. Each soul is driven to choose what it assumes
to be something opposite to the sufferings of its former life. A
tyrant chooses to become a peaceful swan. A slave chooses the life of
a tyrant, only to discover in horror that he is destined to eat his
own children. Only Odysseus, who chooses last, chooses wisely by
choosing a middle of the road citizen in a free society.

I suppose one might call "Death of a Salesman" a modern tragedy. I'm
not sure. I am "in over my head" in these matters.

I am thinking of recent movies I have seen on DVD. One in particular,
sticks in my mind as a modern tragedy; "Damaged" with Jeremy Irons.

What I am about to write is a

S * P * O * I * L * E * R

for anyone who has not seen this movie, so read on at your own risk.

It seems to me that there are three figures in the movie which might
be potentially called tragic, but for me it is only Jeremy Irons, in
the closing scene, who is the real "tragic figure". I just now
intentionally avoided the word "hero" because what Jeremy Iron's
character does is considered by society to be heinous and despicable.
Jeremy Irons plays a very successful, respected, well-to-do, high
ranking government official with a wonderful attractive wife and a
fine grown son. The son is involved in a serious relationship
(marriage bound) with a young woman. It is the young woman who
is "damaged", which we learn as the story develops. As an adolescent,
she was involved in an incestuous relationship with her brother for
literally years and years. In her late teens, she developed an
interest in other men and wanted to break off things with her
brother. She locks him out of her bedroom one night and he spends
hours outside her door wailing and moaning with inconsolable grief,
because he is totally addicted to her.

Then, there is only silence. She comes out of the room to discover
that the brother has committed suicide. It is this incest/suicide
which forever damages the young woman in the sense that it makes her
addicted to the thrill of very dangerous reckless forbidden
incestuous behavior and also makes her quite amoral and unfeeling,
perhaps amoral to a psychopathic degree.

When this "future fiancée" first sees the strikingly handsome and
distinguished Jeremy Irons, from across a crowded room, she instantly
sets her sights upon him as her victim of prey.

It is the nature of the male to be very vulnerable to any slight
chance for sexual pleasure, especially of the forbidden variety, and
opportunistic in circumstances which appear to lend themselves to
success.

No words pass between Juliette Binoche (the "damaged" voluptuous
young woman) and Jeremy. She makes eyes at him, he is somewhat
shocked, his mouth dropping ever so slightly, but senses that there
is willingness and opportunity. Later, he receives a mysterious phone
call requesting that he come to her apartment. He unhesitatingly
complies and goes to see her. Again, no words are spoken, they
instantly commence to violent love-making.

I suppose Jeremy reasons that it is just a secret fling of excitement
and that no one will ever find out. One could hardly imagine that
Jeremy would choose this course of action with his eyes wide open IF
he could foresee that it would mean his own son's death, his public
scandal, loss of home and job, divorce from a wonderful wife, and a
wretched life in a remote village, brooding daily on a wall-sized
enlargement of a photograph of Juliette, his son, and himself.

=============================

The Final Tragedy

I suppose this rambling that I am engaged in is one way to make the
classics come alive as part of our daily life and thoughts.

Modern drama, at least some of it, is the product of people who have
been at some point students of Shakespeare and the classics.

And what can we see in history which constitutes "tragedy"? Our
word "tragedy" has taken on such broad dimensions. Mass genocides,
mass suicides such as in "Jonestown, Guyana", suicide bombings and
the threat of nuclear or biological world war are certainly some of
the lyrics to the theme songs of modern tragedy.

If human life ends as a result of global warming, or an ice age, or
an asteroid impact, then we would deem that a tragedy, but not so
tragic as an avoidable tragedy, let us say, our irrevocably upsetting
the delicate balance of the ecosystem through our tampering with
genetic engineering. The real fuel to the flames of any hell is our
eternal regret, that we could have avoided so much suffering if only
we had acted differently.

What is the last tragedy? Will the last tragedy even have an audience
to applaud or boo it, or critics to give it rave reviews or a "thumbs
down"? What is the ultimate tragedy?

The thought occurred to me yesterday that the ultimate tragic figure
is an omniscient and omnipotent deity who fails in his creation.

Another good movie to consider as an example of tragedy is Forbidden
Planet

S * P * O * I * L * E * R

A scientist lands on a deserted, dead world, once inhabited by the
most godlike, technological race the universe has ever known, the
Krell. The Krell discovered how to harness limitless power to be at
the beck-and-call of their own thoughts, but they forget about
the "monsters of the id", and hence they destroyed themselves. The
scientist, with his daughter, taps into this same power and
technology. A rescue party fails to heed the warning not to land,
and the entire tragedy is reenacted. Though there is the element that
the scientist himself was not aware of "the monsters of the id". It
is only the dying words of the ships officer which reveal the secret.

Get your own free IRC Chat room