Talk:Destiny
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles. |
Contents |
[edit] 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.
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)
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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] "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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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!
[edit] 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.
