Philosophy Now Forum

[/quote]
You don't have to believe in fate to give yourself goals. In fact, believing in fate would be more consistent with never giving yourself any goals.[/quote]

I agree.

Another trap door with a 'belief in fate' is believing you have some kind of "Divine right'.... isn't that distructive?

Its totally valid to have goals without a belief in fate. Fate undermines hard work determination and serendipity contained in a 'Life' lived

Fate undermines hard work determination and serendipity contained in a 'Life' lived.

In what way would that be? I have a hard time finding an abstract concept like "fate" being able to perform the action of "undermining", that's a logical fallacy. In practice it is all up to yourself whether or not any abstract concept should undermine anything else.

Two points.

one, you would have a harder time conceptualising 'Fate'

two, Undermining as in it renders those terms meaningless.
(Hard work, determination. ...serendipity )

No it doesn't render them meaningless, after all we are all part of the universe, and if we were to believe in fate we would also have to believe that we were part of its manifesting unless we were to remove ourselves from our place within the universe, a case which is our fault and not fate's fault.

I believe in fate but have no problem enjoying serendipity and I'm very passionate about my own work.

The Voice of Time wrote:

fiveredapples wrote:Welcome Markopolo,

You've given up on the belief in fate. That's a great first impression.

What? How sad isn't it with a person who doesn't give their life a destination to reach? There's nothing great about it. Fate is an integral part of our lives and fulfils it, to live in uncertainty is not a pleasant thing, and fate gives us escape from that. Only bad thing about fate is a bad appropriation of it, but with us, it should always be in one form or the other, or truly, it would be very sad without.

There is no such thing as fate, as you relate it!

Edit: , as you relate it

The Voice of Time wrote:

fiveredapples wrote:

What? How sad isn't it with a person who doesn't give their life a destination to reach?

You don't have to believe in fate to give yourself goals. In fact, believing in fate would be more consistent with never giving yourself any goals.

No, that's prejudice, if you refer to people who think that things come by themselves.

I wasn't talking about goals. I was talking about living a life. To have goals but never be certain that you'll reach them is terror to your mind. As I said, it's not a pleasant life to live in constant uncertainty, and so to fulfil it, we need such things as fate.

Again you seem to be having a problem with a definition. Fate is, "something that unavoidably befalls a person; fortune; lot: It is always his fate to be left behind." The key word here is unavoidably. That is in fact, the first definition, by the way. Death, is unavoidable, and as such can be seen as a fate. But winning the lottery, is certainly avoidable, just don't by a ticket.

SoB keep your fuckings dictionary away from any discussion with me! I don't want to read that shit any fuckings time again, not now, not ever!

Dude, you're an idiot. Try the Finger Painting Forum.

I'm sure I read somewhere... 'When foul language begins, philosophy ends. ' I think my hello achieved its end. Thank you for the useful contributions.

The Voice of Time wrote:SoB keep your fuckings dictionary away from any discussion with me! I don't want to read that shit any fuckings time again, not now, not ever!

You should know that I have the utmost respect, for anyone that speaks my language as their second language, This is true for you as well. I don't know the first thing about Norwegian. So you would be correcting me all day if I were to speak in your language, because I'm a complete moron, when it comes to speaking a second language.

But the fact that you're missing the true meaning of 'Fate,' still stands.

I'm surprised at the strength of his feelings, but I think Voice Of Time is making a point. What people tend to forget is that dictionary definitions are written by people. It is consensus that makes definition; words have no meaning beyond what people mean by them.

tillingborn wrote:I'm surprised at the strength of his feelings, but I think Voice Of Time is making a point. What people tend to forget is that dictionary definitions are written by people. It is consensus that makes definition; words have no meaning beyond what people mean by them.

Silly thing to say. It would seem that you and he want your own language, good luck with that, and actually conveying anything to anyone other than him. Dictionaries are there for "standardizations" sake, so that "ALL" can understand, if you have a problem with that you can always choose other words to convey, your intentions. One doesn't attend school to tell the teacher the meaning of words, it's the other way around, if would seem you two think you're something special. I'm sure that the majority would agree with any particular dictionary, on the meaning for any particular word, for their particular language.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Silly thing to say. It would seem...

To whom? Have you conferred with anyone else on this matter, or does your thinking so makes it objectively true?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:...that you and he want your own language,

Would that be one each, or a mutual language that only Voice and myself can communicate in?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:...good luck with that, and actually conveying anything to anyone other than him.

You appear to understand us remarkably well.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Dictionaries are there for "standardizations" sake, so that "ALL" can understand,

Dictionaries are subject to constant revision, because new words are introduced and the way words are used changes. Have a go at reading Chaucer if you are unaware how much English has evolved. If you'd prefer a simpler challenge, perhaps you could consider whether colour and color mean the same.
We can nitpick all we like, but I happen to think that language is meaningless without context. I would go further and argue that it is demonstrably so; something that a good dictionary acknowledges by giving examples of usage.

tillingborn wrote:I'm surprised at the strength of his feelings, but I think Voice Of Time is making a point. What people tend to forget is that dictionary definitions are written by people. It is consensus that makes definition; words have no meaning beyond what people mean by them.

Do people really forget who write Dictionary definition? As apposed to what, Penguins!

In my question I ask a qualitative question about the belief in 'fate' this will obviously draw question of its validity but it the positive aspect to such a belief if any that's would interest me.

markopolo wrote:Do people really forget who write Dictionary definition? As apposed to what, Penguins!

I do suspect that some people believe that language exists in a Platonic realm and that words have an entirely objective meaning.

markopolo wrote:In my question I ask a qualitative question about the belief in 'fate' this will obviously draw question of its validity but it the positive aspect to such a belief if any that's would interest me.

I made the point that this could refer to determinism or the mind/body problem. I'm quite happy to take this seriously, but it would help if you could take more care with your posts.