She is beautiful lady, and we love her.

At the end of the original The Planet of the Apes, Dr. Zira the Chimp asked
Dr. Zaes the Baboon what exactly would Taylor find in the forbidden zone.

Dr. Zaes replied dignifully, "His destiny."

His destiny was the ruin of the human race, shown by the near buried remains
of the statue of liberty.

That got me to thinking. What exactly is destiny?

I think it is like a course that we set for ourselves, that we will not
switch
moving against and by...unless we wish to really alter ourselves, as by a
career change.

Was Buddha as a child destined to become a great spiritual leader?
Was Albert Einstein as a child destined to become a great mathematician?

What is it that holds us to our destinies?

And...does the existence of destiny counter the notion of free will?

On Feb 24, 9:16 am, "Mark Earnest" yahoo.com> wrote:

Something that is judged to have happened, or thought about, but only
after it has happended.

There is only the current and the past that you can know for certain,
the rest is at best a fucking good guess.

Michael Gordge

"Michael Gordge" xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ad0ceb0c-3bad-4891-a3ab-f27618cc1952@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 24, 9:16 am, "Mark Earnest" yahoo.com> wrote:

Something that is judged to have happened, or thought about, but only
after it has happended.

***As in we give ourselves the destiny to have graduated from college while
still freshman? Does such thinking take us out of time itself in some
respect?

There is only the current and the past that you can know for certain,
the rest is at best a fucking good guess.

**The weatherman does pretty good predicting the future.

On Feb 23, 4:16 pm, "Mark Earnest" yahoo.com> wrote:

Accourding to Pinker, it may be the other way around, free will may
counter destiny...

As science advances and explanations of behavior become less fanciful,
the Specter of Creeping Exculpation, as Dennett calls it, will loom
larger. Without a clearer moral philosophy, any cause of behavior...

On Feb 23, 4:49 pm, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:

But doean't knowing the current necessarily imply that we could know
what happens next? I mean if we really knew the current in all its
detail which being certain about it entails.

"Immortalist" yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:df2f0432-579e-4d7d-b72c-da7e6f29b175@m23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 23, 4:16 pm, "Mark Earnest" yahoo.com> wrote:

Accourding to Pinker, it may be the other way around, free will may
counter destiny...

As science advances and explanations of behavior become less fanciful,
the Specter of Creeping Exculpation, as Dennett calls it, will loom
larger. Without a clearer moral philosophy, any cause of behavior...

On Feb 23, 7:53 pm, "Mark Earnest" yahoo.com> wrote:

Mill might say that we become what our character is...

"Mill's argument is basically that we have free will, but that
we will almost always choose to act the same way if faced
with the same circumstances. The reason for this
according to Mill is because of who we are, what our
characters are, what beliefs, desires, and motivations
we have. These factors influence our actions, and
because we don't usually change the core of our person,
we are fairly regular in our actions, unless we
purposefully choose to act against our
normal characters."

http://www.elliotcross.com/essays/essay4.html

http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/greek-mythology.php?deity=FATES

Immortalist wrote:

Will is an essential component of all philosophies. Though much of what
we are conscious of is not a matter of choice, those things about which
we spend time thinking is. We think for a purpose. Purpose is a function
of will. Any thought process without some purpose, is meaningless.

I avoided using the terminology of free will above because it is so
frequently misconstrued to mean an absence of constraint. How much
freedom of will is necessary for it to be understood as a free will? How
could a will with no restraint at all be of much use?

The existence of free will is frequently questioned because of the
existence of constraints that limit its freedom: BUT, without the
restraint on will to conform to reality, how could any purpose, or
choices to achieve that purpose, have any real effect, or significance
in reality?

The will is a most essential part of human nature, and it is the
defining characteristic of a person. The extent to which the will and
its freedom of action are restrained beyond the natural restraints of
its nature is the extent to which a person is depersonalized.

On Feb 24, 4:47 pm, TRISEC...@webtv.net (Anthony G. Rubino) wrote:

I agree with that. But does the will have causes or is it without
causes, and how would things change if the will was determined by
causes?