Do you like destiny?

[Christopher]

Destiny doesn't require a guiding intelligence, but it isn't random either. Look at it etymologically: "destiny" is related to "destination." The idea behind destiny is that you're following a path toward a certain inevitable or necessary fate. It can be determined by divine will or simply by the inbuilt rules of the cosmos; the word itself doesn't require it to be either one. It just means that you're moving forward through life toward a specific goal, whether you know it or not, whether you try to avoid it or not.

 

[Marie1]

I agree in the way of "destiny" - if you jump off the building, you're going to fall, as not needing divine intelligence. But he seems to think the kinds of smaller things, "everything happening for a reason" exists- but then who'd be deciding that? He's just such a scientific person that I found his beliefs almost at odds. Its quite neat... But then again, you don't need a god to have a religion either.

 

[LightningStorm]

Hmm.

One thing to consider is the idea of "destiny" as simply, "Something that is inevitably going to happen." For instance, if I'm reading a Peanuts comic strip, if I could communicate with Charlie Brown, I might tell him that in the third panel, Lucy will move the football and he'll miss it. Charlie Brown might accuse me of trying to control his choices, but that's not it at all -- I just happen to know what's going to happen, even if I can't control it.

Does "destiny" have to have a guiding intelligence behind it, or can it be something that just happens?

That is how I'd define it.

Destiny doesn't require a guiding intelligence, but it isn't random either. Look at it etymologically: "destiny" is related to "destination." The idea behind destiny is that you're following a path toward a certain inevitable or necessary fate. It can be determined by divine will or simply by the inbuilt rules of the cosmos; the word itself doesn't require it to be either one. It just means that you're moving forward through life toward a specific goal, whether you know it or not, whether you try to avoid it or not.

This is exactly what I like about the concept of destiny in story telling and in Science Fiction in particular. What with time travel and all that I love the philosophical debate/ideas behind time travel and predestination of what occurs. This of course is dependent on how one defines how time travel 'works' within their fictional universe -- whether it is a situation of multiple timelines diverging creating alternate paths and the original one still exists, or if it's a singular thing where a change in the timeline will affect the current state of things.

I could go on all day about this sort of stuff.... but in a nutshell, this is what I like about Time Travel and Destiny in science fiction.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I have but one thing to say about the trilogy.

Wow, that has to be the best Trek miniseries ever written.

 

[LightningStorm]

^^Heh, thread title fooled ya huh? This thread isn't actually about the trilogy.

 

[Christopher]

^^Capitalization matters!

 

[DarKush]

Currently reading the second book. The first book was pretty good. The second is dragging a bit. It seems like they are stretching it out a bit too much, though the scenes on Axion are very touching.

Of course, I'll give a more thorough review after I've finished the second book. Or I might hold until I've read the third as well.

 

[Christopher]

^^Aaaand yet another poster who didn't read carefully enough to see what this thread was actually about!

 

[C.E. Evans]

I'm of mixed feelings about the subject.

In the case of Sisko, it was okay that he was "the chosen one" and that he was supposed to do great things in his role as both the Emissary and the commander of DS9--it was like, "Here is this job, and you B.L. Sisko, are the poor sap that got stuck with it." I believed the Emissary could have been anyone in that time and place, but it just happened to be the unlikely Starfleet commander assigned to the abandoned space station then.

The problem I had truck with was the idea that it just had to be Sisko--that it wasn't just a roll of the dice--and that events were engineered long before his birth so that he (and he alone) could be the anointed one.

I think I like the idea that, yes, some things are fated to happen because well, "stuff" happens. But I also like the idea that there's a certain sense of randomness about who plays the roles in those forseen events...

 

[Marie1]

I thought they said that they made sure he'd be there after they met him- so after meeting him, they must've decided he was the guy for the job, personality, potential, position etc. So in that case, he was there, whether they did anything or not-kinda... so I ignored that. If they hadn't met him, if he hadn't taken the assignment, they wouldn't have chosen him, perhaps. But he kept at it, still looked for the Wormhole though he didn't have to- and so on...

 

[Christopher]

^^Yeah, that's basically right. It's not fate or destiny, just non-linear causality. Since they exist outside of linear time, cause doesn't have to come before effect for them.

 

[C.E. Evans]

The Wormhole aliens didn't even know Sisko even existed until they met him the first time in "Emissary." They treated him like an unwanted intruder and wasn't even aware of what species he was or even where he came from.

Then they went back in time and arranged events on Earth to bring about Sisko's birth so that they would later meet him, because he otherwise wouldn't have been born without their intervention...I think at that point it does become galactic destiny for Sisko to be the Emissary even if it originally didn't start off that way, IMO.