Fate and Destiny
In the beginning a man and a woman were born. They married each other and lived a life that was filled with much happiness and joy. One day a terrible car accident occurred that killed them both. In this world we live in we face everyday choices. Maybe these people did not choose to die, but they maybe chose to drive in the car that day. Was what happened to them an accident or a bad twist of fate that was their destiny? Were these two wonderful people predestined to die at that moment or was it just an accident or did they just make a bad choice to drive in a car that day?
It is my belief that we are here for some purpose. Some meaningful some not. Each of us has our own opinion whether that is so. Fate is a part of this world. In mythology fate/destiny is often looked upon for guidance, prophecies made concerning fate often come true, and even the gods in mythology respect their own destiny.
In mythology, when people were facing hard times they visited temples of guidance on what they were destined to do. Like in the story of Cupid and Psyche.
Psyche's parents went to seek an oracle (in Apollo's temple) for advice on what to do with her. The oracle directed Psyche in the right direction of her fate or gave a hint to what was destined to happen anyway. Also, in the Odyssey where
Odysseus visits Hades to see an old blind dead soothsayer to find out what he should do in order to get home. Last is the destiny of Oedipus who seeks help to make his country a better place, only to find out what his real destiny was.
A strange thing happened in all of these different prophecies and destines of all these gods/humans. They all came true. All of them. For instance, it was said that it would take Odysseus ten years to return home. Low and behold, he came back in ten years. Halitherses who warned the suitor's of their own destiny if they don't change. Of course they do not listen they do not change their ways and end up meeting their ultimate demise. And we don't want to forget about the fate of Oedipus whose destiny was to kill his father and marry his mother. Sad thing is that it came true.
In the mythological tale of Oedipus the main character tries to avoid his destiny. In the end however that did not work.
Twelve Angry Men is a depiction of twelve jurors who deliberate over the verdict of a young defendant accused of murder, highlighting many key communications concepts discussed throughout the semester. One of these concepts was the perspective of a true consensus, the complete satisfaction of a decision by all parties attributed. An array of inferences were illustrated in the movie (some spawning collective inferences) as well as defiance among the jurors. Each of these concepts play a role endorsing, or emphasizing the other. We can analyze the final verdict of the jurors and establish if there was a true consensus affecting their decision. In turn, we can analyze the inferences during the deliberation and directly link how they affect the consensus (or lack thereof). Defiance among the jurors was also directly
At first, Juror 3 appears to be a successful businessman who owns a messenger service. Yet as time goes on, one may see him as a sour and unhappy man. He wants to base the case solely on the evidence presented at the trial. Throughout the meeting in the jury room, Juror 3 disregards all other evidence brought up by Juror 8 and the others. He says that the evidence revealed may not be accurate or true. Therefore, it should not be taken into consideration.
...e son of Laertes, whose address is in Ithaca!” (110). Consequently, Polyphemus asks Poseidon that “may [Odysseus] never reach his home! But if it is his due portion to see his friends and come again to his tall house and his native land, may be come there late and in misery, in another man’s ship, may be lose all his companions, and may be find another tribulation at home!” (111). Odysseus also tries to build up his reputation throughout the book, such as when he passes the
Tracy, Stephen V., The story of the Odyssey. Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press, c1990. PA4167 .T7 1990
There is no way to measure how everyday people of the jury compartmentalize the information given to them. By disregarding information, does it work in favor of justice or does it highlight a forbidden topic. Using a jury trial and the disregarding of evidence played a key role in the OJ Simpson case that began in 1994 (Jasanoff: 714). Just after a year of his acquittal of the first case, he became the defendant of a civil suit placed by the relatives of the victims. When asking juries to disregard statements and evidence can change their decision-making abilities, especially if the evidence directly links the alleged criminal to the crime as it did arguably in OJ Simpson’s case. During this trial, the defense tried to highlight and find errors in the Los Angeles Police Department’s procedures for collective and transporting evidence (Jasanoff: 715). The evidence, which was once connected to the trial, was now inspected to establish both its validity and reliability. The outside influence of the evidence played a role in the decision, which included the credentials of the lab and their procedures. In sum, the jury’s roles in legal proceedings emphasize the influence of the everyday nature in the law. In these cases, the jury has much more control on the case rather than the law controlling their
These two jurors are almost the plain opposite of each other. Juror 3 appears to be a very intolerant man accustomed of forcing his wishes and views upon others. On the other hand, Juror 8 is an honest man who keeps an open mind for both evidence and reasonable doubt. Since these two people are indeed very different, they both have singular thoughts relating to the murder case. Juror 8 is a man who is loyal to justice. In the beginning of the play, he was the only one to vote ‘not guilty’ the first time the twelve men called a vote. Although his personality is reflected on being a quiet, thoughtful, gentle man, he is still a very persistent person who will fight for justice to be done. Juror 8 is a convincing man who presents his arguments well, but can also be seen as manipulative. An example would be when he kept provoking Juror 3 until he finally said “I’m going to kill you" to Juror 8. He did this because he wanted to prove that saying "I’ll kill you" doesn’t necessarily mean that Juror 3 was actually going to kill him. Juror 3 is a totally different character. He is a stubborn man who can be detected with a streak of sad...
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
During the late 19th century and the early 20th century many of the European nations began their scramble for Africa which caused Many Africans to suffer from violence like wars, slavery and inequality. Although the Europeans felt power as though they were doing a great cause in the African continent during the Scramble for Africa; Africans had many reactions and actions including factors as rebellion for freedom, against the white settlers and violent resistance.
In this section the importance of destiny is again reminded to us. In this story the idea of God chooses your destiny and some of us become kings and some become slaves. It doesn’t matter what you do because you can’t change your destiny God has picked out for you.
The book “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a book about twelve jurors who are trying to come to a unanimous decision about their case. One man stands alone while the others vote guilty without giving it a second thought. Throughout the book this man, the eighth juror, tries to provide a fair trial to the defendant by reviewing all the evidence. After reassessing all the evidence presented, it becomes clear that most of the men were swayed by each of their own personal experiences and prejudices. Not only was it a factor in their final decisions but it was the most influential variable when the arbitration for the defendant was finally decided.
The movie “12 Angry Men” examines the dynamics at play in a United States jury room in the 1950’s. It revolves around the opinions and mindsets of twelve diverse characters that are tasked with pronouncing the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of patricide. The extraordinary element is that their finding will determine his life or death. This play was made into a movie in 1957, produced by Henry Fonda who played the lead role, Juror #8, and Reginald Rose who wrote the original screenplay. This essay will explore some of the critical thinking elements found within the context of this movie, and will show that rational reason and logic when used effectively can overcome the mostly ineffective rush to judgment that can be prevalent in a population. The juror that seemed interesting is Juror #8, who was played by Henry Fonda. Juror #8, or Davis, is an architect, the first dissenter and protagonist in the film. He was the first one to declare that the young man was innocent and he managed to convince the other jurors to see his point of view. Durkheim states that when we respond to deviance, it brings people together (Macionis, 2013, p. 159). We affirm the moral ties that bind us together, which was seen in the movie. At first, almost all of the jurors were so bent on convicting the young man based on their feelings, but they then started to analyze the facts and they came together to make their final decision.
Overall, Henry Fonda’s style of persuasion was to adhere to his own, and each of the jury’s, reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of murdering his father. He leads by persuasion through a method of inquiry – asking questions, raising doubts and undermining the certainty of the other jurors. Fonda’s leadership style displays emotional intelligence, which includes self-awareness, discipline, persistence and empathy. It is a style that mobilizes the jurors toward a shared vision by pointing in a direction of not guilty and inviting the other jurors to participate in discovering the best way to arrive at a decision.
From the very beginning, Oedipus was destined to fulfill Apollo's prophecy of killing his father. Even though King Lauis tries to kill Oedipus to stop the fulfillment of this shameful prophecy, fate drives the Corinthian messenger to save Oedipus. What the gods fortell will come true and no human can stop it from happening, not even the kings. Oedipus is once again controlled by this power when he leaves the place of his child hood after he hears that he is to kill his father and marry his mother. "I shall shrink from nothing...to find the the murderer of Laius...You are the murderer..." Oedipus tried to stop the prophecy from coming true by leaving Corinth and only fate can make Oedipus turn to the road where he kills his true father. Leaving Corinth makes Oedipus lose his childhood by making him worry of such issues young people should not have to worry about and becoming a king of a strange land. Last of all, Oedipus carries the last part of the prophecy out, marrying his mother. " I would... never have been known as my mother's husband. Oedipus has no control over the outcome of his life. Fate causes Oedipus to have known the answer to the Sphinx's riddle and win his marriage to his mother, Jocasta. Had fate not intervened, the chances of marrying Jocasta would have been small since there is an enourmous number of people and places to go. Oedipus loses his sense of dignity after he discovers he is not only a murderer, but also that he had committed incest.
When Oedipus was born he was taken to an Oracle, this was custom for the rich. The Oracle was to tell his fate. The Oracle said that when Oedipus grows up he will marry his mother and he would also kill his father, "... Why, Loxias declared that I should one day marry my own mother, And with my own hands shed my father's bool. Wherefore Corinth I have kept away far, for long years; and prosperd; none the less it is most sweet to see one's parents' face..."(p36 ln1-6). When his parents herd this they gave Oedipus to a man and he was to get rid of the baby by leaving it in the forest, but an servant of Polybus, the king of Corinth, finds the baby and brings him to the king. The king falls in love with the baby and takes him in as one of his own.
Of all concepts procured by mankind, the most singular of them is death. It is not solitary in its impact, for death, above everything, is the largest possible outcome of the world. It overshadows love, it overshadows hate, it overshadows life. Instead, it is singular due to its nature. Death is an outcast. Death is one. Death is the loneliest existence that anyone, human or animal, can ever expect.