Fate and free will help to explain why things in life occur. This is clearly shown in the poem “Miniver Cheevy” by E.A. Robinson with the main character Cheevy. His heart desired to be born during the medieval era however he was born too late. Similarly, in O’Henry’s short story “ The Cop and the Anthem” fate and free wills roles were depicted through Soapy, the main characters, plan for the winter. Although these two pieces of literature seem completely different they both come together to show that we have no control over our fate, however, we have our free will allows us to make the best of one's fate.
In E.A Robinson poem “ Miniver Cheevy”, Cheevy was dreaming about his idea of the perfect world when he, “coughed, and called it fate,
…show more content…
This is demonstrated by the main character Soapy who is homeless, wanting to go to jail for the winter so he could have a warm place to sleep, a constant source of food, and be safe from cops for 3 months. “This seemed to Soapy to be the most desirable thing in the world”(O’Henry 36).In order to ensure that his plan went accordingly, Soapy used his free will by coming up with different ways to get himself arrested. He tried eating at a fancy restaurant and leaving without paying, breaking a store window, stealing an umbrella but all his plans backfired. The moment Soapy gives up on the idea of getting arrested and plans to get his life back together, he gets arrested. This establishes the idea of free will being a way to cope with the outcome of a person's fate. Soapy's fate was to be homeless, his use of his free will is what got him to think that he could change his fate, however that was proven to be false because his fate of being homeless and jailed remained the same no matter what he tried. This is shown when soapy tries everything in his power to get arrested, but the moment he does nothing and decides, “ He would be someone in the world”(O’Henry 40) he gets arrested. Supporting the claim that no matter what we do with our free will we can't …show more content…
In the cases of Cheevy and Soapy fate is unchangeable and there's nothing free will could have done to change it. Unlike Cheevy who didn't even try to use his free will, soapy used it to in hope of it having an impact on his fate. Throughout both instances, readers can understand what the authors think about fate and free, helping to support the overarching theme that fate is unalterable, not even with the help of free
A main example of fate would be when Billy is on an airplane. In Slaughterhouse-Five, it states that "Billy, knowing the plane was going to crash pretty soon, closed his eyes, traveled in time back to 1944" (198). Soon after, "the plane smacked into the top of Sugarbush Mountain in Vermont. Everyone was killed but Billy and the copilot" (199). Instead of doing anything about it, Billy just waits for the plane to crash. If Billy had free will, he would have tried to warn the others on the plane, or not gotten onto it at all.
Fate is “something that unavoidably befalls a person; fortune; lot,” while free will is “the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses person choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.” Kurt Vonnegut uses Billy’s experiences in Slaughterhouse-Five to display the idea that free will is all but an illusion; all decisions in life are made by influences, whether from within or from
Fate vs Free Will is one of the most oft used literary techniques in writing. It is never more evident than in Shakespeare’s play Macbeth. The major theme of the story Macbeth is whether or not the story is fueled by the free will of Macbeth, or by his fate. Are the events in Macbeth a result of his mentality and outlook on life, or were they going to happen no matter what? Almost every major event that takes place can be traced back to this question. It can be viewed in different ways, and most people have their own opinions. Dissecting this question is a part of what makes teaching Macbeth still have so much value to this day. But there is a clear answer to this question upon further dissection. The story of Macbeth is fueled by his free will, which he perceives to be a necessary part of achieving his fate.
Another thought that exemplifies the significance that free will holds, is seen in elements of Sophocles' classic, which revealed that Oedipus had more knowledge over the details of his dilemma than he let himself become conscious of. The last idea will reveal how the onset of fear will push people down a treacherous path of risk and pain, which is also seen in the play through multiple characters. Free will is an attribute that all people possess. It could work as a tool to get individuals through the scary twists their lives may entail. It could also work against them in many ways, which depends on the level of human weakness and ignorance. But, the most important assertion that can be made after considering the argument of, "fate vs. free will," is that...
Fate is an old, debated concept. Do one's actions truly play a role in determining one's life? Is fate free to some or is it binding to others, in that no individual can make completely individual decisions, and therefore, no one is truly free. Nowadays, fate is a subject often rejected in society, as it is seen as too big, too idealistic, and too hard to wrap a person's head around. However, at the time of Antigone, the concept was a terrifying reality for most people.
In this class one key point kept coming up in the readings for me, and that was fate. Fate is an idea that nothing you do will change your final out come in life. Are we able to truly have free will in the way we live and die? Or is it fate and our life’s outcome is out of our control? Is the characters desire to go against fate what truly lead them to this path? In the readings I was never able to say either way but I lean in favor of fate. My three examples of this are the charters Loki, Odin and Oedipus. These three are said to have been fated on how they live, die and even kill in a way that is predestined.
Are the characters governed by fate or free will? Fate means a power that some people believe causes and controls all events, so that you cannot change or control way things will happen. Free will means the ability to decide what to make independently of any outside influence. The different between the two they justify the causes that are in somebody else’s hands or in your own hands. The reason why I picked the background information that supports my hook because life can be influenced by the outcome of what you do regardless of what is in favor. The characters and events in the play were influenced by fate because the path and actions they chose recently reflect what happen later on in the play.
Fate seems to defy humanity at every turn. A man may have his life planned out to the last second, but then some random force intervenes and he dies the second after he has completed his life plan. Some believe in fate, believing that our lives are predetermined from the moment we are born. Other people believe that everything is random, the result of some god rolling the dice in a universal poker game. Still other people believe that each and every person is in total control of his or her destiny, every step of the way. Who is to say which viewpoint is false? Every culture has a unique perception of the role of fate in our lives, and no group has the "right answer," simply a different answer. Taking into consideration the views of other cultures can help an individual refine his personal viewpoint on this inconceivable subject.
Fate may state what will be in one's life however, how that destiny comes about is a matter of man's own choice. In other words, incidents don't occur because our destinies are written. In the play Macbeth, Shakespeare expertly uses the theme of fate vs. free will and raises the pre-eminent question of which holds power over the characters. In Shakespeare’s tragedy, fate is not the cause of his downfall, his own desires and choices prove to be the deciding factor.
I believe in both fate and free will. I believe that our free will is limited by our fate. For example, a person might be able to run faster than he can run today, maybe exceeding expectations of many people if he trains properly. But no matter how much he trains, I doubt he’ll be able to run faster than a cheetah in a 100m race because science won’t let his body to run faster than a cheetah. It’s not in a fate of a human to outrun a cheetah in a 100m race.
At the heart of every great tragedy lies the universal struggle between the human inclination to accept fate absolutely and the natural desire to control destiny (Stockton). Like most of his plays, in Shakespeare’s masterpiece Hamlet one of the prevailing themes centers on the question, “Does fate and providence overrule man’s own choices and decisions?” Throughout the work, the main character Hamlet views Fortune in various differing lights as he plots and plans his revenge. This complex interpretation of Fate’s influence is also shared with Horatio, Hamlet’s most treasured friend. Their assessments seem to waver in different situations, or as they experience something in particular. Fate and Fortune, and Providence in all her ambiguity are all sometimes seemingly bound to the actions of man and other times they are inescapable.
Fate vs free will is an overwhelming topic, and is a subject that is covered by numerous texts throughout history. It is often hard to determine where fate ends and free will is allowed to begin. Paradise Lost tries to tackle this area between fate and free will between creation and the creator. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein also deals with similar issues by delving into the relationship between Victor Frankenstein the creator and his monster. I believe these texts setup interesting scenarios to make the reader question whether or not creations have free will especially when it comes to their relationships with their creator.
Fate and free will both have a strong rooting in the play Macbeth. The role of fate was to tell Macbeth that he was one day to become king of Scotland. Fate was not the cause of Macbeth’s downfall. The actions made under Macbeth’s free will are the sole reason for his own downfall. Macbeth was afraid that he might not become king, so he took matters into his own hands to be absolutely sure he would attain the throne. He decided to leave out chance and take the throne for himself by killing Duncan. By leaving out chance, Macbeth left out the chance for fate to bring his downfall.
Whether or not the concept of fate is legitimate is regularly debated by many people. Some believe that the events of one’s life are predetermined by a supernatural power, out of human control. Others believe that free will allows us to create our own fate, and that one’s decisions determine how the events of one’s life play out. In William Shakespeare’s Macbeth, both fate and free will are predominant themes in the play. The ever-present supernatural aspect of the play can create an interesting debate over whether or not Macbeth’s downfall could have played out differently, or even been avoided completely. The witches’ prophecies had an impact on Macbeth’s actions, however, it is ultimately free-will that causes his downfall.
In English literature and Greek mythologies fate and free will played colossal responsibilities in creating the characters in the legendary stories and plays. The Greek gods believed in fate and interventions, predictions of a life of an individual before and after birth which the individual has no control over their own destiny. Free will and fate comingle together, this is where a person can choose his own fate, choose his own destiny by the choices the individual will make in their lifetime. According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the definition of free will is the “freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior cause of divine intervention”. Fate and the gods who chose their destinies directed Gilgamesh, Oedipus and Achilles.