I agree with both of these statements, I've combined these two ideas into one that makes much morse sense to me. Banach assumes that when something is built, it's built with just one purpose in mind, I believe that people are made to be able to do anything, if we are built with a purpose its to be able to do anything. Something can also be useful beyond its intended purpose. Paper for instance is made for people to write and draw on but you can make paper airplanes out of them make origami etc. Just like paper, humans can be useful beyond what they're intended for, if humans are only intended for one thing, and even then, humans could have been intended to fit any purpose.
Essentially what I'm saying is that humans aren't bound by destiny because something can be made to fit a specific purpose, but that thing can be used outside of its intended purpose. I've combined the two arguments to end up with this... "Essence" precedes "Existence" which precedes "Essence" where the new essence doesn't have to match up with the first essence. When something is created, the maker has an idea for what it's going to be in their head, but then when the object exists it can have a variety of purposes.
Proving or disproving destiny can be troublesome in my my opinion, and it's fairly pointless. If you don't have a destiny then go about living your life, if you do have a destiny, then it'll happen anyways and its incredibly unlikely that someone will find out what their destiny is. Even if someone knew their destiny and tried to follow it, there would be no point in trying since its bound to happen anyways. Destiny to me is a very flawed idea, the notion that things are all planned out encourages people to float through life and let things happen, but the reality is that people make things happen, and destiny has nothing to do with it. Sometimes its easier to just live your life and not worry about the intricacies of the universe, and its always important to question how thinking about a certain topic will affect your life.
Marco,
ReplyDeleteI liked how you picked out one idea from Banach's text and focused on just that. I liked your new definition better than Banach's in that our purpose in life can go far beyond our intended purpose. It makes perfect sense to me. A pair of scissors might have been made to cut things but who says you can't take the end of the scissors to hammer a nail (it would be hard but I'm just trying to make a point). "'Essence" precedes 'Existence' which precedes 'Essence' where the new essence doesn't have to match up with the first essence." You've took the two ideas, which both made sense separately and applied it into a world where both would make sense. (:
"Destiny to me is a very flawed idea, the notion that things are all planned out encourages people to float through life and let things happen, but the reality is that people make things happen, and destiny has nothing to do with it." I agree with this. This accentuates the existence precedes essence notion more. For humans, we really have no idea of figuring out what our preconceived destiny is and if it even exists. That's why it's more important to create our own destiny, and come up with our own essence. Although many people confuse their own destiny with the one they come up with on their own. The phrase "I was born to sing" or "humans were born to save the earth" are made up. It's a belief. The thing that made us did not tell us what to do or how to act therefore we have complete freedom to decide our own destiny.
Your post really cleared up a lot of my own confusions that I had of the text. I agree with all of your ideas. Thanks for the post. I enjoyed it a lot.